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

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

You went around that question. LoL

You asked me a question and I asked you the same question.

The answer is no, I’m not sure what your saying about in the real world most cases are like that too.

But the answer to the question is no, making a site validate will not make the blind man see, nor will it help you rank better.

As a matter of fact I’ve herd many people talk about how bad their sites got after they validated them.

It could, or it could not.

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

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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

I'll have a look at them but I'll also tell you this, about two years ago on this same forum there was the same topic and I posted the samething.

People from this forum tried to validate the flash and posted links and in the end they could not get it to validate.

If I remember correctly one of those people was Fathom, but in the end he could not make it validate either. I'm sure you can find the old topic if you would like to check it for yourself.

I’ve removed the flash from the header before and made the whole site validate, sales went down not up.

A site that validates is not always faster and better then one that does not.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm sure things have changed since the last time I tried (-;

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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

Are you saying that Google not validating their site makes their bot crawl slower. (-:

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 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

The guys at the office just told me that the flash on Geeks On Steroids does validate, so I guess I'm just a little behind with the flash stuff.

My bad.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

But the answer to the question is no, making a site validate will not make the blind man see, nor will it help you rank better.

Did I mention only blind users? Heh?

Originally Posted by janeth

As a matter of fact I’ve herd many people talk about how bad their sites got after they validated them.

Where they professional designers? Allow me to have my doubts about that Janeth. ;)

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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.

Originally Posted by janeth

It could, or it could not.

And where is the problem about that?

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?

Originally Posted by janeth

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

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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

Originally Posted by janeth

People from this forum tried to validate the flash and posted links and in the end they could not get it to validate.

If I remember correctly one of those people was Fathom, but in the end he could not make it validate either. I'm sure you can find the old topic if you would like to check it for yourself.

Two years ago? You mean 2004? That infomation is out-dated and deprecated?

Originally Posted by janeth

I’ve removed the flash from the header before and made the whole site validate, sales went down not up.

Sales went down because of that? Then it was not accessible. If you read the rescourses I mentioned above, you might will understand what I mean.

Originally Posted by janeth

A site that validates is not always faster and better then one that does not.

I did not say that. Was that probably A.Smith?

I asked if Google would crawl faster, or slower. :)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Are you saying that Google not validating their site makes their bot crawl slower. (-:

I just asked you if it is so. While I don't know. :)

[janeth]

[quote="Webnauts"]

Originally Posted by janeth

But the answer to the question is no, making a site validate will not make the blind man see, nor will it help you rank better.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Did I mention only blind users? Heh?

No but they were the first on the list and as far as I got. (-;

Originally Posted by janeth

As a matter of fact I’ve herd many people talk about how bad their sites got after they validated them.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Where they professional designers? Allow me to have my doubts about that Janeth. ;)

Can you define what a professional designer is?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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.

Originally Posted by janeth

It could, or it could not.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And where is the problem about that?

I'm not saying I have a problem with people that choose to validate there site only a problem with people that choose I should validate my sites or Google their's(-;

The flash in the header I already said I was wrong on and even said my own flash validates, guess my team was a head of me. (-:

[crankydave]

These threads always get interesting. :)

Webnauts, perhaps you could start with the forum you mod. This thread alone has 190 errors. :)

I'm not a carpenter but I can build some pretty useful things even though a true carpenter could point out what was wrong.

Doesn't make what I build any less useful or desirable.

I can appreciate those who wish nothing but valid code, but I'm not a huge fan of those who insist I be a "carpenter" or what I build is junk because I'm not.

Dave

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I can appreciate those who wish nothing but valid code, but I'm not a huge fan of those who insist I be a "carpenter" or what I build is junk because I'm not.

YES!

[murphypj]

Webnauts wrote:

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?

Accepted: Valid code is preferable to buggy code.
Not accepted: Code with validation errors is 'garbage'

I'm with CrankyDave and Incrediblehelp on this one. I'd be willing to bet that most of the sites ( mainly new adsense scrapers ) I would consider to be garbage would pass validation with flying colours.

Sure, if a site is unreadable and the links don't work, visitors will bounce - including the SE bots; but if the content is good, easy to find and readable, even if the design and coding standard is less than professional ( I might have a certain site in mind.... ), then visitors ( and Google et al. ) are entitled to say 'Nice site!', without getting anal about the coding.

