much has been said about how table less htmling will reduce page load, page weight and increase text / html ratio. but is it really so? does it really help with SEO? i see lots of sites with the code where you could just sit and cry ON TOP OF SERPS! neat table-less sites are not given much preference at all...
You should be more concerned with content for SEO than whether you use tables. Using tables is a technical issue involving layout of the page and transmission. Never, ever use tables for layout. Even the guy who first thought the idea up says he ruined the web because of it. So you shouldn't use them for that either.
Sure tableless layouts load faster but I think the key focus is that they can be modified a whole lot easier if done correctly with semantic markup.
Yes, it's always a shame to see ugly, poorly-designed sites outrank clean and well-built ones. I think a lot of it is just age. Using tables for layout is an older method, so maybe a lot of the ugly sites you are seeing only rank well because they've been around for a long time, developed more backlinks due to age, etc. It's really content and backlinks that will give you the SEO advantage, and layout only plays a small part. I like CSS layouts for SEO for a few reasons: There's more emphasis on using <H1> and <H2> tags in CSS. A cleverly coded layout can put your content at the "top" of your page even though visually it appears right of a navigation bar and/or below a wide header. CSS rollover effects can give you an extra place to use keywords, where javascript rollovers do not. General cleanliness of files. There is less "junk" html code for a spider to sift through.
If you are using DIV with CSS instead of tables you may add more OnPage SEO factors. thats another reason.
what has table to do with SEO? it got nothing to do. you can have your page full with table and yet it has good SERP
True. Whilst tables do not directly affect your SEO ranking and there are plenty of table designs that perform well in search engines, tableless designs are cleaner and generally have smaller filesizes (which IS an SEO factor). Another benefit is the ability to modify design easily as I've found it's very easy to make mistakes when using nested tables. However you design your website, you will of course still be able to hit top spot by generating links, etc. so I would focus on this instead if a complete redesign if it is going to take a long time.
You have one of the more eloquent arguments for using CSS vs. table layout posts. There are however a couple of things that need redefinition. The terms "ugly" and "poorly-designed" are in the eyes of the beholder. The average visitor only sees the final product and they do not care how it is wired underneath. Technically, the so-called ugly table design can look more beautiful to the visitor when it is rendered in the browser and I have seen a lot of ugly CSS rendered output to validate that statement. As far as general cleanliness and the amount of "junk" to sift through, this is not an argument for CSS. Eventually all parsing techniques of Html will filter out the garbage. It may take a few milliseconds longer to do so, but it does get done. There is no more emphasis on Heading tags (H1, H2, H3, etc.) in CSS than in table based layouts. Heading tags are heading tags in either layout method since they are Html entities onto themselves. What is true with CSS is that you can 'force' content to the top of page inside the Html code and make it appear on the right (or the bottom even) when viewed in the browser. This can place more importance on that content in regards to SEO, and it can hurt it as well. For example, if that forced content appears before the first H1 element ... is it considered part of the meat of the page? Another true for CSS rollovers vs. javascripted links. But you can also accomplish this in a table based layout with use of the <noscript> tag and hardcoding those links (or whatever else your heart desires). I have actually used <noscript> tags for some slightly off-white hat techniques. Other arguments from posts here in regards to CSS being more maintainable than table based layouts is also a myth. While some of us like handcoding our Html (I use Html-kit and TopStyle Light) and it is easily maintainable, others use WYSIWYG editors such as Dreamweaver & Adobe GoLive to 'publish' their Html with. In the case of the latter, the maintenance is handled by the software and can be just as easily maintained.
I only use CSS for developing websites as it produces less code in the html file so google can read it quicker instead of having to crawl through tables. Also with CSS you can use absolute positioning so you can place your H1 tag and the main content at the top of the page making it perform better on search engines.
Never a truer word... We have a number of clients who are operating 'old' sites that are, to be frank, appallingly built (we only host them, we didn't build them!). Trying to persuade them of the advantages of a re-write (largely for SEO purposes) is very difficult when they can't see a problem and can point to emails from customers saying they like their site. While I agree with the general sentiment here, I would argue that 'maintainability' needs to be considered not only for 'now' but also for the future. The sites I have mentioned above are built with astonishingly complex table layouts; tables sometimes nested four deep, and our editors are constantly pulling their hair out trying to make simple changes because the code is unreadable. If someone wants to use DW to build a hobby site for their own use, and does so using tables, that's their own lookout, but a site built 'professionally', for a fee, should take into account support and future development. Jon
I agree that sites should be built for future development and support. But lets be realistic here. When a 'professional' builds a site, they do it with their tools and not the tools of their competitors. The same argument can be said by the designers who use DW when they get a hold of CSS based table-less website. Less code? Maybe. Quicker or harder to parse by Google? Negligible.
Table-less sites are easier to build, easier to fix and easier to modify. That in itself should be enough. It's also the 'correct' way to build a site. Sure, you could use tables, but that's like using a crossword puzzle to tell a story. It might work, but it's just not how it's done. The effect on SEO is hard to determine because there are other variables at play which each search engine weighs differently. The main point though is that CSS sites are in line with semantically correct programming standards and produce results which save time and money in the long run. Ignore them at your peril!
@ThirdDash - There is no "correct" way to build a site, and here is a flash, I love crossword puzzles. The effect on SEO is not hard to determine. Do a search, look at any of the results, then view the source. CSS does not appear to have any edge over tabled layout sites, and vice versa. But like you say, who in the heck knows for sure. CSS is only in line with itself. It is not a programming language, semantic or otherwise. True, there are standards to follow. But one mans junk, is another mans treasure. If the end result is easier to produce using products such as DW, et al -- then who is to say that CSS would be easier for them. Should they use CSS? Probably. I like to. Haven't used a table for quite some time.