Google Webmaster Guidelines: Do as I say and not as I do?

[bloxar]

I think that the questions here are...

Do you have something to gain by validating your html with W3C?

Should we consider W3C guidelines as standard practices to formatting your documents (HTML) when leaders on the net like Google, MS, etc. Don’t pay much attention to that?

If a mobal Phone o other devices cannot display content properly, who is out of the scope browsers or phones?


The more interesting thing about w3c is the way of DOM (Document Object Model) has to be done to archive such Standard.

But meanwhile MSIE, Mozilla, Opera, and others don’t comply with this 100% we are not going to have such Standard yet.

So why the engineers from Ebay, Google, Yahoo, and so on for example will bother to rewrite their API?

A Standard for an industry if I’m not wrong is when the leading of such industry agree to follow the use of the same procedures. I this case the DOM.

What is the scope that developers, web-designer, engineers, amateurs, etc. Stick with this rules if apparently none has very clear if is going to become the future Standard for the industry.

.....

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

special note - No offense whatsoever is meant for challenged internet users. I simply want to uncover the truth, if possible. It's in your favor too.

I agree, thanks.

As much as I like the new languages, it gets tiring when a proven web site has to be changed just because someone says the (undefined) "standards" have changed.

As "professionals" (using term lightly in my case) we relish the new scripting and formatting tools, but can get lost in them instead of doing what the customer wants, and that is a good running site. Using the latest and greatest is not necessarily required.

[janeth]

[quote="Webnauts"]I found an interview with Google Software engineer Matt Cutts here http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-11-17-n52.html were he said:

"...Google’s home page doesn’t validate and that’s mostly by design to save precious bytes. Will the world end because Google doesn’t put quotes around color attributes? No, and it makes the page load faster..."

It sounds like Google is saying their website works better and faster because it is not validated.

You want to force them into a less effective website because?

[Webnauts]

[quote="janeth"]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

It sounds like Google is saying their website works better and faster because it is not validated.
You want to force them into a less effective website because?

Before I answer that, I would prefer to ask you two questions first:

If I redesign my pesent site from tableless with valid markup back to tables with invalid markup, will my pages load faster or slower?

And is invalid markup future oriented? For example, is it possible to design web sites with invalid markup in XTML 2.0? Browsers are heading to get more and more standards compliant. So, is there a guarantee that in the future invalid markup will be rendered by them properly?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So, is there a guarantee that in the future invalid markup will be rendered by them properly?

Yes there is.

The exact same guarantee that says that the markup considered valid today will rendered properly in the future.

The exact same guarantee that says what is valid today will be valid in the future.

The exact same guarantee that says what is considered invalid markup today will remain invalid in the future.

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So, is there a guarantee that in the future invalid markup will be rendered by them properly?

Is there a guarantee that the earth will still be here tomorrow? (-;

[bloxar]

Webnauts
Wrote:
“Before I answer that, I would prefer to ask you two questions first:

If I redesign my pesent site from tableless with valid markup back to tables with invalid markup, will my pages load faster or slower?

And is invalid markup future oriented? For example, is it possible to design web sites with invalid markup in XTML 2.0? Browsers are heading to get more and more standards compliant. So, is there a guarantee that in the future invalid markup will be rendered by them properly?”


Well I have not good news for you I think.

I replicate your page doing with crappy html, violating the rules of W3C, etc.
Let’s say doing a dirty job without paying too much attention and I arrived to this result.

Your page has 15kb plus 4 embedded external files with CSS, etc.
The total of these files is 11kb.

So you have 15+11= 26 KB

My page has got 20kb with tables, and all this nasty things

So according with you which is gonna be to load faster?

It took 38 minutes to replicate you page. Most of the time was expended to mach your colors and style.

How long takes to update this page to comply with W3C?

If you like I can upload this page so you see the result.

Regards,

.....

