Tables to CSS, W3C validation and Search Engines

[Webnauts]

If I will redo a site, switching from tables entirely to CSS and I also make it W3C compliant, can that be something that emerges?

Could it be that the cleaner the code is, that Google and the search engines will get a better idea of what the site is about?

What do you think?

[GiorgosK]

If nothing else the code would be much lighter

and you can put your CSS in a seperate file that will be downloaded once for the whole site.

I am sure spiders appreciate this and will probably eases their job.

[wige]

My understanding is that content is weighted based on how far down the document it is - content closer to the beginning of the file is considered more important. By switching to a CSS design method, you get two advantages. You remove code overhead, that results in all your content moving a little bit closer to the beginning of the document, and you also have the ability to change the order items are displayed. For example, on my main web site, the navigation and headers which browsers render first are actually the last thing in the page. I use CSS to move these less important elements to the bottom of the file, which would not be possible in a tabled layout.

There is another issue, that might mitigate this advantage, however. Searching through Google Webmaster Help a few days ago, I found a question about the "100 link limit" that is in the webmaster guidelines. The response was that the 100 link limit was made up, based on a cache limit. Originally, the spider would only index the first 10k of a document, and over 100 links would make the document longer and some parts of the page would not be indexed. (Not sure how the two concepts really relate, myself) However, that limit has become meaningless because the limit was raised several years ago to 100k, and now spiders index (and run the discovery process) on the first 500k. Depending on the importance of a page (probably a reference to the page rank), spiders may even index documents of up to 1Mb.

[mjtaylor]

I did that recently on a site and it slipped in the search engines. I think when the site was redone, the keyword density was too high ... removing all the bloated code changed the ratio. I am adjusting the keyword density (please don't tell anyone I used that term ;0) and we'll see if that helps.

In prior experiences, positions have improved; this was the first time going to CSS seemed to have a negative effect.

Cheers, MJ

[dharrison]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

keyword density was too high ...

Wash your mouth out child!

I wouldn't say that CSS and validation = search engines is the be all and end all: we have all seen sites written in Frontpage that are #1. but I do agree there is the advantage of main content being more prominent in the page.

Furthermore, I also feel that CSS and W3C validation widens your audience, and that is always a good thing.

[Webnauts]

Well I see you that you all would not agree with me, if I say that tableless CSS and valid code can improve your rankings.

Therefore you do agree with Bruce Clay and Google either:

Originally Posted by Bruce Clay

When I redid my site, I switched from tables entirely to CSS. I also made it W3C compliant. That may be something that emerges. I was moderating a panel at adTech and Google said that the cleaner the code, chances are the search engines will get a better idea of what your site is about. From that point of view, go to CSS because it's simpler.

Source: Organic Listings Forum: SES, San Jose 2007 » PageTraffic Blog

Anyway...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dharrison

Wash your mouth out child!

I wouldn't say that CSS and validation = search engines is the be all and end all: we have all seen sites written in Frontpage that are #1. but I do agree there is the advantage of main content being more prominent in the page.

Furthermore, I also feel that CSS and W3C validation widens your audience, and that is always a good thing.

Today a customer called me telling me that his site made with FP have dropped all at it sudden from #1 to he does not know where, without doing anything on the site.

[rumblepup]

John,

Sorry my friend, but table based design IS W3C compliant.

Table layout has not be depreciated. It is permitted in HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. There is a Tables Modules in XHTML 2.0 that allows complex content in the cells.

Here is a link

Tables in HTML documents

11.1 Introduction to tables

The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells.

So a tableless design in not necessarily the end all be all.

Further, both Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox have publicly said that Googlebot can and does strip html from content.
On an interview with Rand Fishkin, right here at WebProNews, she said that it doesn't matter how much code, or bloated code is in a document, Googlebot can read the content. Matt Cutts has gone on record saying that W3C standards don't mean much to Search Results.

Now for Yahoo and MSN, it might be VERY important to have as little code as possible to mess up their bots. Not so much for Google.

Now that I just read that, Bruce Clay was the ONLY SEO who noticed anthing. I remember that meeting cause I was there.

Here is the entire quote

Q: I have a text driven site and I have dynamic pages that I need to optimize to get into the top 10 in most of them. I was wondering if there's significant advantage of CSS over tables and if I should take that fight to my IT department.
Greg: Yes, you should, only because that's how the web progressive and that's how we roll these days. I don't think there's an SEO benefit but I think it's important to follow and maintain some of those standards. If your website is using the font tag, that's bad becasue it's deprecated. Can you make an argument that you can rank way better? Not really. I wish that search engines did reward valid code but they don't.
Dave: Way back, if you had a lot of elements inside of your table, the page wouldn't render until everything loaded. It's about user experience too.
Jill: The bottom line is that it's not going to affect your SEO. If it's a big deal to revamp your site, don't do it.

