DIV Tags

[GeXus]

Do div tags have an effect on SEO? Is it better or worse to use DIV tags, or does it not matter.

Thanks!

[I, Brian]

Personal suggestion is that div tags are not going to be a concern for SEO.

[Jim]

If you won't use it to create layers then there is no need to use it at all. Sometimes I see tags like that: <DIV align="center"></DIV>. That's the worst way of centering things I've ever seen.
But I don't think this has anything to do with your question. I just wanted to share my opinion.

Anyway, about your question. IMO, <DIV> tag shouldn't have any bad effects on onsite-SEO. It's a crawlable tag used (mostly) with static content after all.

[awall19]

Originally Posted by Jim

That's the worst way of centering things I've ever seen.

what is the best way to center stuff

[Jim]

Originally Posted by awall19

what is the best way to center stuff

Using [align=center] in the main <TD> is a good way. Or you may use <center></center> tag when there is no tables on the page.
The thing I don't like about the DIV tag is its incompatibility with different browsers. I'm not sure if they've fixed this on Firefox but many Netscape versions used to give different results even to the basic layer positioning properties.

[jwalsh]

With the upcoming release of XHTML 2.0, DIV and SPAN tags will be hugely important. I dont see how google could punish someone for this.

Josh

[Shawn]

Pure css and divs are the wave of the future

http://www.strippersphonebook.com/ has no tables, td, tr etc

[I, Brian]

HTML is the backbone of the web - the CSS-only crowd are always so eager to dimiss the simplicity and cross-browser reliability of HTML 4, in lieu of buggy browser non-compatibility of CSS-only pages.

[ILoveJackDaniels]

You are right. HTML is the backbone of the web. It is a semantic markup language. It shouldn't give information about visual presentation.

HTML was designed to work with CSS to provide visually attractive versions of pages. The reason web pages end up with thousands of font tags and stupid nested tables (and code soup) is because people try to use HTML for the look of a page. Which is like trying to paint your house with a breezeblock. Wrong tool for the job.

The "CSS-only crowd", as you put it, are those that use CSS for style and HTML or XHTML for markup. There is no such thing as a "CSS-only" page. Finally, browser compatibility is important. If you do a little researchm you'll most likely find that more "browsers" can successfully use a site properly marked up in HTML and using CSS for style than one that uses nested tables and font tags.

Anyway, to answer the question ... div tags will not hurt your SEO at all. It may even help, especially if you have large pages, as it will allow bots to index more content more quickly.

[I, Brian]

Heh, I knew that would be a topic in itself.

HTML + CSS is good, but all too often, some people seem to demand too much from CSS at the expense of valid HTML.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using tables - it's a basic platform - and easy to use - for cross-browser compatability. But the moment you try using CSS instead you invite a range of compatability issues.

[ILoveJackDaniels]

Tables introduce far more compatibility issues. That's why it's bad to use tables for things tables are not supposed to be used for. PDAs and small screens are being used more and more. The number of people using the web on these devices is only going to increase. Browser-makers do not all treat tables the same way, and never have. Screen readers can have problems when a site is layed out using tables.

Divs are understood by almost all browsers. They were introduced at the same time as tables, in HTML 3.2.

What you are talking about, by the sounds of it, is creating a site that looks the same on IE and Netscape. You achieve this using tables, because you know how different browsers treat them, and the pitfalls involved with using them for design. What you might not be aware of is how the massive number of other programs and devices treat your site. Using proper markup means that if your CSS fails, your site should still be usable. That's the point in semantic markup - a user agent (like a browser) can use that markup to work out the meaning of a section of a page.

You say use HTML because of compatibility issues. I say using HTML for compatibility is pointless. You might be able to say a site looks the same on two or three current or older browsers, but you can't say that your site is usable for anyone and everyone who visits, irrespective of browser or platform, screen size, or even whether they're reading the page or it's being read to them. Which technique achieves wider compatibility? The one that means a site can be used by anyone using any program on any internet-capable device or the one that means a site can only be used by those with one of a small selection of visual browsers?

You're right, of course, this is a topic in itself.

[I, Brian]

You're a patient man - thanks for making a good and spirited argument.

I shall try and be more considered next time someone mentions using CSS instead of tables.

At heart, I'm just an old dog who struggled enough to get his head around basic HTML and CSS.

[ILoveJackDaniels]

Hehe, I didn't think I'd manage to convert you (or the countless others still happily using tables).

At the end of the day, the most important factors in making a decision on whether to use CSS for layout or to go with HTML are money and time. If you will find it easier and cheaper to use HTML, then do that. If that's what you're used to and you don't have time to get to grips with something new, then best stick with HTML. If a client wants HTML and won't change their mind, use HTML - better than not being paid to work. There's a lot of factors - I just think compatibility should never be one that's used to argue in favour of pure HTML designs .

[Johan007]

I think DIVs can have a positive effect on SE ranking though how significant I don’t know. Please look at this page done in DIVs

http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/friend....asp?movie=216 (sorry its a plug)

See how the navigation (and other potential text) is at the bottom of the HTML but on the page its at the top!

It will not help ranking on Google but other SE may be effected like Inktomi but the best thing about it is that if done properly (unlike the above example) you will see the description on the Google results and not the navigation - sweeet