[briguy]

What does this posting have to do with this thread? Can someone give me a roadmap to this thread I am lost or better yet a "sitemap"

Bloxar said:
Well I have not good news for you I think.

I replicate your page doing with crappy html, violating the rules of W3C, etc.
Let’s say doing a dirty job without paying too much attention and I arrived to this result.

Your page has 15kb plus 4 embedded external files with CSS, etc.
The total of these files is 11kb.

So you have 15+11= 26 KB

My page has got 20kb with tables, and all this nasty things

So according with you which is gonna be to load faster?

It took 38 minutes to replicate you page. Most of the time was expended to mach your colors and style.

How long takes to update this page to comply with W3C?

If you like I can upload this page so you see the result.

Regards,

[bloxar]

Resume:

We are discussing if by validating with W3C (using Css, Id, etc) has any advantage compared with the old traditional method (doing us you like while your site works).

Webnauts claims that by validating with W3C has a lot advantages.

To validate a site with W3C some times takes a lot of time and someone of us don’t see this advantages reflected in any way.

Webnauts to make his point had asked:

“Before I answer that, I would prefer to ask you two questions first:

If I redesign my pesent site from tableless with valid markup back to tables with invalid markup, will my pages load faster or slower?”

So before answer this question without any evidence I thought that by replicating his page with tables, etc. Will provide any evidence that you gain better performance in speed.

At the moment we have not evidence that by doing this you archive any advantage, in SERP, speed, rendering or other than have a nice logo saying validated site W3C.

If you don’t get the point yet, best re-read from the beginning.

Regards,

////

[briguy]

Yes I have been reading this thread from page One...my opinion is that what you posted was just an attack on someone else site but that is just my point of view

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Is there a guarantee that the earth will still be here tomorrow? (-;

I am sure that at least some of us, will be here at WPW tomorrow. :)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bloxar

Webnauts
Wrote:
“Before I answer that, I would prefer to ask you two questions first:

If I redesign my pesent site from tableless with valid markup back to tables with invalid markup, will my pages load faster or slower?

And is invalid markup future oriented? For example, is it possible to design web sites with invalid markup in XTML 2.0? Browsers are heading to get more and more standards compliant. So, is there a guarantee that in the future invalid markup will be rendered by them properly?”


Well I have not good news for you I think.

I replicate your page doing with crappy html, violating the rules of W3C, etc.
Let’s say doing a dirty job without paying too much attention and I arrived to this result.

Your page has 15kb plus 4 embedded external files with CSS, etc.
The total of these files is 11kb.

So you have 15+11= 26 KB

My page has got 20kb with tables, and all this nasty things

So according with you which is gonna be to load faster?

It took 38 minutes to replicate you page. Most of the time was expended to mach your colors and style.

How long takes to update this page to comply with W3C?

If you like I can upload this page so you see the result.

Regards,

.....

OK Bloxa. I think something went wrong here, if I understood you right.

I checked your web site, and I had these results:

Your total page weight is: 169.002 bytes
HTML: 73406
Images: 93579 bytes
JavaScript: 2097
Download time: 33.22 Sec with 56K Modem
Source: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s....ar/soloventa/

My page total weight is: 27402 bytes
HTML: 4764 bytes
Images: 13945 bytes
CSS: 8693 bytes
Download time: 5.96 sec with 56K Modem
Source: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s....webnauts.net/

So lets be fair now, and take out the graphics, and check the netto weight of our codes:

You page code weight: 75503 bytes
My page code weight: 13457 bytes

So your page without images weights 62046 bytes more than mine, and your markup nearly weight so much as your images, with 20173 bytes less, which is about 19.3% less.

And do you really need 62046 bytes more than me, to achieve that page layout you have?

Or did I probably checked the wrong page? I hope I have missed something here. :)

Or. Have you forgotten what happens with the cached CSS file? Those 8693 bytes of mine? And that every following page you visit on my site will weight 4764 bytes? And yours will always weight 62046 bytes? All those numbers without images. AOUCH.

