W3C Validation and SEO

October 17th, 2006, 4:37 pm

So w3c validation is about closing and opening tags properly? Of course it isn't and you know it... You could see if tags are opened and closed properly by looking at it in any browser, that isn't what w3c validation is about.

Listen, if you want to think you know more about google than matt cutts (google engineer) then go ahead, But im afraid you wont be getting me too side with you against him.

October 17th, 2006, 6:41 pm

Hmmm....

Your saying that I should not make an error like <pHot Babes</p> because I can check it in any browser. You also say w3c is not about that. So where is the line drawn? Is it by some idea that you have, or by passing the validation completely. I gave you one small example. What if you had the closing body tag before your content. Hardly compliant, hardly good html. The person would have done a poor job building their site, but entirely possible. Where does that leave them in SEO? Would you not suggest to them to take a course in writing html, or maybe even how to build a site that is....


......

....

..

W3C compliant?

I don't say Matt is wrong, and in fact I agree with him. W3C is important but not essential. Most sites do have errors, and the quality/value of information should not be judged by the skill of a webmaster. In your defense, the line:
<p Hot Babes</p> though still failing test is equal to <p>Hot Babes</p> as far as google is concerned. But in mine <pHot Babes</p> fails both goals...seo, and w3c.

I realize that the concept to making sites w3c is not about tag correction, and that it is about making your site as clean and well organized as possible so that anybody on any browser will not have a disavantage. So all said and done I am going to say yes I believe that making a site w3c will give you an advantage in seo. Not because of it's validity ability, but because it natural abiltiy to clarify everything you do on your site.

October 17th, 2006, 7:32 pm

w3c validation isn't about closing and opening tags. It's just some pedantic tenuous argument you are clinging onto to make it look like you have a valid point..

You know what w3c validation is about, it's not about something ludicrous like correcting glearing markup errors such as forgetting to close tags.

October 17th, 2006, 8:00 pm

geez, you don't even read my comments.

I am not sure what you have against me.

Your first comment toward me during this whole discussion was just a untrue blast. Your attempt to appear superior by saying "You are joking, right? You go to W3 and check that a site is valid before linking to it?" You didn't even check yourself because if you had you would not have posted that. My site is w3c.

Second, when I called you on that comment you didn't even answer me. Too busy trying to be the oppressor I guess.

Third, when I showed you a simple expamle of why it can make a difference, and then asked you what you thought you shoved more words into my mouth that I did not say. Needless to say that you failed to answer another question from me. You couldn't answer that one though, could you:)

Fourth, you either did not read my previous post or you think that you can win a discussion by saying the same thing over and over again.

Fith my disucssion with you on this, and other topics are completely over. I am no longer watching this topic, and will delete in pms from you before reading.

October 18th, 2006, 7:11 am

Firstly, i wasn't claiming you didn't validate your own sites, i was claiming you didn't check other peoples sites before linking to them. You claimed that sites which have validated markup are more likey to get backlinks, Which is a complete and utter fabrication.

Secondly, When you "called me" on that point i didn't answer because you had clearly misunderstood, and to be honest, it was such a trivial point i didn't want to sit around while you went back and re-read what i has posted..

Thirdly, When you showed me an example i pointed out that it wasn't a validation error, It was just a glearing markup error. W3C validation isn't about opening and closing tags, A point which you are still spectacularly failing to grasp.

fourth, no i didn't read you last post. Because untill you grasp the simple concept that W3C validation is not about correcting glearing markup errors there is little chance of you being able to understand that W3C validation will not help with SEO.

Fith, My heart bleeds..

To anyone who reads this thread, Ignore every post in it, including mine.
Just go and watch the matt cutts video i posted, He is a google engineer, he said google have no signal for validated markup in thier algo.
So that means, Google don't care about validated markup. It's as simple as that.. There is no discussion required, It's a simple fact.

[Bigwebmaster]

October 18th, 2006, 12:03 pm

While I believe both of you have made your valid points, I do agree with parts of what what camp185 has said and what Meman has said. First I would like to say that with my sites I do indeed validate them. I do this for a few reasons, one is that I feel that having a website revolving around web design should mean I should set an example and have valid code. Second I do indeed do it for SEO purposes and have done very well in that department, however, I do admit the SEO effects there are negligible. As Meman already stated many search engines simply look at the text, so as long as you look at a text browser and you see all of your content there like it should be, then you are probably good to go. When using validators I do often find mistakes that actually do affect the appearance of content that I overlooked, so I have to agree with a few points Camp185 said here as those mistakes can affect SEO.

