Old code, No DOCTYPE found!

emersonworldwide · #1 (**permalink**) 09-29-2007, 08:09 AM

I started our e-commerce website pages in 2001 using DW. Over the years we have added more and more products and pages. We are basically satisfied with our Google ratings but just recently I began reading WPN and now I am extremely worried about the future of our old code pages. Competitors with proper coding will eventually “run us out!”
I ran the validator.w3.org and I have 74 code errors, the first being NO DOCTYPE found. My old version of DW did not include the doctype. I tried the “loose DOCTYPE” suggested in a WPN forum, but the Validator did not like that either.
I copied my index.html into a newer version of DW MX which does have the DOCType included, being careful not to duplicate any of the Header, Meta Tag coding, and the Validator noted that it was not the right type of document.
Questions:
1. Should I sit back and say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” or should I begin the slow process of rewriting all my code?
2. If so, any suggestions for someone who is not a programmer and would prefer to use DW.
3. Is there an easy way to copy and paste my code into a new format?
Thanks to you who are experienced for helping me.

**dharrison** · #2 (**permalink**) 09-29-2007, 09:49 AM

I would say definitely add it:

A DOCTYPE (document type declaration) tells the browser what particular version of HTML you are using to code your pages. More can be reading here: Document Type Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking at your coding which is a mix of stylesheets and old HTML formatting, I would say try transitional rather than loose.

But don't be put off by 74 errors, although clean coding is a step in the right direction, it is debatable that it has any effect on ranking. it is better to concentrate on more key areas such as tweaking your content to reflect your key phrases and starting a link campaign.

A good article by Incredible Help can be found on this forum: http://www.webproworld.com/search-en...o-i-begin.html

Hope this helps.

emersonworldwide · #3 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 05:10 PM

Thank you, Deb. May I please verify that this is the code you are suggesting?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
One more question, please.
Is it okay if I start adding this slowly to my 191 pages, and submitting them as I go along? Or should I wait until all the pages have this code added to FTP?
I appreciate your taking the time to answer this for me. THanks.

Fitz · #4 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 05:37 PM

Lots has been suggested about doc types needing to be spot on for SEO to work properly - but I've read (almost certainly here) about properly executed experiments by SEOers who've come to the conclusion that, from an SEO point of view, the doc type doesn't matter a jot ... Furthermore, in case you didn't know, neither Google nor Yahoo have a doc type declaration. Says it all for me. If you don't believe it, visit them and view source.

DoneInStyle · #5 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Lots has been suggested about doc types needing to be spot on for SEO to work properly - but I've read (almost certainly here) about properly executed experiments by SEOers who've come to the conclusion that, from an SEO point of view, the doc type doesn't matter a jot ... Furthermore, in case you didn't know, neither Google nor Yahoo have a doc type declaration. Says it all for me. If you don't believe it, visit them and view source.

Hmm . . . believe you . . . or believe Google Webmaster guidelines. What a choice!

Webmaster Help Center - Webmaster Guidelines

I quote; "Check for broken links and correct HTML."

emersonworldwide, I wouldn't stop your linkbuilding and other efforts, but you should start working through that site and bringing it into compliance.

For the record, pointing to humongous sites that are going to cost gazillions of dollars and take a year or two to deploy their upgrades to their sites, all of whom were waiting for the advent of IE7 before making that commitment is not the best argument to use to justify being lazy with a small site. In a year or two many of the larger sites out there will have codebases much closer to compliance than they are today.

Webnauts · #6 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 07:05 PM

Emersonworldwide, here are my comments too:

1. W3C shows 74 errors. Because the tools I use go deeper, I found 102 errors and 82 other issues.

2. You should have a proper doctype on each page. If you don't Internet Explorer will go into quirks mode and display it different. And having doctypes it makes your pages search engine friendlier. Some info for the question you asked about DW: Get your DOCTYPE right
and bout ranking factors see here: SEOmoz | Google Search Engine Ranking Factors

Orion · #7 (**permalink**) 10-01-2007, 08:06 PM

Don't just add a doctype...
open the page in Dreamweaver select File (from the menu bar) then convert xhtml transitional OR html 4.01
that will update any code that isnt' kosher with the doctype (ie. close tags for xhtml etc.) as well as add the doctype for you.
Do that for each of your pages upload then try validation.. it should be closer anyway.

emersonworldwide · #8 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 10:01 AM

Orion! I did what you said using DW MX and it worked! It said it could not alter the images as I do not have alt tags on all of them! Thanks.

Question: can I upload a page at a time, or should I wait until ALL the pages have been converted? It will take me some time to go in a put all the necessary alt tags on all the pages.
Thanks to all of you for helping me out!

Orion · #9 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 01:46 PM

one page at a time is fine..
you can use edit / find replace / specific tag / img / without attribute alt / insert attribute alt=(empty)
so that the pages validate properly.. if you have a lot of graphics on a lot of pages.
then over time go in and properly add in alt="some text" for each graphic and put in some title="" on the menu and other areas that tool tips might assist the visitor with more information.

glad it worked!