Should Designers Value W3C Validation

[Jason Tor]

It's interesting, I'm reading the "Proof Google Highly Values W3C Validation" thread and I'm thinking if I were the most popular search engine in the world I probably would highly value W3C validation. Why? Well until we know googles alg. know one can answer that question but google.

I wouldn't mind however, having a search engine that produced only W3C validated results, even though 95% of the websites on the internet would not show up.

So here is my second thought. As a designer I want to see the cleanest possible code when I look at a site. So it makes sense that I want my code to be “perfect”. So weather google highly values W3C validation or not...I highly value it.

It makes sense to me that perfect code should be given higher value then lets say...the frontpage garbage(no offence to anyone using it) and all its brothers and sisters.

I do however have some complaints...

W3C validation doesn't seem to like embedded tables, it also doesn't like the[*](list) tag. These are some problems I've had with W3C validation, however they are probably my mistakes. Does anyone have any ideas on how to get around these problems?

Here are my validation results: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...tomatically%29

-Jason Tor

[Niko Holopainen]

Hmm, it would be very interesting for someone to compile a SE or better yet a directory sorted by region and topic of only validated sites... It might even be somewhat popular and that's always better than pushing into a crowded market. It would of course need to be global as well as contain some sort of checking on the validation to remove fakes =)

On to your other questions,

<ul>[*]X[/list]
would work I'm pretty sure, you just need to set it either as unordered list or ordered one.

Line 17, tr issue I'll skip since I'm not into tables and can't really read table based layouts well - the verbose listing provides some clues however:

Line 17, column 164: start tag for "TR" omitted, but its declaration does not permit this

...or="#ffffff" width="385" valign="top"><h1>A Leading Arizona Website Design Fi

the error about H3 is probably due to the fact that you haven't declared h2 earlier (at least it usually is).

It would be good to wrap the lines a little, it's extremely difficult to read lines of text hundreds of characters long.

I'm sure W3 accepts well formed tables even though their use is frowned upon.

I'm unfamiliar with the noscript issue but others may be able to help.

Yours truly,

[ADAM Web Design]

Line 17, your issue is here:

<table border="0" width="385" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5"><td bgcolor="#ffffff" width="385" valign="top">

This should be

<table border="0" width="385" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#ffffff" width="385" valign="top">

You're just missing a start tag, that's all.

As Niko quite rightly pointed out, your[*] tags need to be surrounded by <ul> tags.

Your noscript error is being caused by that Stat Counter code. Since you have your own domain name, your host should be providing you with some level of stats analysis. If they don't, you need a new host.

The H3 thing, I'm not totally sure of but errors like that are generally related to missing tags before them. So it may be related to the <tr> tag being missing above, or the <ul> tags that are missing as well.

[Jason Tor]

Thanks for the input, I'm validated now. (can't believe I missed those simple mistakes!)

-Jason Tor

[bbott]

My design website has many tables embedded within eachother and it validates fine. Just make sure each table has a closing tag. Also when using[*] tags.. be sure to start w/ either <ul> or

1. and always remember to close the li tags and

or[/list]tags

[clasione]

My opinion on website validation:

http://www.searchengineoptimization1...alidation.html

[sfowler]

First of all, I will admit freely that my site is not yet validated. I started, then something else came up. I do think it is worth doing though for a number of reasons: Correct code should show in every browser correctly. I have had regular probems with Mozilla not showing errors that then show up in IE. If the code was correct, then there should not be such errors.

Correct code should load faster. The ALT and TITLE tags are simple text and should not be long, so the effect should be minimal.

I can think of no good reason NOT to do it.

[Jason Tor]

Originally Posted by Jason Tor

So weather google highly values W3C validation or not...I highly value it.

The link from a PR6 doesn't hurt either.

-Jason Tor

[tcampione]

I use FP, no offense taken. I use it because I'm not a professional. And, if I could afford to hire a professional, I'd make sure he/she doesn't use it :-)

I use lots of vbscript in asp pages for reading and writing to a dbase. So, I let FP do most of the html, and I do the scripts.

I do use a lot of tables, and what I know is that the validator does not allow a bordercolor attribute or height attribute for the table tag.

I never knew it, but it seems that html4.01 says the td and tr can have height and width. The table can have width, but no height.

I ripped those two attributes out, and passed with no problem (after I had to stuff my clearpixels with alt tags!)

/*tom*/

[dilipsam]

Hello Jason,

Glad you took the intiative of cleaning up your pages.

Ok here's what I experienced with the MSN beta search (refer: http://techpreview.search.msn.com )

I rank in the second spot for a highly competitive word: zone diet but the same word along with words such as delivery ranked of course in the first page but below tough competitors. I realized MSN was recommending 4.01 HTML whereas I used Valid XHTML

So, to see what MSN does about 4.01 pages I changed XHTML to 4.01 HTML and boy, some of the other combinations moved two or three or four rankings up. Did anybody experiement this or is it too early to pass a judgement?

