Welcome to TalkGraphics.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: SEO for website

  1. #1

    Default SEO for website

    I ran my website through the google website checkers and it did not come out too good.

    The key things it seems to be flagging are CSS usage, inefficient javascript, excessive DOM size, Avoid enormous network payloads as well as Serve images in next-gen formats such as jpeg2000 and more.

    My understanding is I concentrate on the design look and feel the WYSIWYG and Xara will produce the ideal CSS, javascript etc.

    Now, it could be my site and the way I've created it in Xara, but would be keen to know if others have run SEO tests on their site and has Xara done a good job?

    Love to get your feedback.

    I used this: https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl...re/testmysite/
    as well as running the site through ASEOP11 that comes with the Xara renewal.

    Turan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SW England
    Posts
    11,022

    Default Re: SEO for website

    Quote Originally Posted by Turan Mirza View Post
    My understanding is I concentrate on the design look and feel the WYSIWYG and Xara will produce the ideal CSS, javascript etc.
    Turan, Xara does little to streamline its support files (CSS, JS). It probably calls 5 CSS files.

    "excessive DOM size" is probably a Supersite with Variants. if you can avoid using a Supersite, do so. If you must have Variants go for no more than two and keep the design very simple.

    Avoid Xara NavBars.

    Use filename="nameOfImage" for important pictures, especially those used is different places.

    "enormous network payloads" is usually cropped images that have not been optimised.

    Unfortunately, you do need to concentrate on the impact of any given design choice.

    That said, Xara coding is not the worst out there.

    Acorn
    Acorn - My currently active Xara software: XDPX (current, v15, v12 & 11 (64-bit)), unserviced XWD Premium 15 & 12, XPGD10, X3D7; lots of licences back through time (to CC's Artworks). If your Post identifies a Xara software fault, please raise it directly with Magix --> support2.magix.com.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Michigan at the moment
    Posts
    131

    Default Re: SEO for website

    Acorn, I have been using three variants on my website. Not that I am very knowledgeable, what do you suggest for the two variants? I already know it will be a lot of work to change it but am always willing to learn. By the way why only two variants?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Morelos, Mexico
    Posts
    83

    Default Re: SEO for website

    I agree with Gypsyjoe. The new Scale to Fit Width is not very useful because you either have giant text in the wide screen or illegible text in the narrow screen (disregarding the mobile variant). Three variants seems to be a safe threshold for providing the content for the numerous sizes of devices.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    805

    Default Re: SEO for website

    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsyjoe View Post
    Acorn, I have been using three variants on my website. Not that I am very knowledgeable, what do you suggest for the two variants? I already know it will be a lot of work to change it but am always willing to learn. By the way why only two variants?

    I'm not saying I'm right, just sharing what I find works for me personally. I make the desktop 1280 wide and use Scale To Fit Width in the Export Options. My mobile sites I keep at the default 480.
    Text size for Normal Text I use 18 or 20. 16 is acceptable, but is a tad small on an 8" tablet. Text size can look differently for different fonts; I use Fira or Monsterrat most of the time for no other reason than they both have a wide range of variants and I like 'em.

    Having more than 2 variants is just adding more things to go wrong. Not a big enough to scrap them and start again though, unless you'd enjoy doing so.

    I should also add that I use (roughly) a 50px padding (margin) on the left and right for the desktop, and 20px for the mobile.
    Last edited by Chris M; 23 January 2020 at 05:02 AM. Reason: added padding sizes

  6. #6

    Default Re: SEO for website

    Thanks for the feedback. I only have two desktop and mobile. Does anyone else run their Xara sites through the google tool? or others?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Currently New York State
    Posts
    533

    Default Re: SEO for website

    I have tested my sites through other speed testers and have had them come in with good ratings. The Google one you posted does not show a good rating. I have also tested with my phone and the sites come in real quick.

    With all that being said, the only way you are going to really get what Google is purposing is having somebody hand code your site. I don't really think at this time it matters. In the future Google may start penalizing your site for the loading speed on page ranking.

    Ray

  8. #8

    Default Re: SEO for website

    The reason why I'm concerned is that various marketing experts are saying that google does rank you lower if your site is slow. In a similar way to the fact that google will rank you lower if you have http and not https. Even if you are not collecting data via web forms and so don't need https, your site will still be ranked lower. Similarly, I'm happy with my site in that I feel people that are loking for my services are speeding through it and so are happy to wait a few seconds for it to load BUT me being happy with the speed and google being happy with it are two different things :-(

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SW England
    Posts
    11,022

    Default Re: SEO for website

    Quote Originally Posted by Turan Mirza View Post
    The reason why I'm concerned is that various marketing experts are saying that google does rank you lower if your site is slow. In a similar way to the fact that google will rank you lower if you have http and not https. Even if you are not collecting data via web forms and so don't need https, your site will still be ranked lower. Similarly, I'm happy with my site in that I feel people that are loking for my services are speeding through it and so are happy to wait a few seconds for it to load BUT me being happy with the speed and google being happy with it are two different things :-(
    Goggle weakly ranks lower non-HTTPS protocols: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/20...ng-signal.html. If I were peddling SEO wares, I would promote this worrry to a poential customer. As I don't sell SEO, I can be more open as suggest it is not that important.

    Size matters. Have you looked at the areas I suggested earlier?

    We could spin this out for a long time. If you want assistance, you should offer up your URL.
    "services" implies sales. If you are selling then the site is working. If you need more than spend time, effort and money on the site not SEOing it to the nth degree.

    Acorn
    Acorn - My currently active Xara software: XDPX (current, v15, v12 & 11 (64-bit)), unserviced XWD Premium 15 & 12, XPGD10, X3D7; lots of licences back through time (to CC's Artworks). If your Post identifies a Xara software fault, please raise it directly with Magix --> support2.magix.com.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Harwich, Essex, England
    Posts
    19,452

    Default Re: SEO for website

    Egg

    Intel i7 - 4790K Quad Core + 16GB Ram + 232 GB SSD + 250 GB SSD portable drive
    Xara Designer Pro X 16

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •