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.

[MeanSEO]

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 SEO Test - Google Prefers Valid HTML & CSS - Hobo SEO UK with a very large helping of salt?

1) Of what relevance is this to my observations re. the so-called "expert" from Google's AdWords Team and the relevancy of his/her statements?

2) As for the latest reference cited, absent both the time and opportunity to review the actual code deployed on each of the 4 test pages, "invalid," as use by the article's author, remains undefined. As earlier noted, there is a distinction between standards compliant and functional code; and, that being either or both does not serve to guarantee that the results realized are in fact those desired.

More importantly, the test methodology itself is flawed, in the results for each of the 4 samples are not independent of each other.

[Webnauts]

OK.

And these are my last words in this thread:

No matter what you all think or believe here, I will continue being concerned about the up-to-date web standards and best practices. I also will continue designing and optimizing web sites to be human and search engine friendly using valid and semantically correct code which was and will always be my top goal.

Myself and my customers have excellent results with my methologies, so I will not change them for no one or for any price.

My last cents to this topic.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

OK.

And these are my last words in this thread:

No matter what you all think or believe here, I will continue being concerned about the up-to-date web standards and best practices. I also will continue designing and optimizing web sites to be human and search engine friendly using valid and semantically correct code which was and will always be my top goal.

Myself and my customers have excellent results with my methologies, so I will not change them for no one or for any price.

My last cents to this topic.

Although it is of course possible that I may have overlooked it, I do not find that anyone here is suggesting that standards are of no value and should therefore be ignored. Surely, none but the most rank of amateurs would fail to understand that standard(s) compliant code has an equal or better chance of being properly parsed by any and all page readers.

That having been said, though, it does not necessarily follow that any additional benefit accrues to such compliant code. And, absent a definitive statement from one who is a developer of indexing machines for one or more SEs, and therefore being left with no more than anecdotal testimony and the supposed results of an obviously methodologically flawed test, there is as yet no proof that such benefit exists.

Therefore, the prudent man will deploy compliant code, but the wise man will expect nothing beyond its being properly parsed.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Therefore, the prudent man will deploy compliant code, but the wise man will expect nothing beyond its being properly parsed.

Being properly parsed?

Last question:

I want to add on a homepage a heading.

Will the search engines make any difference in terms of ranking if I would use one of the below options?

1. <p><font size="5">Pennsylvania Hotel Resort</font></p> (not semantically compliant)

or

2. <h1>Pennsylvania Hotel Resort</h1> (semantically compliant)

???

[wige]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Being properly parsed?

Last question:

I want to add on a homepage a heading.

Will the search engines make any difference in terms of ranking if I would use one of the below options?

1. <p><font size="5">Pennsylvania Hotel Resort</font></p> (not semantically compliant)

or

2. <h1>Pennsylvania Hotel Resort</h1> (semantically compliant)

???

In theory, yes. The semantically compliant code would receive a small benefit, especially in MSN/Live.

I had a few web sites that had all of the headers in <p class="pagetitle"> tags. I was young, naive even. After seeing the light and changing the "p" to "h1" and making no other changes, after 2-3 weeks over half the pages experienced upward movement in MSN/Live. The pages that I monitored were on the second page for their respective terms, and improved 1-5 positions. On Yahoo, some pages moved 1-2 spots, and on Google most of the pages maintained their positions. As this occured on more than one page on more than one domain, it is more likely this was due to the change than an algorithm change.

It does seem to me that the "proper" or typical application of heading tags can benefit rankings because if the tags are implemented in such a way the search engine has contextual clues about the content, becoming better able to seperate a heading or subheading from what would otherwise be interpreted as a short line of text. Semantics are one of the only cues a search engine has to determine the relative importance of various snippets of text in the document.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Being properly parsed?

Last question:

I want to add on a homepage a heading.

Will the search engines make any difference in terms of ranking if I would use one of the below options?

1. <p><font size="5">Pennsylvania Hotel Resort</font></p> (not semantically compliant)

or

2. <h1>Pennsylvania Hotel Resort</h1> (semantically compliant)

???

Yes, parsed.

Parsing includes both lexical and sematic analysis.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Yes, parsed.

Parsing includes both lexical and sematic analysis.

That was clear. But what is with my second question?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That was clear. But what is with my second question?

The question, as phrased, is flawed, in that it rests on the erroneous assertion that the 1st given code snippet is "semantically non-compliant," when in fact it is standards-compliant. Correctly rephrased, then, the question is not one re. compliance, but rather one of which code is semantically "more useful." See Standards don't necessarily have anything to do with being semantically correct (kottke.org)

That the 2nd is more semantically useful seemed so obvious that I took your question to be a rhetorical one.

As for the weight that a particular SE might give to such semantic information, that depends on the SE.

It bears repeating that semantic information is for presentation purposes, not for those of SEs.