Regards,
Dilip Samuel

[greeneagle]

That is interesting Dilip. I can't recall anyone addressing that issue at all.

Did you make other changes on the site while converting from valid XHTML?

Ken

[dilipsam]

Hello Ken,

I can lay my bets on this: No, no content was changed because no updates were uploaded or no other pages or content underwent any changes except for the version of HTML. By the way, I'm the webmaster of that site and hence I'm dead sure.

Edit: Web Design critics, I'm actually an SEO but since all designers here were busy, I had to do the designing aspect of it: I'm no pro when it comes to designing. So excuse me in that aspect.

:-)

Regards,
Dilip Samuel

[Jason Tor]

Very interesting, I've been climbing the ranks and will let you know if I've jumped up after validating.

Ken, I also saw Adam's experiment about validation, does he have dupe content in this experiment? If so doesn't that contradict the whole point?

-Jason Tor

[greeneagle]

Jason,

I tried to point that out.

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

Ken, it was you that made the point that the w3 compliant pages were escaping the dupe content penalty (if there is such a thing). Adam did point this out in his post about the experiment.

[greeneagle]

Dave,

You really are reading something into that now! I did not say that at all. You may want to go back and re-read.

In fact I warned him that 3 pages of duplicate content in this test may hurt his top level URL, because it wasn't very likely that he had earned the dup content exclusion.

We can't seem to get anyone to discuss this exclusion or what triggers it. It has always looked like it happens around PR7 - but I am not sure.

I have simply raised the possibility that a combination of "Quality Signals" may be involved with that exemption and others.

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

I said;

Ken, it was you that made the point that the w3 compliant pages were escaping the dupe content penalty (if there is such a thing).

You said;

I did not say that at all. You may want to go back and re-read.

Ok, these are your words from page 4 of the Thread.

START OF KENS WORDS
We have examined sites that seemingly have “gross atrocity”, “mortal sin” blatant duplicate content penalty exemptions such as the cited “Zen CSS Gardens”

Why would they be granted the duplicate content exemption to this extent, otherwise?

If you don't think so go to this informative and timely Site: http://www.csszengarden.com and review countless pages of duplicate content all maintaining PR8s.

So again, explain the duplicate content exemptions for the example cited
END OF KENS WORDS

If that aint trying to make the point that validated pages are escaping the dupe content penalty, I don't know what is!

...and from Adam replying to you, to show it's not jut my understanding of your points Ken;

It may well fall under a duplicate content rule as well. In fact, I suspect it probably would. But if it does, then it "should", by your logic, take the validated page since it has more bearing

.

[fathom]

Duplicate "content" isn't a factor here as there isn't a closed loop "link wise" or direct linking between check pages... thus no pattern for Google to associate pages.

[greeneagle]

Dave you must have missed almost all of Page 4 in that thread.

After you go back and re-read page 4 I don't think you can possibly jerk me out of context again - besides it really is distracting toargue about one thread in another.

It would be interesting to follow up Dilip's comments above about what he observed between validated HTML and XHTML in his hexperience

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

After you go back and re-read page 4 I don't think you can possibly jerk me out of context again - besides it really is distracting toargue about one thread in another.

I haven't jerked you out of context Ken. They are your words, word for word. Like I said, it's not only me that read your posts in this context. There is no argument either, you said what you said. That's all folks :)

[greeneagle]

Dave since you are having so much trouble quoting me let me help you with what I said verbatim. The one I believe you are referring to is #15 from a thread recap list on page 5:

“15) We have examined sites that seemingly have “gross atrocity”, “mortal sin” blatant duplicate content penalty exemptions such as the cited “Zen CSS Gardens” Site that defies all definition of the standard “jack in the box” framework and publicly accepted understanding of a shallow, linear at best inclusion of parameters by which we try to ascribe a total understanding to the GOOGLE algs and force our opinions upon one another, even when our mentally contrived models obviously don’t fit reality.”
____________

Just prior to that on page 4:

"We already know that certain sites are exempted from duplicate content penalties such as the famous CSS ZEN site with high PR through a multitude of pages with the exact same content! What flags that exemption? How does that happen? Why do we want to pretend to know the algs when we don't?

Where and how do these exemptions come in? Do they come in through an Internal Quality Indicator Ranking? If not, high PR is not a better argument!"
___________

If you still think you are not Jerking me out of context then we have a real language barrier here, which comes as a surprise since we both live in English speaking countries.

Either you haven't read the thread? or you are just wanting to argue for argument's sake?

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

Dave since you are having so much trouble quoting me...

No problems, it was a straight copy and paste.

Like I said Ken, you were trying to make a point that validated pages were given some sort of exemption from a duplication penalty. IMO, you are wrong and wrong that validated pages are given a boots in the Google SERP's. You know it and I know it.

Comes a time to admit when you are wrong Ken.