I realise this forum is mainly used by professional web designers and SEO consultants, but it is also a very valuable learning tool for amateur webmasters, who provide a hefty amount of the 'relevant content' ( seperate topic, I know... ) on the web.

Perhaps G should only allow validated sites on their 'Sponsored Links', and let content rule on the 'real web'....

PJ

[bloxar]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am one among a number of web profesionals who prefers their (X)HTML, CSS, and other code to meet current web standards.

Hello webnauts,

Fist at all welcome to the real world.

Why are you talking about standard and clean code if such thing probably never exist?

Tell me, what browser follows 100% W3C Guidelines as standard?

I understand a standard for an industry a procedures that produces same results and same quality outputs.

Have you ever heard about DOMs (Document Object Model) Firefox uses his own claiming that is 100% W3C compatible when it’s not, MSIE (Bill) has his own version, Opera well opera thanks and the rest be happy if you can see a page with it.

CSS is not recognized by all browsers in the same way, why?

Try to make a cross browser API and you will see how painfully can be to archive such task.

To make things more clear there is no such standard, because browser makers are not implementing a standard DOM.

So what is the sense to talk about something that doesn’t exit?

Google doesn’t care because has no sense at all it's just to entertain us and make a lot of people talk about Google as we are doing now.

Are you comfortable using tables, well use it no problem as far browsers can display your page.
Do you prefer CSS approach well use it what is the problem as far your pages are viewed correctly.


Regards,


.........

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

But the answer to the question is no, making a site validate will not make the blind man see, nor will it help you rank better.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Did I mention only blind users? Heh?

Originally Posted by janeth

No but they were the first on the list and as far as I got. (-;

So does that mean that users with other disabilities don't need to access our content?

Originally Posted by janeth

Can you define what a professional designer is?

Not in this thread Janeth. I would suggest you to open a new thread, and PM me the link. That can turn out in an interesting discussion. Or should I do that?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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.

Originally Posted by janeth

It could, or it could not.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And where is the problem about that? I know for example that my site http://www.webnauts.net is site-wide fully validated without errors or warnings, and passed all automatic and real users (blind, dyslexics, motoric, color blind so far) tests for its high level accessibility and usability for accessibility requirements. Why should that not work for other sites too? Does that maybe have to do with the kwoledge and experience of the designer? If not, then with what?

Originally Posted by janeth

I'm not saying I have a problem with people that choose to validate there site only a problem with people that choose I should validate my sites or Google their's(-;

Can you be more specific what your problem is? I guess I don't get your point.

But I still want to ask here: If search engines would ever setup standards as W3C did, and they would be able to validate your sites to comform, would you dare to violate them? Or if someone would say that it is OK to violate them, would you have a problem with that? I am very curious now. :)

Originally Posted by janeth

The flash in the header I already said I was wrong on and even said my own flash validates, guess my team was a head of me. (-:[/color]

Then you team rules. Congrats to them. :)
But this story confused me a bit. You said that, since you managed to make your flash file to validate, you experienced a loss? Sorry, but I don't get it again.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So does that mean that users with other disabilities don't need to access our content?

No not at all but a site does not have to validate inorder to be accessiable to someone with a disablilitie.

Originally Posted by janeth

Can you define what a professional designer is?

Not in this thread Janeth. I would suggest you to open a new thread, and PM me the link. That can turn out in an interesting discussion. Or should I do that?[/quote]

I'll let you have that one. (-:

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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.

Originally Posted by janeth

It could, or it could not.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And where is the problem about that? I know for example that my site http://www.webnauts.net is site-wide fully validated without errors or warnings, and passed all automatic and real users (blind, dyslexics, motoric, color blind so far) tests for its high level accessibility and usability for accessibility requirements. Why should that not work for other sites too? Does that maybe have to do with the kwoledge and experience of the designer? If not, then with what?

It has to do with rather or not the site owner feels that field is big enough to take the time to code the site for as well as the knowledge and experience of the designer.

But a site does not have to validate inorder to be accessibile in those areas.

Originally Posted by janeth

I'm not saying I have a problem with people that choose to validate there site only a problem with people that choose I should validate my sites or Google their's(-;

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you be more specific what your problem is? I guess I don't get your point.

But I still want to ask here: If search engines would ever setup standards as W3C did, and they would be able to validate your sites to comform, would you dare to violate them? Or if someone would say that it is OK to violate them, would you have a problem with that? I am very curious now. :)

If it helped my site rank and or get traffic I would validate all my sites. But I don't see that ever happening.

