Feedback on first AdSense website

[KidLifeCrisis]

I just got my first site AdSense-oriented site online, and I'm looking for some feedback. The site is called Caffeine Enthusiast. The site itself is lacking some info, but I plan to get more up ASAP. (I just starting working on the site last night, and I got it online early this morning.)

I'm looking for feedback on the layout with regards to the AdSense positioning, and the flow of the site in general. Note that the language of the AdSense on the homepage is wrong. Apparently this is a fairly common issue, and I've contacted Google to have it corrected. Hopefully it won't take long!

If you're curious about the site itself, it's pretty much all simple HTML (except for the contact script). I'm using a free template that I found on Open Source Web Design. I made use of SSI so that the headers, footers, and ad layouts stay consistent across the site without needing to use PHP includes/requires. I also customized the .htaccess file so that nothing has extensions just for the hell of it (to make the URL prettier). :P

[Anduril66]

I really like your ad placement, except for perhaps the right bar, because it seems like there is a lot of coloured padding around the ad which reduces blending. I would probably narrow the right bar to just over the width of the ad.

I have a couple of questions:
1)What are the advantages of using SSIs over PHP includes?
2)I used to keep URLs clean by creating a /history folder in the root directory and then linking to url/history (to go to url/history/index.html), while you remove extensions. Which method is better?

[KidLifeCrisis]

Thanks Anduril. The size of the right bar is what the template came with, but I'll consider shrinking it since I'm not using it for the intended links, which is what the template originally had there.

With regards to SSI vs. PHP includes, I'm not sure if there's any major difference in parsing/rendering speed. I simply chose it so that I wouldn't have to use PHP, and all the code could be in HTML/SHTML files. (SHTML is required for SSI to work.)

About your question in using a "history" folder for example, I think this is more to do with a matter of preference. I tend to go the route you mentioned if I plan to have more in the folder other than just the index page. For example, on my current site I have a "/products" link. If I wanted to include sub-pages of "/grinder", "/roaster", "/brewer", etc. under "/products", I likely would have used the folder structure as you did.

There's really no need for the use of mod_rewrite in the .htaccess file in a site as simple as this. I could have just as easily kept the .shtml extentions showing. (i.e.: You can go to /products.shtml on my site, and it should still work even though I don't publicize it.) I simply decided to use this as an opportunity to tinker with mod_rewrite.

[hummusx]

The right side bar doesn't necessarily have to be smaller - but changing the color scheme up a bit might make it blend a little more.

[KidLifeCrisis]

[ QUOTE ]
The right side bar doesn't necessarily have to be smaller - but changing the color scheme up a bit might make it blend a little more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, so I took the combined advice you and Anduril gave, and I decided to change the scheme around a bit so the ads look more like they belong on the site. While I was at it, I also took the liberty of removing the border around the ads within the actual content.

Since the old background image is probably in your cache, you'll probably need to Ctrl+F5 to see the difference after the page loads. Please let me know if you think this looks better or worse for both the right ads and the inner/content ads. Thanks!

[hummusx]

Much better.

[KidLifeCrisis]

Thanks again for looking. Just wanted to let you know, I've only had my site up for about half a day, and I've pasted a screenshot with the results of my first "day" using AdSense below. This is definitely looking feasible, and I'm excited to get more content onto the site after seeing this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
and then linking to url/history (to go to url/history/index.html), while you remove extensions. Which method is better?

[/ QUOTE ]

The advantage to linking to url/folder/ is that in the future if you change server technologies you won't need to change your links and external links won't need to be changed. Let's say the OP links to /coffee/makers/index.shtml and then decides to go with PHP. Now he'll have to change all his links to /coffee/makers/index.php and anyone who may have linked to that page in a blog or whatnot will now be linking to an incorrect page.


The reason url/folder/ works is because the webserver has a list of default page names and extensions it looks for and will serve the first page found in the list. A common list is like index.htm, index.html, index.php, index.asp, index.aspx default.htm, default.html, default.php, default.asp, default.aspx, home.htm, etc..

You can usually control this list in your control panel (for IIS - often called default pages) or through your .htaccess file (for apache).

[KidLifeCrisis]

Thanks for including that detail Bradley. I neglected it in my original response, and it's another benefit of having access to mod_rewrite within the .htaccess file.

[rjp]

mod_rewrite is your friend!