Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Is Adobe Muse a good option?

Technical SEO

1795

Lael last edited by

We work with a number of clients that need a small website. Is Adobe Muse a good software for building solid, optimized websites? Is Muse better then Dreamweaver? Input please.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
matbennett last edited by

Not used it myself, but Muse has a bit of a reputation for outputting truly horrendous source code. That is never the best start when building a site. What I have seen of the output seemed to contain an awful lot of nested DIVs.

In itself that isn't a problem, but it really bloated the code which isn't great.

We used to use Dreamweaver a lot. That has a bit of a name for messy code too, but you can at least control that. Out of the two I'd opt for Dreamweaver. Given the choice I'd prefer a decent text based IDE.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 1

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.

Start my free trial

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

Can't get Google to index our site although all seems very good

seo tactic indexation optimization core web vitals crawl

Hi there, I am having issues getting our new site, https://vintners.co indexed by Google although it seems all technical and content requirements are well in place for it. In the past, I had way poorer websites running with very bad setups and performance indexed faster. What's concerning me, among others, is that the crawler of Google comes from time to time when looking on Google Search Console but does not seem to make progress or to even follow any link and the evolution does not seem to do what google says in GSC help. For instance, our sitemap.xml was submitted, for a few days, it seemed like it had an impact as many pages were then visible in the coverage report, showing them as "detected but not yet indexed" and now, they disappeared from the coverage report, it's like if it was not detected any more. Anybody has any advice to speed up or accelerate the indexing of a new website like ours? It's been launched since now almost two months and I was expected, at least on some core keywords, to quickly get indexed.
Technical SEO | | rolandvintners

1
Protecting sitemaps - Good idea or humbug?

Is there a way to protect your sitemap.xml so that only Google can read it and would it make sense to do this?
Technical SEO | | Roverandom

0
Is it a good idea to direct a new url to a subfolder?

Hello everyone, I have a client who is in public relations. He is wanting to integrate SEO into his business and is hiring me to help. He purchased a domain that is separate from his existing website, but wants to keep the services and existing blog (which will include SEO) on his current site. For example, he has: www.example.com and wants to add a SEO folder which will contain our services: www.example.com/prseo the domain he purchased (as another example) is: www.prseo.com but wants to direct it to the folder he has set up @ example.com/prseo Can anyone offer advise? Is this a good idea?
Technical SEO | | visabelmedia

0
Should existing canonical tags be removed where a 301 redirect is the preferred option?

Hi, I'm working on a site that is currently using canonical tags to deal with www and non-www variations. My recommendation is to setup 301 redirects to deal with this issue instead. However, is it ok to leave the existing canonical tags in place alongside the new 301 redirects or should they be removed? My thoughts are that this is not a canonical issue and therefore they should be removed? If 301 redirects are not possible it would be better have them that nothing at all but I don't think we need both, right? Any feedback much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | MVIreland

0
Yoast's Magento Guide "Nofollowing unnecessary link" is that really a good idea?

I have been following Yoast's Magento guide here: https://yoast.com/articles/magento-seo/ Under section 3.2 it says: Nofollowing unnecessary links Another easy step to increase your Magento SEO is to stop linking to your login, checkout, wishlist, and all other non-content pages. The same goes for your RSS feeds, layered navigation, add to wishlist, add to compare etc. I always thought that nofollowing internal links is a bad idea as it just throwing link juice out the window. Why would Yoast recommend to do this? To me they are suggesting link sculpting via nofollowing but that has not worked since 2009!
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays

0
Canonical & rel=prev / next changes to website a good idea or not?

Hi all, I decided yesterday to make a load of changes to my website, and today i woke thinking, should i have done that! So below is an example of what i have done (i will try to explain clearly anyway), can you let me know if you think what i have done would harm or help my website in search results etc... ok, so lets take just one category - Cameras And it has the sub categories - box dome bullet it also has other sub categories (which are actually features, but the only way i can show them on my site is by having them as a sub-category with its own static page, and adding the products to these as secondary categories) vandal proof high resolution night vision previously i have it set up so that every single category / sub category / feature had its own static page, with a canonical tag to itself (i.e cameras.html canonical was to cameras.html, vandalproof.html canonical was to vandalproof.html). Any of the categories / sub cats / features that had more than one page were simply not in search results due to the canonical pointing to "Page 1"... What i have now done: Last night i decided to change all this, now for all categories / sub cats / features i have add rel=prev / next where applicable, and removed the canonical from second / third / fourth pages etc, but left the canonical on "page 1". I also removed any keywords from page 2,3,4 etc and changed descriptions to just page "X" + category name. So for example, page one looks like: and page two looks like: I also went a little further (maybe too far) and decided that the features pages would canonicalize back to cameras so for those i now have: Page 1: Page 2: Any advice is welcome on the above, in regards to which way may be better and why, and obviously if anything jumps out as a mistake... Please advise James
Technical SEO | | isntworkdull

0
Paid directory links--good or bad thing to do for Prof. Services sites?

Yes, I am pretty darn new to SEO and have heard that Google doesn't like Paid directory links. I have looked at some of my competition and they must have paid to get in certain directories as I don't see any backlinks posted on their home pages (usually a badge or icon must be placed on the homepage to avoid a fee.)
Technical SEO | | Stratocaster

0
Is Buying Domains Good For SEO? Can I 301 redirect domains to an Original website?

I have a friend that purchased multiple domains related to their website. Each of these domains have the back ground of the original website and irrelevant content on them. Is is possible to redirect the various domains to certain pages on the original website. For example if the website is www.shoes.com and they purchased domains such as www.leathermensshoes.com and a few others related to the website. Is it SEO friendly to link the domains purchased to the original website?
Technical SEO | | TSpike1

0