sstarzyk10

@@Arvi - I know page rank is important so people find the sites, but do you think that the amount of visitors our site gets, say 500 a month vs. 5,000 a month, will increase our page rank significantly? Or like Dr. Iggy said, while visitors numbers are important, so is bounce rate, and even if the visitor amount is lower, if they stay on the site longer, Google will see the site as more relevant.
 
I was unaware that Google even factored bounce rate into their rankings.

The company I work for is debating whether or not to combine a group of 7 sites, all with different domain names, into one website/domain with different directories for each site. They say the reasoning behind this is so we get a lot of traffic on one domain instead of spreading it out across all 7, increasing our search engine ranking.
 
My question is how important is amount of traffic to a site when determining page rank? Especially when comparing that to other SEO techniques, such as quality back links, good on-page content/keywords, etc. I know it has some sort of effect with Google "trusting" your site if a lot of people visit it, but how much does that really matter?
 
I'm advocating against the change, simply for keeping our similar content grouped under separate domains and keeping a good user experience. Plus, I feel like we could just increase our efforts on other SEO stuff to boost traffic and rankings on all the domains instead of doing the big migration to one domain.
 
I'd like to hear thoughts for and against. Thanks!
Steve

A lot of how it works will depend on what you're using to open the login window. If you are using a pre-built script, you'll want to check that documentation for their built in functions - one of which is probably a close function.
 
If you built the pop-up manually, then you'll just need a little javascript. Let's say the X is written like:
<span class="close">X</span> Then, using jQuery, you'd right something like this: (change #login to whatever the container of the login is)
$('.close').click(function() { $('#login').fadeOut("fast"); }); You may need to write something to fade out the background too. Like Samus said, without seeing the code, there is no saying what will work.

Put position:relative; on your .nav li declaration and it should show up where you want.

The > selector targets elements that are direct children of the parent. The + selector targets elements immediately preceded by another element, in this case an LI.
 
So that statement says: Any LI that is a direct child of .nav-custom AND has an LI element immediately preceding it.
 
<ul class="nav-custom"> <li></li> <!-- Direct child of .nav-custom, but not preceded by an LI --> <li></li> <!-- Direct child of .nav-custom, AND preceded by an LI - this would get styled --> <li> <ul> <li></li> <!-- Not a direct child of .nav-custom, so not affected --> <li></li> </ul> </li> </ul>  
The > selector is used, in this case, to target list items in the navigation menu, but NOT in the drop down menus. And the + selector may be used for something like adding a top border to the list item, but they don't want the first one to have a top border, so it must be preceded by an LI.
 
These selectors are very useful - get to know them!

I didn't take the time to comb through all your code, but from looking at your development site, I just wanted to mention a few things that may help.
 
The overlapping is a problem with your center column width. Having that as a percentage won't work properly, as you can see. Check out the Dynamic Drive layouts. Looks like you're using a Fixed-Fluid-Fixed layout. You can view the CSS and HTML to see how it works.
 
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/style/layouts/category/C10/
 
As for the height problem. If you're using 100% height, be sure that all parent elements also have 100% height on them, or that will get stuck somewhere and not work. I've always found trying to design using 100% height to be a pain. You're better off using background images. You would need two background images, one on each side, to allow for the middle to still be fluid.
 
Also, research CSS media queries. You can set certain widths with those where if the browser shrinks below that width, those specific styles kick in. For instance, you can have a query that removes the news sidebar if the browser is less than 600px wide, such as phones. In my opinion, these media queries are one of the easiest ways to build a responsive site, and will be around for a long time, so it's good to start reading up on them.

I'm looking at this on a Mac, in Firefox, Chrome and Safari. First of all, the blue image seems to be shorter than the rest. It produced a "truncated" error when I tried to open in Photoshop, so maybe try saving that image again. I would also declare a height and width on the images themselves, as well as in the CSS for the containing div.
 
If you're just using simple fade animations without any paging, I suggest using the jQuery Cycle function. It's clean, easy to use, and there is no CSS that could possibly mess up your layout. You just style the containing div how and where you want it, and let the jQuery do the rest. http://jquery.malsup.com/cycle/
 
Alluziion has a good idea too, just to make sure there is no extra padding or margins on something being added by other browsers.

List-style-types:none on the slider should fix it
 
looks like you've found that

The usual order for link styling is a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active (LoVe, HAte) and you have hover before visited so the visited will take priority over hover (after you have visited a page). Placing hover after link and visited means that hover will work whether the page is visited or not. There is some debate about where to place a:focus but you aren't using that style.