Originally Posted by janeth

The flash in the header I already said I was wrong on and even said my own flash validates, guess my team was a head of me. (-:[/color]

Then you team rules. Congrats to them. :)
But this story confused me a bit. You said that, since you managed to make your flash file to validate, you experienced a loss? Sorry, but I don't get it again.[/quote]

We removed the flash from the site about 2 years ago and did see a small drop in sells at that time. It was not that the flash validated but that there was no flash.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

These threads always get interesting. :)

Webnauts, perhaps you could start with the forum you mod. This thread alone has 190 errors. :)

You can be sure that our admins are observing this thread. I am only a Mod here, and I have no decision rights. If I did, I would hire myself and my team to clean up the markup errors of this forum. :)

Originally Posted by crankydave

I'm not a carpenter but I can build some pretty useful things even though a true carpenter could point out what was wrong.

Doesn't make what I build any less useful or desirable.

I can appreciate those who wish nothing but valid code, but I'm not a huge fan of those who insist I be a "carpenter" or what I build is junk because I'm not.

Dave

And Dave I think it would be better if I would just recommend you and everyone else here to read some on-topic valuable recourses abou these issues.

1. HTML Validation: Being Friendly to Search Engines & Browsers
2. What Every Web Site Owner Should Know About Standards
3. Web Standards Switch or how to improve your Web site easily
4. Keeping web standards homogenous is very important
5. Why buy standards compliant Web sites

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

YES!

Did I mention anywhere in this thread that only professional web designers who can build accessible, findable and usable web sites? Maybe someone got me wrong. If someone learned and made experience in professional web design as a hobby, doesn't mean that he can do great web sites as a professional does.

So I don't get the message here... Could it be that someone here feels offended because his site does not validate? :)

To resume, if you can do the same good work a professional carpenter does, what you build is for sure not junk.

If you can do the same good work a professional web designer does, your work is also not junk.

I think you must look for some more sophisticated arguments about this issue. Don't you think?

[corvettehunt]

Regarding Google, I once wrote them about this issue, and they replied that they'd "pass on my observations to an engineer for review into the matter". That was 18 months ago...

On topic, just the other day, I was coaching some developers for a local university in the practicality of using web standards and accesibility guides. I even posted the small course I gave them about the subject:

http://www.universidadperu.com/artic...sidad-peru.php
(Sorry - In spanish only)

As I tried to come up with a few websites to serve as an example, it made for a hard time to find some. So I turned to a web directory I know which only features pages that have taken their time to make accesible websites, and I took a few examples.

My students complained at first that it was too difficult, but after an hour or so, they were actually thrilled that by using standards, you could simplify enormously your web programming code, make it far easier to manage and update it, and also, save up to 70% in bandwidth (at least in the project they were working), because of the standarization.

Also, from a SEO standpoint, less clutter = more keywords exposure, although to be fair, I didn't want to show them any SEO knowledge or tricks, I wanted to keep them to myself... ;)

[Webnauts]

[quote="murphypj"]Webnauts wrote:

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?

Originally Posted by murphypj

Accepted: Valid code is preferable to buggy code.
Not accepted: Code with validation errors is 'garbage'

OK. Maybe not garbage. Maybe inconsistent and dangerous?

Originally Posted by murphypj

I'm with CrankyDave and Incrediblehelp on this one. I'd be willing to bet that most of the sites ( mainly new adsense scrapers ) I would consider to be garbage would pass validation with flying colours.

Once again. If Google would require from them valid code as I mentioned above, do you think they would not try to comform?

Originally Posted by murphypj

Sure, if a site is unreadable and the links don't work, visitors will bounce - including the SE bots; but if the content is good, easy to find and readable, even if the design and coding standard is less than professional ( I might have a certain site in mind.... ), then visitors ( and Google et al. ) are entitled to say 'Nice site!', without getting anal about the coding.

Can you guarantee
* that erroreous markup can be future-proof?
* that it can not cause any problems in terms of browsers compatibility, and other devices? PDAs, Mobile, etc?
* that it can not be a reason that can hinder search engines from indexing a site properly?
* that it cannot cause problems for users with disabilities using different devices?

Originally Posted by murphypj

I realise this forum is mainly used by professional web designers and SEO consultants, but it is also a very valuable learning tool for amateur webmasters, who provide a hefty amount of the 'relevant content' ( seperate topic, I know... ) on the web.

