Need W3C Answer & SITE REVIEW, PLEASE!

[Guest]

Hi
Can anyone tell me if the Bluevoda web builder is W3C Compliant. My web address is www.free2light.com
Please send answers to <deleted>
Many thanks

[VodaHost]

Re: W3C Compliant

You have overlapping text on your website, and it being W3C compliant really does not matter and it will not get you any more business or traffic if you are. But yes, BV12 is in fact written especially W3C compliant and generates clean HTML code.

[chrismunt]

Re: W3C Compliant

Hi
Thanks for the answer, can yo tell me what pages overlap please. Oh and what browser are you using.

Regards
Chris

https://www.free2light.com

[chrismunt]

Please review our site

Morning all

We would be very grateful if you could view and comment on our website www.free2light.com .... send your comments to me at <deleted>

Looking forward to your views.

Regards

Chris

[Vasili]

Re: Need W3C Answer &amp; SITE REVIEW, PLEASE!

First things first when posting to the Customer Website Reviews Forum > Forum Rules -Read Before You Post or You Will Be Deleted
(Explains why your multiple threads were merged this once only)

Second ... you posted in this Forum to be reviewed, and any comments will likewise be posted as a reply in this Forum: no email addresses for private replies are allowed.

Forum Decorum. Everyone is expected to participate accordingly, which is why this should have been your first "read" after joining and before your first post in any Forum: Read Before You Post

[chrismunt]

Re: Need W3C Answer &amp; SITE REVIEW, PLEASE!

Whoops sorry about that Vasili.

[Vasili]

Re: Need W3C Answer &amp; SITE REVIEW, PLEASE!

Now about your Site Review ….

I will only comment on what was obvious on the Index page (being the most important page of any website), and hopefully the insight offered will be helpful in the proper development of interior pages.

1. Your Page Title is improperly created, as you are using 71 total character spaces (63 characters used) when you are allowed a maximum of 60, with 50 being preferred. It is expected that 100% of the words or phrases used as Page Title be organically anchored in Page Content, and mirror Page Description and Keywords by at least 85%. Search Engine Penalty #1

2. You are Spamming your Keywords: In your KeyWord META tag you are using 263 total character spaces (243 for characters) when you are allowed only 200. Ideally, you should use no more than 15-20 words (including words in phrases). Your KW Density is less than 59% relevant, meaning you only have used words not anchored on the page in normally composed (or "readable") page Content. It is expected that 100% of Keywords are anchored in Page Content, thus providing the first and firmest foundation of relevancy. Search Engine Penalty #2

3. In your Page Description, you are allowed 16-20 words max, but of the 16 used, few are organically anchored in page Content and only 2 (1 phrase) are mirrored in Page Title. Search Engine Penalty # 3

4. In your Page Description, you are using 101 character spaces when you are allowed a maximum of 150, while keeping it under 125 is highly recommended so to better balance the other META of your page. However, there is no demonstrated Relevance between Page Description, Page Title, and Page Content. Search Engine Penalty #4

5. You are not using H-META Tags, which is optimal with Page Content anchored and relevant. It is highly unlikely Organic METRICS will be attributed at current time, as unless CORE principles are conforming, the Search Engines will not bother evaluating the entire site to "prove" depth of available resources to return for Search, despite any commands from an XML Map (present, but out-dated) or Robots.txt file (missing). Error

6. You do not in fact have both a Privacy Policy and a "Transaction Policy" published as required (hosted by VodaHost in the US requires us all to comply with the Patriot, Fair Credit, Identity Protection, and CanSpam Acts), and the UK now requires "Cookie Policy" to be added to all site disclosures. You may wish to provide a link for consumers to advance directly to an email Form page to facilitate easier Contact, however.

7. Nowhere in your Page Title, Page, Description, Author, or Keywords is the site's proper Domain used. It is required as the seat of Relevance that the actual identity of the site be organically included in the META at least once (i.e. "www.Website.com" or "Website.com"). The better results can be had if used in Page title, the most "visible" place universally (by browsers, and as a SE Cache identifier). Search Engine Penalty # 5

All site pages need reflect the same adherence to CORE Principles currently established as reviewed above on the Index Page only.

Since Google has taken the lead to revamp the SEO Rules in April of this year (reverting back to a stricter adherence to Core valuations and even begun penalizing sites that appear "over-optimized" using methods once approved but now superfluous), it is more important than ever to be mindful of the standards that have always been there but oft ignored in favor of using other, more creative and/or complicated. More on this discussion can be seen in this thread.

Bottom line: Your site is easily valued by the SE's as "non-compliant" and is likely already suffering a penalty that will be there for at least 6 months after you make the proper changes to it so that at least 2 caching visits prove your efforts to be in compliance, if the penalty is removed at all. It is not just the Basic SEO items, but also the "Build" that scores moreso than before, aand in that regard too, you are suffering 'non-compliance' ...

Not only is this type of site not personally my favorite, it is de-valued nearly automatically by the SE's due to the "spammy" nature of Content Development and over-abundant use of "items" rather than organically composed wording (upon which all solid Relevance is actually based) to feign Relevance.

Think of it as a visitor would: is the site too "busy" and complicated beyond a natural flow? Is the visual appeal diminished by the stacking of elements so that it resembles a catalog rather than a normally worded website "introduction" (as for a book, that is why it is called the "index" page)? Your site is visually unappealing and likely "unfriendly" to Visitors, something that I am sure your AWStats will bear out entirely.

I would suggest focused effort to correct the "Build" (simplify the layout, clean it up and re-emphasize the "intro" relevance by properly pushing all the superfluous Content to interior pages as ought), "Basic Optimization" (the basics as featured in BlueVoda), and thus the "Relevance" (the organic development of interdependent composition and technical similarities) to overcome the limitations you have put upon the site to get the predictable results that are possible.