And don't forget that I did not calculate that. ;)

And by the way, please upload the page. Thanks. :)

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by bloxar

I think that the questions here are...

Do you have something to gain by validating your html with W3C?

Actually, I think the question is supposed to be "What do we have to do to get Google to provide valid code when they provide code for us to place on our own web pages?"

Originally Posted by bloxar

So why the engineers from Ebay, Google, Yahoo, and so on for example will bother to rewrite their API?

That's just it; we are not asking them to rewrite their APIs. All we are asking is that they rewrite a few template files that produce things like the link codes for Google Maps and the code for AdSense in such a way that it validates according to a selected standard (HTML 4.01 Transitional, XHTML 1.0 Strict, etc.). How about ths scenario: When requesting code from them to put on your site, select the standard from a drop-down list and press the button.

[freehits]

INteresting tool webnauts, but I have a site with a "sitescore" of perfect 10 for design, and that tool gives me all warnings about too many css files scripts and everything else.

Your point about load time is 100% valid and wise, but the opinion of tools of that nature are total hit and miss.

(I dont think any of those site rating tools are much more than 'cool' or 'fun')

NOW personal wise conclusions from the data from such tools is very useful, and I have bookmarked your toy for at least that reason.

We have beat the validation threads to death, and since validation has nothing to do with order or rank in the serps, I lose interest after that fact.

been through the trenches there.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by freehits

INteresting tool webnauts, but I have a site with a "sitescore" of perfect 10 for design, and that tool gives me all warnings about too many css files scripts and everything else.

URLs?

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by janeth

Is there a guarantee that the earth will still be here tomorrow? (-;

I hope so, I have a meeting on Monday! ;-) (Long time no talk, Janeth!)

I think you are right, there really are no guarantees on any of this. None of the involved parties (W3C, Google, Microsoft, etc.) are bound to comply with anything created by any of the others. The 'Net is still pretty much a free-for-all, which has its good points and its bad points. It will be a while before we see any significant changes, in my opinion. Then again, do you remember using Netscape 4? How about Mosaic? I used to use Gopher a lot and was amazed when I found out about Lynx... (Am I showing my age?). I never would have thought to see some of the things the web has done. The growth is tremendous still, and it is difficult to see where it is headed.

[freehits]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

URLs?

Yep they have one.
;)

[freehits]

Yeah cool to see Janeth making a cameo, Greeneagle and Adam were seen having heated debates with themselves in her absence. :D

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by freehits

Yep they have one. ;)

Is the URL secret?

[freehits]

no but the point is a general one so its not really required.

I can run the IBP 4.0 analyzer, and goto sitereportcard and get a seperate opinions also, whch would leave me with 4 tools all with different opinions of the page contents.

My post was not meant to be an assessment of your assertion on his page design, just an opinion on tools of that nature that give warning statements about on page elements.

I agree with the assessments on value in page load times completely and minimalist code size.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by freehits

I can run the IBP 4.0 analyzer, and goto sitereportcard and get a seperate opinions also, whch would leave me with 4 tools all with different opinions of the page contents.

And for markup too?

[freehits]

again, if it has been shown not to matter for serp order I dont dwell on it.

was this thread to argue validation for general professionalism and forward planning? or just for ranking?

On closer look of the links you posted I do agree with most of what is said in the
"Analysis and Recommendations"

the page size is definately alot larger that I would personally be comfortable with.

I like the website though, perhaps some Stu Nichols Krazy Corners could get the page size down without losing the sharp looking boxes appeal.

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/krazy.html OR
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/snazzy.html

[janeth]

Originally Posted by freehits

Yeah cool to see Janeth making a cameo, Greeneagle and Adam were seen having heated debates with themselves in her absence. :D

LoL (-:

Hi Narasinha and Freehits it's been to long, nice to see you guys still around.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by freehits

again, if it has been shown not to matter for serp order I dont dwell on it.

was this thread to argue validation for general professionalism and forward planning? or just for ranking?