Great to hear that! :)

Originally Posted by murphypj

Perhaps G should only allow validated sites on their 'Sponsored Links', and let content rule on the 'real web'....

That could be a good start. Better than nothing.

But in our directory, opening for submissions on the 15th this month, we require all submitters to conform, and not only the ones with sponsored links.

[bloxar]

Originally Posted by corvettehunt

My students complained at first that it was too difficult, but after an hour or so, they were actually thrilled that by using standards, you could simplify enormously your web programming code, make it far easier to manage and update it, and also, save up to 70% in bandwidth (at least in the project they were working), because of the standarization.

I don’t get the idea yet about the approach of using W3C guidelines to reduce bandwidth.
If you are a programmer and you want to reduce bandwidth for example with PHP use ob_start("ob_gzhandler");

You will get at least 50% of bandwidth reduction by using Gzip engine.


..........

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bloxar

I don’t get the idea yet about the approach of using W3C guidelines to reduce bandwidth.

Then have a look here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/tech#server

Originally Posted by bloxar

If you are a programmer and you want to reduce bandwidth for example with PHP use ob_start("ob_gzhandler");

You will get at least 50% of bandwidth reduction by using Gzip engine.

And much more, if you would do what the above link explains.

We at Webnauts Net use both options. Check our speed yourself if you want.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by corvettehunt

Also, from a SEO standpoint, less clutter = more keywords exposure, although to be fair, I didn't want to show them any SEO knowledge or tricks, I wanted to keep them to myself... ;)

If it's so good for the Search Engines, then why was it so hard to find these sites on the Search Engines? (-:

[bloxar]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

But in our directory, opening for submissions on the 15th this month, we require all submitters to conform, and not only the ones with sponsored links.[/b]

Well you site seems to not be quite accessible from my point of view of course even if you say that was validate with W3C.

You site hangs because of your pthumbnails.alexa.com link, this is your idea of accessible site?

I don’t get it yet?

Can you explain to me what you mean when you talk about accessible site?

.........

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

But in our directory, opening for submissions on the 15th this month, we require all submitters to conform, and not only the ones with sponsored links.[/b]

I'm going to build one that requires everyone not to conform. (-:

Just playing, really though your directory idea sounds like a really good idea.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bloxar

Why are you talking about standard and clean code if such thing probably never exist?

What about our web site? Can you point me out the opposite please? I love to receive bug reports. You can freely publish them here. ;)

Originally Posted by bloxar

Tell me, what browser follows 100% W3C Guidelines as standard?

Better tell me, with which browser do you have problems viewing our web site?

Originally Posted by bloxar

I understand a standard for an industry a procedures that produces same results and same quality outputs.

Good to hear that.

Originally Posted by bloxar

Have you ever heard about DOMs (Document Object Model) Firefox uses his own claiming that is 100% W3C compatible when it’s not, MSIE (Bill) has his own version, Opera well opera thanks and the rest be happy if you can see a page with it.

I repeat: Tell me, with which browser do you have problems viewing our web site?

Originally Posted by bloxar

CSS is not recognized by all browsers in the same way, why?

That is not an argument. Sorry. The web is a medium for sharing content. And if the content is accessible, why should it look the same? I don't get that. Try my site with any browser like for example Lynx, HotJava or Netscape 4 or other, and tell me if you could not retrieve the content you would looking for.

Originally Posted by bloxar

Try to make a cross browser API and you will see how painfully can be to archive such task.

To make things more clear there is no such standard, because browser makers are not implementing a standard DOM.

So what is the sense to talk about something that doesn’t exit?

I thought the discussion here is about web site, and not software development. Or?

And standards for web site development exist, and they rule!

Originally Posted by bloxar

Google doesn’t care because has no sense at all it's just to entertain us and make a lot of people talk about Google as we are doing now.

Can you provide us with evidences about this statement? Are you probably working at Google? Is that insider information?

Originally Posted by bloxar

Are you comfortable using tables, well use it no problem as far browsers can display your page.
Do you prefer CSS approach well use it what is the problem as far your pages are viewed correctly.

Using tables is not a violation of the Web Standards. It is valid HTML markup. What do you want to say here?

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by bloxar

Why are you talking about standard and clean code if such thing probably never exist?

The standards (for HTML/XHTML/CSS/ECMAScript, etc., exist, and clean code definitely exists.

Originally Posted by bloxar

Tell me, what browser follows 100% W3C Guidelines as standard?

