I like it. Has a modern/retro feel to it.accessheating said:
New logo
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
I like it as well. All the best stuff was created in 1972.
that would be sick as a ceramic back lit sign.....I like it
I think it is not only a great logo but your web guy made a great site around it.
Yeah! We think so too!98crewcab said:that would be sick as a ceramic back lit sign.....I like it
Thanks!JBM said:I think it is not only a great logo but your web guy made a great site around it.
Our site:
www.accessheating.com
I like the retro feel . Especially when a large part of most markets are baby boomers with income ready to upgrade.
If you've been around since 1972, ain't no way you look that young... :whistling
I like it - looks good!
Thanks!JBM said:I think it is not only a great logo but your web guy made a great site around it.
He is the best we have found, for a number of reasons!
His site:
www.thrivewebdesigns.com
Yeah I looked at a couple of his sites. Nice onpage seo, evidently becoming hard to come by now a days. Clean looking designs. Your site is over 100 pages, nice! I would keep an eye on your word count on the heating and cooling pages. If those pages struggle I would add 100 words. Love the site again. 
Great logo, and yes, couldn't agree more with JBM about the website. That's what I call real design!! Far surpasses most I've seen. Puts them right up there with FootBridge as the best-of-the-best, IMO . . .
I LOVE the logo and the design of the website!
However:
The website is not displaying properly for me. I'm using Firefox on my laptop.
The main navigation is broken into two lines and overlaps itself.
The spacing isn't right around a lot of the elements.
The main body is really wide, wider than my widescreen.
The H1 content boxes don't have proper CSS margins, clear or padding.
Also, see this:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
Your homepage alone has 73 errors and 36 warnings. Those are all instances where the HTML was not used correctly. Anything over half a dozen is probably hurting your SEO efforts.
Another thing I saw was the link images on the bottom of the page (TRANE, BBB, Merchant Circle) are not rel="nofollow" which will cause some authority drain (bad for SEO).
Either your site isn't finished, or your web guy is a great graphic designer, but not an experienced coder.
Sorry, I know you didn't ask for a critique of your site, but you should know about this.
However:
The website is not displaying properly for me. I'm using Firefox on my laptop.
The main navigation is broken into two lines and overlaps itself.
The spacing isn't right around a lot of the elements.
The main body is really wide, wider than my widescreen.
The H1 content boxes don't have proper CSS margins, clear or padding.
Also, see this:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
Your homepage alone has 73 errors and 36 warnings. Those are all instances where the HTML was not used correctly. Anything over half a dozen is probably hurting your SEO efforts.
Another thing I saw was the link images on the bottom of the page (TRANE, BBB, Merchant Circle) are not rel="nofollow" which will cause some authority drain (bad for SEO).
Either your site isn't finished, or your web guy is a great graphic designer, but not an experienced coder.
Sorry, I know you didn't ask for a critique of your site, but you should know about this.
Now that is A+ seo detective work! Nice 1!Another thing I saw was the link images on the bottom of the page (TRANE, BBB, Merchant Circle) are not rel="nofollow" which will cause some authority drain (bad for SEO).
Most of those (what they're calling 'html') errors are in the internal javascript code, - - they're necessary for the scripts to work. I think there is a way to wrap the scripts in some sort of 'data elements', but I can't remember off the top of my head what that code is, - - and not sure it would even work right now, as fast as things are changing. With flash devolving, and javascript coming into even more use in it's place, this many (and more) 'errors' (as they are being called) will be much more common. The fix for this actually needs to be done at the W3 end, at least IMO . . .
TR you're right a lot of those errors are JS, which is not what the W3C validator is meant for. Usually people put most of their JS in an external file, but not in this case.
I didn't really look at the errors, I just felt like there must be some looking at the site because it was kind of buggy for me.
I didn't really look at the errors, I just felt like there must be some looking at the site because it was kind of buggy for me.
My plow site has more then a couple hundred errors.....has a page speed of like 93..../shrug if it works dont mess with it.TR you're right a lot of those errors are JS, which is not what the W3C validator is meant for. Usually people put most of their JS in an external file, but not in this case.
I didn't really look at the errors, I just felt like there must be some looking at the site because it was kind of buggy for me.
We are showing up on the first page (organically) for more than 100 of our top keywords. Our issue at this point is to start drilling in with converting our traffic...
Thanks for all the heads up guys!
Thanks for all the heads up guys!
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum
A forum community dedicated to professional construction and remodeling contractors. Come join the discussion about the industry, trades, safety, projects, finishing, tools, machinery, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