Google isn't the only search engine, and its possible that some search engines do take into account small factors regarding using good code. While for the most part this probably isn't the case, I am just saying its possible. I feel that when creating websites I should do the best I can in each area (including validating code), because just in case that does ever become a factor, I am good to go there. It is not something that will hurt your website, and I would rather have valid code over not valid code. It helps in other ways too such as having a better chance of displaying correctly in browsers, however, even with valid code this always doesn't happen. It is important to actually look at your website using many different browsers due to the bugs different browsers have and how they interpret coding.

So basically what I am saying is this: while Matt Cutts has said it won't help, and for the most part that is probably correct, I feel that validating your code can't hurt you and in fact could potentially help you (if not today, maybe another day), even if only a little bit. You never know when a tech might do something to give a few extra points for valid code, things change. What Matt Cutts reported on was what techs currently told him, remember like many search engines things are always changing with them and how they score documents. So as for me and my websites I feel I should do everything in my power to ensure that my websites do score the best. While I am not perfect, and already know areas I can improve on, doing little things can still help... and if not for SEO, for your users. My primary concern are the users, and second is SEO. I have the belief that if you truly make a website that makes visitors want to come to it, then search engines will fall in line and really want to show your site on top of their SERPs.

So in summary I do validate code, even if the SEO effects are small if not zero. Validating code has caught things I have overlooked before that can affect my SEO, and has helped me resolve a few problems in browser compatibility.

October 18th, 2006, 5:09 pm

if someone visits your site and it doesnt display properly... they may not visit again..

if someone visits your site and it takes sooo long to load... they may not visit again..

if someone visits your page.. and it displays fine.. and loads instantly.. but they cant access certain parts of it.. eg some javascript or flash.. i don't know.. then they may not visit again..

they almost definately wont recommend your site to a friend.. it will simply go through their eyes, and straight out the back of their head.

i know that when it comes to seo.. and search engines.. and the rat race to get hits.. we all try to think in terms of how the machine looks at the page..

but try to think of it that way instead... plus you might as well keep up with the latest standards and get into that habit or you wont last in this game my friend.

October 19th, 2006, 7:54 pm

Your points are correct antonyx, I would agree with all of them. Which is why it's good to validate your code.

But improving user experience, site accessability and encouraging people to return isn't SEO.

October 21st, 2006, 8:34 pm

Meman,

Why would google let their techs tell the world that W3C compliant code will help with a web sites position in their SERPs? Right now only a small percentage of web developers make sure their code is valid, that percentile would rase a considerable amount if they were to let their techs release that information to Matt Cutts there for it would not help their algorithm as much.

October 22nd, 2006, 2:24 am

SEO_Pro, Yeah that's right, it's a big conspiracy, Matt Cutts must be lying ...
Give up.

October 22nd, 2006, 12:09 pm

That was a sorry response. I did not say Matt Cutts was lying.

October 22nd, 2006, 12:40 pm

Bottom line is he is telling the truth, Not hiding anything, not misleading anyone, you know it and i know it... but for some reason, people find it hard to let go of this misconception that validated code is benificial to SEO.

If you want to carry on thinking incorrect statments are true, go ahead, But anyone with any sense what so ever will listen to what matt cutts says very carefully.

So if validated code helps SEO, why did matt cutts say it doesn't?

October 22nd, 2006, 1:43 pm

Nvm. I never said Matt Cutts is lying or misleading anyone. Matt Cutts might think W3C validation does not help with SEO, but I do not trust that Matt Cutts really knows everything that does and does not help with SEO.

October 22nd, 2006, 2:08 pm

SEO_Pro. wrote:

Nvm. I never said Matt Cutts is lying or misleading anyone. Matt Cutts might think W3C validation does not help with SEO, but I do not trust that Matt Cutts really knows everything that does and does not help with SEO.

Are you serious?

Quote:

Matt Cutts works for the quality group of Google. He specializes in search engine optimization issues. He is well known in the SEO community for enforcing the Google Webmaster Guidelines and cracking down on link spam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Cutts

October 23rd, 2006, 11:33 am

I have read some articles written in the past by some really good web analyst etc. I trust those people more then someone who is so big just because he is associated with google. I have seen some of his videos online and I would have to say I do not think he knows much and if he does he is holding back big time.. I do not credit people for their popularity only. Show me an article where Matt Cutts has something to say that I do not already know and have not picked up on somewhere else then I will give him the credit you think he deserves.