Content Validation

[subhzash]

Hello,

Iam working on content validation part for my site. I read the content validation guidelines on w3.org Its really difficult. But any one can tell me is that effects on my search engine rankings

Please answer these question

1. Is the content validation increase search engine visibility??
2. Is my site ranking will improve if my site content is validated??
3. What if the content is not validated??




Regards
Subhash

[mit]

Nothing like that Subhash. There are many websites without W3C validations on Search engines having good rankings.

But yes! it's a good practice to validate your website code.

[James Bull]

These discussions on the same topic here on WebProWorld might be helpful for you:

W3C, Content and SEO Rankings

How important is clean html in search results?

[DaveSawers]

1. Is the content validation increase search engine visibility?? - NO
2. Is my site ranking will improve if my site content is validated?? - NO
3. What if the content is not validated?? - It MAY not work on some browsers, but even if it's valid it may not work on some browsers.

So why bother to validate? Because it's good practice for developers.

[G[dot]com]

100% agree with all stated above-

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by DaveSawers

So why bother to validate? Because it's good practice for developers.

That's probably the truest concise statement ever said in the validation discussions, ever.

Anything beyond that is subject to point of view.

[deepsand]

SEs care about Content, not Coding.

So long as it can properly differentiate between the two, you're fine.

[suesheboy]

Originally Posted by deepsand

SEs care about Content, not Coding.
.

...but users need a site that works.

Valid code usually loads faster than broken code and works better in more platforms - period.

Everything I build validates. Easiest way to get a customer is to show them how many errors the previous company built into their site.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

...but users need a site that works.

Valid code usually loads faster than broken code and works better in more platforms - period.

Everything I build validates. Easiest way to get a customer is to show them how many errors the previous company built into their site.

All of which has what to do with an SE's ability to properly index a site's content?

[wige]

Just to expand on what Dave Sawyers said above...

Why Validate? Because it's good practice, and the best way to catch all those stupid mistakes that could cause content to not be visible to search engines that a browser's error correction might correct for. Even something as simple as omitting a quote in an element tag could cause a section of content to be skipped by a bot, as the bot may interpret the content as additional attributes of the tag. A web browser on the other hand would see the mistake and try to fix it, hiding the problem from the webmaster, even if you view the SE cache of the page. The only system that would alert you to the missing character would be a validation tool.

[Refiner]

I agree with all these responses. I just want to add one thought

Validated code means less browser errors and happier visitors and customers.

[Webnauts]

Bad browser compatibility can block GoogleBot: http://operawatch.com/news/2008/01/b...le-search.html

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Bad browser compatibility can block GoogleBot: http://operawatch.com/news/2008/01/b...le-search.html

Would it not be more accurate to say that the GoogleBot was blocked, not because the CVS site was compatible only with certain browsers, but because it tested for the browser name/version in a manner that failed to account for the value(s) associated with the GoogleBot - and, quite likely, other bots as well - and therefore actively redirected the bot to the cited page?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Would it not be more accurate to say that the GoogleBot was blocked, not because the CVS site was compatible only with certain browsers, but because it tested for the browser name/version in a manner that failed to account for the value(s) associated with the GoogleBot - and, quite likely, other bots as well - and therefore actively redirected the bot to the cited page?

OK Deepsand. Maybe that was a bad example. But there are for sure cases that sites cannot be crawled fully or partially due to bad formed code. What are bots anyway?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

OK Deepsand. Maybe that was a bad example. But there are for sure cases that sites cannot be crawled fully or partially due to bad formed code.

Bad example? Not at all. In fact, it's an excellent example of good code gone bad.

That code, in any language, is wholly compliant with the relevant standard(s) never serves to insure that the results it yields are those desired.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

What are bots anyway?

Bots are readers, as are "browsers." The latter name is, of course, a misnomer. "Browsers" actually read, whereas the human viewer frequently browses that which the reader displays.

[Webnauts]

I found an answer directly from Google: http://www.webforumz.com/search-engi...t-html-and.htm

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I found an answer directly from Google: http://www.webforumz.com/search-engi...t-html-and.htm

Given that said reply is from the AdWords Team, not a group that I've found to be a particularly reliable source of information, and that it rambles on about matters that have little to nothing to do with the question as asked, and that the first source cited, i.e. Google Technology , has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked, I'll take Rupam's reply with a very large helping of salt.

In fact, it says little more than "the more of your content we can correctly identify, the better you are."

Duh. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Given that said reply is from the AdWords Team, not a group that I've found to be a particularly reliable source of information, and that it rambles on about matters that have little to nothing to do with the question as asked, and that the first source cited, i.e. Google Technology , has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked, I'll take Rupam's reply with a very large helping of salt.

In fact, it says little more than "the more of your content we can correctly identify, the better you are."

Duh. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Can you also please check this SEO Test - Google Prefers Valid HTML & CSS - Hobo SEO UK with a very large helping of salt?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you also please check this