[redfeilds18]

Thanks again for your time dude (Squeeonline).

[Squeeonline]

Originally Posted by redfeilds18

Thanks again for your time dude (Squeeonline).

No problem.

Couple things again: The social sidebar buttons are a pain on thinner devices that haven't got the width for the white space on the side for them to sit in. Basically means that a visitor has to scroll around it to read the text that it covers. Bad idea.

The front page is still very cluttered. Minimalism is very fashionable in web design at the moment. IMO you're better enticing people to clicking to dedicated pages about a subject area rather than blasting them with information on the front page.

As the tabbed slideshow advances and you are reading further down the page, it'll jerk the page up. Not sure what you can do about that, maybe set the slideshow to have a fixed height?

Header title blocks made from Word Art by the looks of things. Learn how to use google web fonts and CSS to create nice titles that are SEO friendly and will be lighter than images.

I don't like all the stock images (that are everywhere on the web). If you can't make your own images, I suggest using something like http://photodune.net where you might find some less overused stock images.

[redfeilds18]

thanks but do you think that the template/code is SEO friendly?

[JD RoX]

No, it's not.
Most of coders think that Validation errors doesn't matter for google - THEY DO! The cleaner your site is, the higher you will rank. It's not much, but it's some sort of a boost anyway.

10+ validation errors are disgrace to any programmer who consider themselves professionals. You have 25 ( just in homepage alone )

[tricky D]

Originally Posted by JD RoX

No, it's not.
Most of coders think that Validation errors doesn't matter for google - THEY DO! The cleaner your site is, the higher you will rank. It's not much, but it's some sort of a boost anyway.

Incorrect. They don't care at all. 1:40 in this video from the horse's mouth:

[JD RoX]

Having valid code will boost your seo, because:
Clean code means faster loading time, which is important factor for google,
In some cases, invalid code could cause crawling errors.
For example:
We had a site with 50+ errors in each page, it was 70% crawlable by google. After cleaning up clients site, we got it up to 100% crawlability and it allowed site rank higher for few extra phrases they were running after

[redfeilds18]

thanks for the info! but i have seen many sites with more than 200 or 300 validation errors but they have a good rank and traffic aswell. like on many blogger blogs! i can point out many...

[Feathers]

Originally Posted by redfeilds18

thanks for the info! but i have seen many sites with more than 200 or 300 validation errors but they have a good rank and traffic aswell. like on many blogger blogs! i can point out many...

Validation in & of itself doesn't matter, but it goes without saying (I hope) that it depends on what your validation errors are. I could have 500 inputs on a page that don't close with a trailing slash — that's not going to affect my rank.

But you have metatags that look like this:

<meta name="robots" content=""="ALL">
<meta name="copyright" content=""=" http://www.qualitywebprogrammers.com  Copyright 2012">
<meta name="language" content=""="English">
<meta name="distribution" content=""="Global">

Presumably, that's going to cause you some problems, if for instance Google doesn't understand your robots tag as JD RoX was saying.

[redfeilds18]

yup! i can understand! thanks for pointing it out!

[redfeilds18]

I have fixed all the issues and errors!

[redfeilds18]

nobody has replied yet!

[Squeeonline]

Front page is too busy. Far too many things to read or click, it's like you're trying to put the whole website onto the front page.

Instead, get your website to tell a story. Guide people through point by point to convince them to use your service.

You still have "we believe onquality web programmers" a very unprofessional typo. "Speak with programmer" is just plain bad English. "Testimonial" in menu should be in the plural.

under key skills "B2b, B2c, C2C ecommerce solutions " no consistency with capital letters.

"Speak with A programmer". "A" doesnt take a capital in this case, but Programmer does.

Looking at this it still looks like a poorly made scam to me. I'm not even scratching the surface of bad writing and bad design, I only looked at the front page. Sorry.

[Trojan]

I'm not having a go at the OP here, more of a general point (and they're unfortunate enough to have "Quality" in their business name).

I always find it interesting - frustrating - that some people just don't (or can't?) see the lack of quality in their work. I know some of it is down to experience and skills, but there's a lot of it that should just be plain obvious. E.g. I find that many clients can't tell what makes a design good or bad, but they know good or bad design when they see it and are sure of it. But some people don't seem to be able to do that.

I also see patterns in the geographical regions that I find this occurring. I know that this could be argued to be borderline racist, and it's only based on my anecdotal evidence - of working over the past 6-7 years with subcontractors in 30-40 different countries - but I find there are very clear patterns in the ability to discern quality.

Apart from the subtle racism, I'm also not saying everything I create is perfect - far from it!

But I do usually know when stuff isn't perfect, and most often I make a conscious decision to compromise. Sometimes on client sites it's a decision to sacrifice image quality for speed, or worse, code quality for speed or because of budgetary constraints. I hate doing that, but you have to compromise sometimes - budgets aren't infinite.

In the case of some of my own sites, just putting something live that's "average" that happens to be still better than what was there previously - e.g. the awful image sliders on my WD site right now. That's me being a developer and not getting a designer on the case (actually, I do - it's work in progress). The issue of the cobblers children. (I've seen some web design agencies outsource the design of their own site because they can't prioritise it above client work in-house. )

But that's conscious decision making. How can people who are working in a field not see that they're producing what's very clearly low quality work?

If they know about it, they can resolve the issues. Text can be spell-checked by native speakers. Designs can be reviewed by experts, and designers can learn what good aesthetics are (though almost every designer I know seems to have been born with that knowledge). But that's only if you know about it.