Once again: I only wish that Google would upate their site and start using valid code. In fact the only reason you won't find AdSense search on my site is because it doesn't validate. After spending the time getting my own code to validate and listing it as a benefit of having me develop a site for someone it didn't seem right to throw in some code that doesn't validate. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by freehits

On closer look of the links you posted I do agree with most of what is said in the
"Analysis and Recommendations"

the page size is definately alot larger that I would personally be comfortable with.

Good to hear that buddy. Thanks. :)

Originally Posted by freehits

I like the website though, perhaps some Stu Nichols Krazy Corners could get the page size down without losing the sharp looking boxes appeal.

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/krazy.html OR
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/boxes/snazzy.html

I absolutely agree! :)

[Webnauts]

GOOGLE PR UPDATE RUNNING!!!

We got for brand new pages PR 6 and 7!!!

[greeneagle]

You are right Webnauts, but it looks like the cutoff period was an older cache date.

I don't believe anything I have done in the last couple of weeks were effected, unless it is just happening and hasn't yet.

Ken

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

You are right Webnauts, but it looks like the cutoff period was an older cache date.

I don't believe anything I have done in the last couple of weeks were effected, unless it is just happening and hasn't yet.

Ken

It is happening. I got several new pages from PR 0 to PR6 and PR7!

I got notified at 06:02 o'clock. 32 minutes ago.

[Webnauts]

I didn't check all pages yet, but so far...

My brand new pages which had PR 0 have now:

www.webnauts.net/webceo.html PR 5
www.webnauts.net/resources.html PR 6
www.webnauts.net/resources.xml PR 6
www.webnauts.net/accessibility-testing.html PR 6
www.webnauts.net/seo.html PR 6
www.webnauts.net/about-us.html PR 6
www.webnauts.net/academy/enroll.html PR 6
http://www.webnauts.net/academy/onsi...g-seminar.html PR 6
www.webnauts.net/accessibility-need.html PR7

Older pages for P6 to PR7:
www.webnauts.net/skip-to-main-content.html PR 7

That is all I can report so far. This is not a joke!


See also here: http://www.v7n.com/forums/google-for....html?posted=1

Maybe the problem is that my site is accessible. LOL

And I am coming soon with an interesting question. I will start later a thread about that. ;)

Stay tuned. :)

[greeneagle]

It was right on time for a quarterly update. Sites that track these updates are reporting that it has been 101 days since the last Tool Bar PR update.

Ken

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

It was right on time for a quarterly update. Sites that track these updates are reporting that it has been 101 days since the last Tool Bar PR update.

Ken

That is right Ken! :)

[greeneagle]

LOL - We've wandered a bit off topic here!

Ken

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

LOL - We've wandered a bit off topic here!

Ken

You are right Ken. I was too excited. Sorry everybody.

Back to the topic!

[bloxar]

Oh! Webnauts,

I was just near to congratulate you and now what I gonna do eh?

By the way I was seen your report, and checking several sites with this tools It seems that some warnings are pretty strange.

Check ebay.com and let me know your thoughts, do you?

Anyway my congratulations to you for having been running this post so long.


Well I have to make some nasty web jobs here that usually I’ve got pay for it so I'll see you later.

Regards,


....

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bloxar

Check ebay.com and let me know your thoughts, do you?....

I am not interested in checking Ebay. I prefered checking the Webnauts Net. They had a great success at the recent Google PR update. Some samples may be viewed above in a previous post of mine.

[Webnauts]

GOOGLE IS GOING AHEAD! http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=313792

[Tubby]

'talkin abt??'

probably 'Accessible Search'.
Google is working on giving blind users a better option available from the standard google results.

It is a subject very close to webnaughts heart. . hense the large print