__/ [ T.J. ] on Monday 01 May 2006 11:20 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> __/ [ T.J. ] on Sunday 30 April 2006 23:34 \__
>>> Looking like using <pre>
>>> could be beneficial for SEO in certain circumstances.
>>> Check the entries made on 24/04/06
>>> (not on all DC's yet)
>> Is the text which was added on 24/04/06 ranked higher? Did it enter the
>> more quickly than the text that you added a week earlier? I sure hope so.
>> lot of my site's content is <pre>'d. What is the impact of <br> or <br />?
>> Any conclusions yet?
> It's not really a test to see which ranks higher
> as I am using made up words which don't appear
> in the serps.
> The text added on 24/04/06 was a bit slow to be
> picked up, but it is a new page, and only has about 3
> links pointing to it.
> It seems to have been cached on 26/04/06 but I didn't
> notice it come in to the index until yesterday.
> It is more of a test for positioning, especially if working
> in a narrow space, when you want a line break in a
> particular place, but still want it SEO friendly.
> Have a look here as an example
,----[ Markup Snippet ]
| <td align="center">
| <img src="booster-1.jpg">
| >Mothercare <br>booster seat</a>
Why not let the table "do its thing"? Sometimes, by including line breaks,
you essentially make matters worse, e.g. when the screen size shrinks or
expands. It can lead to multiple lines where one could fit gracefully or
even, under particular settings, break a two-liner into three. Anyway,
that's the user's point-of-view. How search engines will treat it is another
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Disk quota exceeded; sig discontinued"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:20am up 3 days 18:17, 12 users, load average: 0.48, 0.49, 0.53
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project