Oh, absolutely it's great, I'm getting a lot of hardcore mileage out of it.

The issue of what happens to all your textual content when you apply advanced effects to it isn't emphasized enough, IMNSDHO, and so I'm taking it upon myself to mention it as the topic comes up. You know of the example that caused me to realize this: "that" web site I sent you the link to. I realized last night as I was creating a sitemap for Google that I added shadow effects to probably 80% of the text on the pages and, as a result, made it mostly invisible to Google.

In this particular case the owner probably doesn't care two toots over that, but in another thread here someone was doing an insurance agent's site and they used bevel effects on the vast majority of the text on the main page. Same problem: no search indexing. Your average VSD user, I'm guessing, won't know enough about HTML to realize what they're doing to their site's visibility if/when they take advantage of some of the cool tools it provides. I know I certainly overlooked it until last night.

You're spot on Spinny. I haven't gotten around to registering my site yet, and still I've found it on Google, Yahoo and at least one other after only a week and a half of being published. The search criteria was my co name, but still I was rather happy. If I'd have gone with my first instinct and carried my logo over from the business card my co. name would have been a graphic and wouldn't have been found.

Is this a typo? Your title and description should be different for every page...not the same. Perhaps it is a typo...?

Melanie.. oeps yes, typo ..thanks for pointing that out

Note, that line in your post has been re-worded to:
"Your title and description tag should be different for each page (related to the page content)."

This was done to ease any confusion to readers.

Cliff thanks

I thought it must be a typo...

Thanks to all who provided info on this thread. I know I have a lot of work on this page, as well as research. This site was originally made about 3 years ago, my first attempt at a web design. I know that it isn't visible for search engines, hence the reason I ended up looking into coffeecup.

Thank you all again, as for coffeecup, we are going to use the product. I just need about 5 secs to sit down and start working on this stuff.

Used to do a lot of professional sites.

I tend to use whatever is available. But did use coffee cup for some of this site.

http://hamishmackie.com/

I had a quick look, or should I say a 'slow loading' look. If I may:
Your images are not suited to fast loading in your thumbnail pages. The http://hamishmackie.com/sculpture.php?sectionid=first page for example has several images on the left side, all in small sizes. They link to the larger images when clicked on. The FILE SIZE of both the small image and large image is the same. Only the HTML is used to reduce the height and width, but both are the same image and both small and large take the same time to load.

Example image size:
leopard_head_stud_detail.jpg
Small image is 227245bytes and the large image is 227245bytes. If you used an image editor to create a small image the same dimentions as the small one you are using, it could be only 22000bytes. Each small image could load 10 times faster than it does now! When you have 10 or more such photos on the same page, you can shave minutes of dial up users download time.

On a nicer note....darn nice site and great art work. Wow!