I think Amaya is pretty close. It also depends on which version of the standards you want supported.

Originally Posted by bloxar

Opera well opera thanks and the rest be happy if you can see a page with it.

I use Opera every day and have no problem viewing pages. Opera even passes the Web Standards Project's Acid 2 test.

Originally Posted by bloxar

To make things more clear there is no such standard, because browser makers are not implementing a standard DOM.
So what is the sense to talk about something that doesn’t exit?

The DOM standard exists. If a browser doesn't support it properly, then we, as users and as developers, need to tell the browser developers what we want from them.

Originally Posted by bloxar

Google doesn’t care because has no sense at all it's just to entertain us and make a lot of people talk about Google as we are doing now.

Just to entertain us? Simply as a search engine, Google has risen to become one of the most-used tools on the planet. This doesn't even include their many other projects. Yes, I agree that being able to have the Google interface in Pig Latin is pretty much just for entertainment value, but many people's businesses rely on Google in one way or another.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bloxar

You site hangs because of your pthumbnails.alexa.com link, this is your idea of accessible site?

I don’t get it yet?

Can you explain to me what you mean when you talk about accessible site?

You are talking about our directory which is still under construction. Not about our web site which is already done. Or?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I'm going to build one that requires everyone not to conform. (-:

That is not fair Janeth. Then our web site cannot be included. Well... shit happens. LOL

Originally Posted by janeth

Just playing, really though your directory idea sounds like a really good idea.

LOL. I know you are kdding Janeth. I am glad that you like the idea. :)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

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

Will this not validate?

A method suggested by Bert Doorn seems excellent, and is very simple:

<object data="whatever.swf" width="480" height="60" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">
<param name="movie" value="example.swf" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#fff" />
<a href="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0"> [img]example.gif[/img]
</a>
</object>

The nice thing is that non-flash content is placed on lines 4-6, with or without the link to download.

Also see here: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

I know Janeth that you flash file validates now. But this info can be useful for others here: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

[bloxar]

Sorry but I think you are confusing with the terms standards, code, clean code, etc.

Standard in IT to be more precise a similar method used by the industry to produce a similar result tested widely and approved by the industry.

Code: Jargon utilized in the IT industry to describe instruction given to perform certain actions to make a program. HTML is not included as a programming language is just a way to format text, as far I know.

Clean code: Jargon utilized by the IT industry to describe code well written free of bugs.


You: Better tell me, with which browser do you have problems viewing our web site?

Me: better you tell me with which browser you have problem viewing this site www.soloventa.com.ar and have more than 300 error reported by the W3C validator and is second for the keyword comprar vender in Spanish?


Me: CSS is not recognized by all browsers in the same way, why?

You: That is not an argument. Sorry. The web is a medium for sharing content. And if the content is accessible, why should it look the same? I don't get that. Try my site with any browser like for example Lynx, HotJava or Netscape 4 or other, and tell me if you could not retrieve the content you would looking for.

me:This is a valid argument because It makes the point that there is not such Standard else if a standard exist you should see the same thing because the browser use the same standard Document Object Model (DOMs).

Standards are not making by MIT or some gurus, the standards are making by browsers makers as Bill (MSIE, Mozilla org, Netscape, etc. In other words the Industry.



You: I thought the discussion here is about web site, and not software development. Or?
And standards for web site development exist, and they rule!


Me: Sorry but most sites on these days are generated dynamically by APIs like this forum, static html pages are becoming an old thing like a browser that only display text.


Me: Google doesn’t care because has no sense at all it's just to entertain us and make a lot of people talk about Google as we are doing now.

You: Can you provide us with evidences about this statement? Are you probably working at Google? Is that insider information?

Me: I don’t need to be an insider or a guru to prove that you already had pointed out by starting this discussion and the better evidence of that is that the sites better raking and with more pages indexed don’t pass the W3C validation test. Do you need more evidence? is a fact nothing to to prove.


You: Using tables is not a violation of the Web Standards. It is valid HTML markup. What do you want to say here?


Me:
I do agree that tables, etc are no violating web Standard because doesn’t exist such standard yet, as far I know.

Some gurus say that as many of other arguments to back the theory about the famous Standard.

We (programmers) love standards specially when you talk about browsers this will make our lives more easy.

My point is, why confusing people with things like, standard code, crappy code, etc. If in the end their sites are so accessible like yours?