That is Greg Boser, Dave Naylor, and Jill Whalen. Bruce Clay might be one of the greatest SEO's around, but he's not the only one, and he's sitting up there with EQUALS.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by rumblepup

John,

Sorry my friend, but table based design IS W3C compliant.

Table layout has not be depreciated. It is permitted in HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. There is a Tables Modules in XHTML 2.0 that allows complex content in the cells.

Here is a link

Tables in HTML documents

First, I never said that tables are obsolete! But if we are going deeper in this issue, you better read what are tables made for. Tables are used for the presentation of tabular data and not web page layout. Period.

About Vanessa, Matt and Rand I only would like to say here, that I do not take everything they tell for granted. And I am sure other experts do not either.

I cought them all telling certain stories which were at a certain point far beyond the reality.

If you want to backup something, please avoid referring me to certain persons statements, and stick on facts.

And about Bruce, I took his comment as a confirmation of my experiences, and additionally a confirmation of a Google employee. That was all.

[rumblepup]

Now John, I did point to facts, a quote from W3C.

Their is nothing in the HTML Transitional architecture which discounts table based design.

In fact, I bet you I can point to a table based design that is W3C compliant, and that sucker has images in cells, and tables within tables, and all that good stuff.

Here's the W3C test page for an Inc 500 site

John, you've know me long enough to know I'm not against you in any way. Just a difference of opinion.

About Vanessa, Matt and Rand I only would like to say here, that I do not take everything they tell for granted.

I could care less about Rand, but Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox? You wanna double check who they are?

Bruce Clay is a fantastic SEO bro, but he is also the inventor of LinkMaps, a wierdo technology that never really worked, and he has stopped selling.

We all have our defects, and I am for sure someone full of defects, but I think we are all here to have an open mind as well.

[Webnauts]

Double post. Please delete.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by rumblepup

Now John, I did point to facts, a quote from W3C.

Their is nothing in the HTML Transitional architecture which discounts table based design.

In fact, I bet you I can point to a table based design that is W3C compliant, and that sucker has images in cells, and tables within tables, and all that good stuff.

Here's the W3C test page for an Inc 500 site

John, you've know me long enough to think I'm against you in any way. Just a difference of opinion.

You are right man. I guess I thought I missed something at some point.

Originally Posted by rumblepup

I could care less about Rand, but Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox? You wanna double check who they are?

I already triple checked. Vanessa and Matt tells what Google want them to tell and no more. I said I heard and read stuff of them that were not also accurate. For me they are kind of Technical PR persons for Google from my perspective.

I have no doubts that Rand is a good SEO guy, but I do not rely on him or anyone else. If he is longer in the SEO business, which more support than others, and he can sell himself and his services, does not make him an authority.

Originally Posted by rumblepup

Bruce Clay is a fantastic SEO bro, but he is also the inventor of LinkMaps, a wierdo technology that never really worked, and he has stopped selling.

Well I just mentioned him to see the reaction of some members who consider him as an authority. Thanks for supporting my point there.

Originally Posted by rumblepup

We all have our defects, and I am for sure someone full of defects, but I think we are all here to have an open mind as well.

I agree that everyone has defects somewhere, somehow. I try though to hide or disable my defects, by telling or doing things only when I am evidence-based backed-up.

And please do not underestimate yourself brother. We both know that you are not the one who has the most or too many defects.

[dharrison]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Today a customer called me telling me that his site made with FP have dropped all at it sudden from #1 to he does not know where, without doing anything on the site.

Fair enough John, but that one example doesn't count for every single FrontPage site in cyberspace (and yes there are many). Maybe its because he hasn't done anything on his site.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dharrison

Fair enough John, but that one example doesn't count for every single FrontPage site in cyberspace (and yes there are many). Maybe its because he hasn't done anything on his site.

Debbie, very funny stuff happening. Since my last post three customers contacted me for a quote having the same problem. Sites created with FP.

I am just wondering what is going on at the moment. Is Google getting rid of sites with crappy code?

I honestly can't tell, but I am still curious.

[rumblepup]

Debbie, very funny stuff happening. Since my last post three customers contacted me for a quote having the same problem. Sites created with FP.

I am just wondering what is going on at the moment. Is Google getting rid of sites with crappy code?

I honestly can't tell, but I am still curious.

Oh man! I better do something quick, cause I fail W3C on so many levels it's scary!


I don't know John, it goes against the purpose of a SE. I'd like to see your assessments of the sites you need to SEO.
In your opinion, is it the code that's knocking them out?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by rumblepup

Oh man! I better do something quick, cause I fail W3C on so many levels it's scary!


I don't know John, it goes against the purpose of a SE. I'd like to see your assessments of the sites you need to SEO.
In your opinion, is it the code that's knocking them out?

Here is an old thread of a member who required my services and after all we had a huge success: I need help for my web site www.manolyahotel.com

Everything was about his crappy code. Worth to read the thread if you have time.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Everything was about his crappy code. Worth to read the thread if you have time.

And from the thread you linked...

