I was wondering whether search engines rank pages that use divs instead of tables higher. My guess is that if there's any difference at all, it would have to do with the resulting file size. Tables, despite offering convenience, introduce additional tags, such as <tr> and <td> + closing tags. So using divs instead could produce significantly lower file sizes, especially when nested tables are used. But my question is, if the file I generate using tables is still under 50kb, would I get better results if I use divs instead (maybe I'd reduce the file size to 30kb)?
to be honest i dont think there is a lot of difference. but i DO think this will change in the future. the point of using CSS (div layout) is for semantically correct markup, which (ideally) validates. this is an all-round better solution than using tables, and i think Google will certainly take this into account in the future.
I also think that this will change in the future,but even these days I think that your site has a better chance for ranking higher if you use divs instead off tables.
In short: Search engines try to understand the meaning and the logic behind your web pages. Currently tables are supposed to be used for tabular data, not for page layout. That's why the web standards exist. Search engines would either fail to correctly understand the page content, respectively evaluate it, or would depreciate the page considering the creator hasn't followed the web standards and/or doesn't really realize what is the purpose of the page...
A 50KB footprint vs 30KB footprint is not even noticable now days w/ high speed cable and DSL connections. The old 30K rule is a carry over from days when many were still using AOL-type dail-up services. I don't think you'll really notice much of a difference either way. Typically there are much bigger "fish to fry" that will get you much bigger SEO gains than swapping out <table> elements for <div> elements. Supposedly some search engines look at your HTML and get a CONTENT:CODE ratio (percentage). In otherwords, the higher the CONTENT:CODE ratio (a lot of content with little code percentage wise) the better your score for this particular ranking factor. Using <div> elements instead of <table> elements helps you in those search engines that look at this as a ranking factor by increasing your CONTENT:CODE ratio. That being said, there are MANY other advantages to using <div> elements instead of <table> elements that you should consider... - Using CSS and <div> elements allows you to make changes to your CSS and change the layout of every page on your site at once if the CSS and pages are coded correctly to allow it. If you are using <tables> to implement your page formatting then you have to modify EVERY page on your site to implement such a change. - Using CSS and <div> reduces your HTML footprint. The CSS only needs to be downloaded once and as you browse from page to page on your site, the browser only needs to download each page's HTML, NOT download the formatting (CSS) code. Tables force the browser to download the formating code every time a page is requested that is not already cached. - Using CSS and <div> separates your content from it's presentation which is just a good coding practice anyway. It makes debugging a problem much simpler. Looking at a huge 100 row x 5 column table is much uglier and harder to debug if you are using <table> elements. - The HTML is MUCH easier to read. CSS and <div> elements are a much more desireable and elegant way to implement styling/formatting for your site. But if you just need something quick and dirty OR if you're not comfortable w/ CSS then there is nothing too bad about using <table> elements other than the difficulty of maintaining it and modifying it going forward.
Thanks everyone for replying. I would really appreciate it if you could clarify some things I don't understand yet: 1. I'm not 100% clear on how the use of DIVs could possibly help SEs determine the meaning of a page, since DIVs only separate one section of a page from the rest of the data. Semantically, DIVs don't seem as helpful as <STRONG>, <H1>, <H2> or <UL>, for example. 2. That someone uses tables does not necessarily mean that he is not using css. I use tables mainly because it is an old habit (I've been using HTML for over 10 years now), but also because logically, they help me divide my HTML into separate regions - this section goes over that, these are align horizontally, there are three columns here and so forth. However, inside each section, that is, for each <TD>, I always use css for formatting. Is this really bad practice? I've had no problems maintaining my code. I'd appreciate you help
I think <div> tags are much more better than <table> tags. We can use div elements to define content blocks; sounds like using nested div elements for structuring content is perfectly valid. As long as you don’t use div elements in place of more appropriate ones like headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, lists, and of course, tables for tabular data, then you’re doing fine.
For yahoo ranking, using DIV is effective than using table . Content and style are seperately, it is the future and trend .