IF a mobal phone device or other browser cannot render a web site, accessible by MSIE, Firefox or NETSCAPE sorry then this device wouldn’t be sell as a browser API. Improve your API, update bandwidth, sell chocolates, rings tones.

This is a big discussion among programmers, and for that none cares about second line browsers all are crappy coded.

Please don’t take my words as if I’m against you or something like that.

Is just that I don’t understand the point to tell to a beginner webmaster that his/her site is crappy because W3C cannot validated his site.

When W3C got developed its own browser and become widely used I will start to agree with you.


Regards,

........

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bloxar

Me: better you tell me with which browser you have problem viewing this site www.soloventa.com.ar and have more than 300 error reported by the W3C validator and is second for the keyword comprar vender in Spanish?

HotJava 3 Browser.

About the rest of your comments, I will get back to them, after I get some hours of sleep. :)

[bloxar]

OK, get some nice dreams meanwhile look what HotJava (sun) tells about its browser...

HotJava Browser

http://java.sun.com/products/archive/hotjava/index.html

“Sun is providing the products available below as a courtesy to developers for problem resolution. The products available here have completed the Sun EOL process and are no longer supported under standard support contracts.

These products are down-revision products that may have various bugs, Y2000, and possibly security issues associated with them. Sun in no way recommends these products be used in a live, production environment. Any use of product on this page is at the sole discretion of the developer and Sun assumes no responsiblity for any resulting problems. “

I think although if “responsibility” is miss spelling you should not consider this as a standard browser.



About CSS:

Extracted from:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
CSS Browsers

The easiest way to start experimenting with style sheets is to download one of the browsers that support CSS. Not all of the browsers below implement the full specification, but releases are coming out fast so this should soon change. Various sites describe bugs and work-arounds.


So, it is not a standard yet. If all browsers cannot render the same thing, for me is not a standard.
Sorry it’s the way it is.


About DOM (Document Object Model)

Even tough in theory a DOM is described as standard to accessing and manipulated and render objects in the structure of a document this is not completely true.

MSIE has its own version (proprietary methods) on how to access some elements as Firefox has its own too.
If elements are not accessible in the some way, why I should consider this a standard?

If a standard exist in browsers, all should render the some thing exactly as a result of using the same criteria (standard). All browser should have the same capabilities is what I mean for Standard Object model.

Why I should bother to detects browsers if there is a standard DOM.
Am I nut?

Standard means compatibility because all browsers use the same methods and have same capabilities.

And please don’t think about this just for a simple HTML page you don have to bother if you are planning to make a white page with some text in it.
Surely will be accessible for all majors browsers.

About Amaya and other browsers:

Who really cares about AMAYA browser, very funny some developers and web designers even care about Mozilla or Netscape. And you expect that people think in AMAYA and HOTJAVA?


So as long your documents are accessible for the 3 big guys you are pretty standardized and the rest of browsers have to find out their way or sell chocolates.

Regards,

[TrafficProducer]

Do as I say and not as I do?

Yes, I agree..

I'm sure I heard, maybe from Google, that websites should not link to any more that x number of sites.

x ( I can't remeber off-hand how many )

And here' Google linking to millions of sites....

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by bloxar

About CSS:

Extracted from:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
CSS Browsers

.
.
.

So, it is not a standard yet. If all browsers cannot render the same thing, for me is not a standard.
Sorry it’s the way it is.

I think perhaps we are running into problems with how our languages define certain terms. The CSS standards exist, but not all browsers support all of the standards in the same way, yet. This is not a fault of the stadards or their developers, it is the fault of the browser developers.

The latest verions of Opera (Opera 9) supports all of CSS1, and supports nearly all of CSS2 (only six items unsupported). Please see Web Secifications Supported in Opera 9 for detailed information about the standards and specifications supported.

Originally Posted by bloxar

Standard means compatibility because all browsers use the same methods and have same capabilities.

The standard is a reference frame. Whether the browsers have all or part of the capabilities is up to them.

Originally Posted by bloxar

About Amaya and other browsers:

Who really cares about AMAYA browser, very funny some developers and web designers even care about Mozilla or Netscape. And you expect that people think in AMAYA and HOTJAVA?

So as long your documents are accessible for the 3 big guys you are pretty standardized and the rest of browsers have to find out their way or sell chocolates.

Regards,

Well, I care about Amaya, and I care about Opera and Firefox too. I have much less care for IE because I do not use it at all. I cannot use it because I use a Linux desktop system, which Microsoft will never support.