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Manolya, you site pages are in the supplemental results for one of these reasons:

1. Duplicated Content.
2. Pages with no Content.
3. Orphaned web pages. Pages that no one links to, including yourself.
4. Error pages.
5. Pages with Canonicalization problems.
6. Suspicious pages for spamming, as spamming your meta tags, as linking to bad neighborhoods, etc.

Did I forget something? If yes, someone can add it here.

That means that at the next Google index re-building, you site might be banned.

On the fly I checked you site, and I found that you are stuffing your keywords meta tags, with irrelevant to your page content keywords. Take care of that!

And by the way: Do you use the Google Site Map services, for canonicalization issues like choosing which URL must be index?

Northern Cyprus Hotel Manolya in Lapta-Girne Kyrenia or Northern Cyprus Hotel Manolya in Lapta-Girne Kyrenia

If not, you have a problem there too. But you can also fix that problem, for example editing a piece of code in your .htaccess file.

And you also have immediate keyword repeats in your keywords meta tags.

WOW, you have a lot of work to do, as you must correct all pages of your site.

Also from that same thread...

Originally Posted by dburdon

Manolya,

1. You could clean up your spelling. I see a "norhern". Not good when you're targeting "Northern Cyprus hotel". Also "informations" should be "information".

2. You could be accused of keyword stuffing on the home page. Hotel appears 40 times. North Cyprus 32 times.

And...

Originally Posted by Webnauts

As we both know, the -30 filter is a penalty that Google applies to web sites that use spammy SEO techniques. If Google applies the penalty to a web site, the rankings of that site are downgraded by 30 positions.

Our client reported that he had top rankings on Google and now he cannot get beyond position 31 in Google. He had #31 rankings for the keyword which appeared #1, and other of their keywords moved much further on Google accordingly.

I examined the keywords previous position then the on e they went to, and it was an obvious -30 penalty.

The client pages did not have all over unique titles, description and keywords meta tags. And the description and keywords tags were not relevant to the pages content.

His title tags were not marked-up properly. He had something like <title=......></title>

Site was linking to some bad neighborhoods sites. Found some site that they were banned.

Almost all pages if not all (I cannot remember exactly) were in the supplemental results, including the homepage, even if he had PR and quality IBLs.

Markup and semantical structure was a disaster,

Many duplicated pages, and many with almost no content (or too less).

That is all I can remember so far.

I tried to fix the issues on the old site where possible temporally, so things would not get worse until the redesign and SEO was done.

So no John, the issues were not all about "his crappy code" and you said so yourself.

Dave

[Webnauts]

OK Dave. Then continue reading about this here (my post): validator.w3.org

and here (Mike's post): validator.w3.org

and here (Mike's post): validator.w3.org

And I am not talking about W3C valid code. I am talking about bad code.

[rumblepup]

Ok, just so I can clear this up. It's important to me that people don't misunderstand what your saying. Your a great SEO man, and I want anyone reading this to understand.

Your saying that crappy code (which I can agree with) was part of the problem. Other problems existed.

Your saying that crappy code can hinder search results.

I can agree with that. A page has to be VALID ENOUGH, without weirdo javascript and text hidden inside images and so messes up a site's rendering that it can't be seen, and that F@# up javascript menu with no href's referenced.

You are NOT saying that W3C standards MUST be met to get good SERP results.

That is what I'm understanding from your references.

A well formed Title.
A well formed Description.
A well formed H1 (H2, H3)
Well formed alt tags.
No orphaned pages.
etc.

Am I right?


It's a good debate bro.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by rumblepup

That is what I'm understanding from your references.

A well formed Title.
A well formed Description.
A well formed H1 (H2, H3)
Well formed alt tags.
No orphaned pages.
etc.

Am I right?


It's a good debate bro.

That is exactly what I mean! Thank you so much bro.

[rumblepup]

Ok, then I agree. Cause I've got a couple of extra spaces in some closing tags that I was hoping wouldn't jump up and bite me on my you know what.

You know, instead of </div> </ div>

W3C hates those.

Google don't care.

[fernimac]

Pages with tables can be perfectly validated, although my best bet would be to have tableless layout. You will get a better code/text ratio and that will make your pages more relevant. Also, having pages that are according to standards is better in the same sense than accesibility, usability and compatibility improvements more often than not also mean a collateral improvement in indexability and positioning.

[rumblepup]

Originally Posted by fernimac

You will get a better code/text ratio and that will make your pages more relevant

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you there as it relates to Google. Yahoo and MSN, yes, your probably right, but not with Google.

IMHO, we are talking about one of the most powerful search algorithms conceived to date. Yes, there is spam, yes there are SERP gamers, however, it is on record from Google that they can and do separate all text from html. Your content is safe inside that table.

[fernimac]

I agree that your content is safe inside a table. But with CSS positioning you can also change the order in which Google reads the page. So you can make Google read the most relevant content and keyword rich text before the usual code for menus, navigation, corporate logos, and so on. I think this is but one of the advantages of using CSS instead of tables where possible.