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

[Webnauts]

I am one among a number of web profesionals who prefers their (X)HTML, CSS, and other code to meet current web standards.
One current incentive for webmasters and designers to use clean code could be Google's Webmaster Help Center - Webmaster Guidelines.

In this document, Google presents information which they say "will help Google find, index, and rank your site." For those of us interested in SEO, this is what we want to happen.

One of their Design and Content Guidelines is as follows:

• Check for broken links and correct HTML

We all know to check for broken links. That has been an ongoing duty for webmasters since the inception of the WWW. But what about "correct" HTML?

In my view, this means "according to current standards". If your page is HTML 3.01, then mark it up as such. If you are using XHTML 1.0 strict, the markup should reflect that standard.

So then, what kind of HTML is Google using? Since so many of us (in the web business or not) use Google, shouldn't we look to them for a bit of inspiration as to how we should be constructing our web sites?

A DOCTYPE tag is presented at the top of an HTML document, before even the HTML tag itself. It provides browsers with a little hint as to how the code is to be interpreted.

A quick look at the Yahoo! home page shows that they HTML 4.01 transitional, as does DMOZ. Wikipedia uses XHTML 1.0 strict.
Interestingly enough, Google doesn't provide a DOCTYPE at all, leaving the browser to interpret the code as it sees fit. This is often referred to as "quirks mode".

The HTML 4.01 specifications, and later XHTML versions, specify that a DOCTYPE must be included. Leaving out the DOCTYPE is implying that your HTML is of a version prior to HTML 4.01.

In order for your code to be "correct" then, it must validate. Validating your code can be done any number of ways, but the simplest is to use one of the on-line validators such as the W3C Markup Validation Service.

When you have the validator examine the code from Goggle's main page, it fails, utterly and miserably. To be fair, Yahoo! also fails. DMOZ, however, is valid HTML 4.01, and Wikipedia validates as XHTML 1.0 strict.

Since Google has no DOCTYPE, the validator is left to make a "best guess" as to what type of HTML is being used. You can tell the validator to use a particular version, regardless of the DOCTYPE, but no matter which is chosen, Google fails.

How well would Google's own site be indexed by the Google search engine? Probably fairly well. Millions of pages indexed by Google do not conform to any web standards. They tell us in their guidelines that "correct HTML" can be an important issue in having our site indexed properly, yet they fail to comply with the current standards for (X)HTML.

I think it might be time for Google to "put their money where their mouth is." How about Google showing us how good they really are by bringing their HTML into the twenty-first century? It seems to me that perhaps they have been so busy with their behind-the-scenes programming that they have neglected their web interface, through which the world sees them. How easy is Google to use for someone with a screen-reader or a PDA?

Web developers frequently make use of the wide variety of tools Google has available, such as Google Maps, and AdSense. It can be very frustrating when you create a web page that meets (X)HTML and Accessibility standards only to be greeted by validation errors when you attempt to insert code provided by Google.

So, as web developers, how do we impress upon Google our desire for valid code? Perhaps this forum will provide us some small voice that might be heard by people in the right places, or we might go so far as to set up a blog in order to reach a wider audience and get more input from the community.

How do the rest of the WebProWorld community see this issue, if it is an issue at all for them? All input will be greatly appreciated.

[bj]

Google is one of the offenders, and probably the biggest since they have the most codeblocks floating around out there on other people's sites. But there are others that are just as bad. Most adserver services generate abominable copy/paste code. Google should be the leader here but others should also be paying attention. I've been happy to see that Yahoo is making the move to compliance, albeit slowly. Maybe they'll beat Google out in this instance.

Might I suggest that folks who do design and experience this problem should post urls here where the code they've created is compliant but where the added code from other sources, such as Google, creates errors in validation? This might help point to the problem, in a more dramatic way.

[Webnauts]

I was thinking of setting up a blog as you have advised in the other thread, to achieve a higher popularity. If we would keep this here, and not on a blog, then we must make this thread sticky. But I thought of waiting for the admin to show up here, and tell us if he would not mind, that we make this thread sticky. Besides, I would like to hear what the others here think too. :)

What do you think?

[incrediblehelp]

I am still confused on why we should point the finger at SE's to enforce valid code? Isn't the basic job of these search behemoths to index and rate the web, not enforce standards of the W3?

[ctabuk]

Great thread and one that deserves full attention so I will read and study.

Broken links, sadly not everyone knows the most thorough method of checking html links, so here is free tool that does just that http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I am still confused on why we should point the finger at SE's to enforce valid code? Isn't the basic job of these search behemoths to index and rate the web, not enforce standards of the W3?

I do not know any better "vacuum cleaner" than Search Engines, which can clean up the junk on the Web.

The Web is not a junk yard. It is a medium for making information available to everyone.

If sites can be found, but cannot be accessed, how can they be used? Or do you think it is funny for users who are looking for information using search engines, and they get a mass of garbage? Or exists a filter software which I can filter all that?

And you want to tell me that Search Engines have nothing to do with that? Sorry man. :)

And lets leave W3C out of this discussion, while I am just asking myself, how could we be here today discussing in WPW, if W3C have not found the markup languages and other technologies. Or would we have these discussions over the telphone or per fax?

