Thoughts and Comments?

[XLCowBoy]

Finally got it signed off (a.ka. client payed the balance. ): www.rudex.ph

Featured on (so far):

cssmania
most inspired
screenalicious
design shack (received their email)

::EDIT:: Featured on css snap as well.

So far, so good. What do you guys think?

[dford]

Very nice colors! I really like the logo laying "over" the sky. Great job!

[greedylobster]

Agree with dford... there's hardly anything that may need improvement- the layout is very clean, easy to follow, nicely organized. A pretty straightforward job you have done... Agree with the logo comment - looks different...

[XLCowBoy]

Many thanks

[Fremeere]

Looks good from a graphical point of view.

From an SEO point of view:

You have no canonical non-www to www redirect i.e. rudex.ph/ serves up the same content as www.rudex.ph/ . This leaves the site at risk of a duplicate content penalty from the search engines. It may also split your link popularity between the two versions of the site if you end up with people linking to both versions.

Your meta tags need addressing. They should be page specific and backed up by the content on the page. Yours are too large. There is no way that any one page is going to rank well on all those terms. Each page of the site needs to be focused on one main term and perhaps a handful of secondary terms. Your description is also too large to be fully displayed in the search results when it is used.


Also I would add a custom 404 error page. At the moment, if people go to a wrong address on your site (for whatever reason) the default 404 page is not at all helpful to the layperson and unlikely to keep the potential customer on the site.

[XLCowBoy]

Looks good from a graphical point of view.

From an SEO point of view:

You have no canonical non-www to www redirect i.e. rudex.ph/ serves up the same content as www.rudex.ph/ . This leaves the site at risk of a duplicate content penalty from the search engines. It may also split your link popularity between the two versions of the site if you end up with people linking to both versions.

Your meta tags need addressing. They should be page specific and backed up by the content on the page. Yours are too large. There is no way that any one page is going to rank well on all those terms. Each page of the site needs to be focused on one main term and perhaps a handful of secondary terms. Your description is also too large to be fully displayed in the search results when it is used.


Also I would add a custom 404 error page. At the moment, if people go to a wrong address on your site (for whatever reason) the default 404 page is not at all helpful to the layperson and unlikely to keep the potential customer on the site.

Many thanks. I'm not well versed on SEO-related stuff (we're really just a small design/programming team, and our SEO knowledge is very sparse). Any links that could help me with regards to the duplicate content issue? I think I can sort out the page-specific meta tags with a bit of common sense.

Custom 404's being done (we're doing another site atm, so when this one gets launched with the custom 404, The rudex site gets updated too).

[kuszeras]

Nice colors, I like the design very much. It is plain and simple.

I also like the icons on the first page. I would change the logo of the Rudex itself, but that is something you can not do . The site is very nice.

[sylvatica]

I really like this layout. It is fresh and clean. Great job.

[richkid]

design wise i really like it.. well done!

[dreamache]

The design is nice, but there's a CSS issue (I'm on FireFox 2.0.0.6) with the menu. "CONTACT US" is on its own line, right aligned, underneath "CURRENT PROJECTS".

Also - I think 3 or 4 words, a large font, can go right above the red strip, right above "At Rudex, we make history by building the future." Maybe put exactly what Rudex is or *does* in 3 - 5 words. IE: "Building Homes". "Building Quality Homes", "Home Construction at its' Best" or something. because yeah, i see "development corporation", and a quote that really doesn't mention a specific, and then the 3 columns at the bottom. I think it'd do the site and the visitors more justice to use that blank area to tell people in simple direct terms, exactly what the purpose of this business is.

[bdude]

I definitely love it, it's not to flashy and presents a constructed and clean cut image that oozes good quality building.

[XLCowBoy]

canonical non-www to www redirect is done

[XLCowBoy]

The design is nice, but there's a CSS issue (I'm on FireFox 2.0.0.6) with the menu. "CONTACT US" is on its own line, right aligned, underneath "CURRENT PROJECTS".

Also - I think 3 or 4 words, a large font, can go right above the red strip, right above "At Rudex, we make history by building the future." Maybe put exactly what Rudex is or *does* in 3 - 5 words. IE: "Building Homes". "Building Quality Homes", "Home Construction at its' Best" or something. because yeah, i see "development corporation", and a quote that really doesn't mention a specific, and then the 3 columns at the bottom. I think it'd do the site and the visitors more justice to use that blank area to tell people in simple direct terms, exactly what the purpose of this business is.

I'm on FireFox 2.0.0.6 as well, and I don't have the issue regarding the menu. I've tested this on monitors with different resolutions, and they definitely show the same thing (even tested it on browsershot to be extra sure).

You can even view it here: http://browsershots.org/http://www.rudex.ph/

However, as you can see on browsershots, there IS a menu issue on IE6, but we've dropped all development on IE6 already (all of our XHTML sites will now see that black screen pop up linking viewers to newer browsers). So we have no intention of sorting out the IE6 issue.

Also, the building homes thing: they build gated communities, houses, housing estates, apartment buildings, office buildings... etc. etc.

The tag line was really a "catch all" for what they do. (Although I am aware that the site doesn't fully explain that either, but hey... that's what updates are for.)

::EDIT:: Just saw the issue you mentioned popping up on Safari 1 on Mac. Looks like I've got to put in a new set of conditions for our pop up alert. (Make 'em upgrade!!!)

Although it does look like I'll have to sort out some mac-only conditional elements for that site map link. (Didn't notice it when I first ran through browser shots... oh well).