Personally I would not be able to afford that. :)

[Webnauts]

Dear co-members,

I would appreciate if you would stay on topic. I have to delete the posts above which are off-topic. Sorry.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I am still confused on why we should point the finger at SE's to enforce valid code? Isn't the basic job of these search behemoths to index and rate the web, not enforce standards of the W3?

The job of the Search Engines is not to enforce the standards of W3C. But "the one hand washes the other, and both hands wash the face".

The job of the search engines is to gather information from the web and to provide us the opportunity to search and find it.

If we did not have W3C markup languages, we would have not be able to provide search engines with that information.

If there were no web designers to create web sites with those W3C technologies, search engines would not exist either.

Therefore, if all above were missing, we would all not be here at WPW either. :)

Am I still not clear enough?

[incrediblehelp]

Very clear here, but if the SE were to factor in the validity of the code for all websites it has indexed the search results would be very different and probably worse. Why would a more valid website be more relevant? It wouldn't and their in lies the issue and problems for the search engines.

The relevancy of the SERP"s is so much more important to them than whether a website is valid or not.

Now if all things were consider for tow websites and most current SEO factors were equal: relevancy, content, IBL's, etc and then they choose to list one website over another because it was more valid than the other, feel free to. It will never get more than that.

[A. Smith]

From a lay person's point of view, the bottom line is that using obsolete code is going to hurt you. Customers have gotten used to pages that load fast, smoothly, have certain quality of graphics, etc. Personally, when I encounter a site that has obviously not been updated in a long time, I just move on. If they can't keep up, then I wonder what kind of service I'll be getting.

[janeth]

Google looks good in every browser I've ever seen them in and seem to be making a lot more money than me. So who am I to tell them to validate their code?

If you add a little flash into your site header then it will no longer validate.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Very clear here, but if the SE were to factor in the validity of the code for all websites it has indexed the search results would be very different and probably worse. Why would a more valid website be more relevant? It wouldn't and their in lies the issue and problems for the search engines.

The relevancy of the SERP"s is so much more important to them than whether a website is valid or not.

Now if all things were consider for tow websites and most current SEO factors were equal: relevancy, content, IBL's, etc and then they choose to list one website over another because it was more valid than the other, feel free to. It will never get more than that.

I would like to add my previous quotation (banknote) once again here:

• I do not know any better "vacuum cleaner" than Search Engines, which can clean up the junk on the Web.

I think I need to covert my banknote into coins here:

How much percent of those bad marked-up high quality web sites owners would not bother cleaning up their code, if search engines would require that for indexing.

And so much percent of garbage will be ripped off the Web.

So once again to my other previous question:

• If sites can be found, but cannot be accessed, how can they be used? Or do you think it is funny for users who are looking for information using search engines, and they get a mass of garbage? Or exists a filter software which I can filter all that?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Google looks good in every browser I've ever seen them in and seem to be making a lot more money than me. So who am I to tell them to validate their code?

Do you want to say here that every site that looks good in every browser, is accessible to everybody too?

For example to these users who

• * use speech browsers or eyes busy/hands busy, as businessmen in cars;
  * don't have the latest graphical browsers and plug-ins;
  * surf with slow modems, or reside in rural or remote areas with limited access to the Internet;
  * browse without graphics, using text-only browsers or subscribe to non-graphic services;
  * access in noisy, high- or low-light environments;

or users with disabilities as with

• * visual - blind, low vision, color blind;
  * auditory - deaf, hard of hearing;
  * motor/physical - paraplegic;
  * cognitive/learning - dyslexic, learning disabled.

Originally Posted by janeth

If you add a little flash into your site header then it will no longer validate.

Excuse me?

[janeth]

Webnauts, Are you saying that every site that validates is accessible to?

• * visual - blind, low vision, color blind;
  * auditory - deaf, hard of hearing;
  * motor/physical - paraplegic;
  * cognitive/learning - dyslexic, learning disabled.

Originally Posted by janeth

If you add a little flash into your site header then it will no longer validate.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Excuse me?

What would I be excusing you for, can you give a little more information?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by A. Smith

From a lay person's point of view, the bottom line is that using obsolete code is going to hurt you. Customers have gotten used to pages that load fast, smoothly, have certain quality of graphics, etc.

Are you saying that Google loads slowly?

Originally Posted by A. Smith

Personally, when I encounter a site that has obviously not been updated in a long time, I just move on. If they can't keep up, then I wonder what kind of service I'll be getting.

What does a site validating have to do with when it was last updated?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Webnauts, Are you saying that every site that validates is accessible to?

• * visual - blind, low vision, color blind;
  * auditory - deaf, hard of hearing;
  * motor/physical - paraplegic;
  * cognitive/learning - dyslexic, learning disabled.

It is a minimum requirement for web content accessibility, that the markup validates. And in the real world in the most cases are like that too.

But the discussion here is not to convince google to require the web site owners to achieve a certain level of accessibility. But valid code could improve the accessibility of those sites.

What would I be excusing you for, can you give a little more information?

What about having a look at these resources :)
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/flash/index.php
http://ncam.wgbh.org/publications/adm/
http://www.adobe.com/macromedia/acce...flash/faq.html

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Are you saying that Google loads slowly?

And my question to you Janeth: Does Google crawl faster or slower?

[greeneagle]

Janeth,

For the record, you can install Flash on a page and get it to validate. It took a while, but here is how I did it:
http://www.tubeltechnologies.com/
Ken