How important is clean html in search results?

[Kloans]

So I have seen several people tell others to clean up their html. Really, how important is clean html in search results? I know that the html certainly doesn't need to be perfect or even close to it to get indexed or even get in the top ten in certain categories. However how much is it hurting someones chances at achieving better results?

[bobitza]

I don't think anyone knows for sure if and how much having clean html code is helping the search engine results.

I can tell you for sure that having clean html code helps you with two things:

1. Helps the spiders, so your website will get crawled and indexed more easily.
2. Helps the visitors, because the pages will load faster, so you'll have happier visitors (from the pages downloading time point of view) .

[WDC]

It doesn't matter search engines themselves have lots of HTML errors

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by WDC

It doesn't matter search engines themselves have lots of HTML errors

That is not an accurate argument buddy, since search engines do not need to search to find themselves.

[inertia]

A customer of mine had dropped 5 places for their main key phrase. The page that had lost the positions was in content manager system and despite us insisting he doesn't copy and paste directly from word - this is exactly what he had done. As a result there was masses of unnecessary coding and none of it was structured with H1, H2 etc.

I removed as much of the coding as possible and structured the content appropriately. Within 2 days his site was back on the top spot. This was the first thing i tried and it seamed to do the trick. Whether it was down to me tidying up the coding or just coincidence i will let you decide...

[Kloans]

Originally Posted by inertia

A customer of mine had dropped 5 places for their main key phrase. The page that had lost the positions was in content manager system and despite us insisting he doesn't copy and paste directly from word - this is exactly what he had done. As a result there was masses of unnecessary coding and none of it was structured with H1, H2 etc.

I removed as much of the coding as possible and structured the content appropriately. Within 2 days his site was back on the top spot. This was the first thing i tried and it seamed to do the trick. Whether it was down to me tidying up the coding or just coincidence i will let you decide...

Interesting...I would just instinctually guess that it had more to do with the H1, H2, bolds stuff like that then the actual errors and bad coding. But I really don't know.

[pcunix]

Well, since we have no accurate idea of how the spiders really work, we can only guess, right?

But consider this: the spider does need to infer something about the structure of a page to determine its contents. If the html is broken, it's certainly possible that it will interpret incorrectly or even miss parts of your page. Not likely, but *possible*.

So why NOT do it right? It's only a small amount of extra effort and it might make a difference.

[ran_dizolph]

So why NOT do it right? It's only a small amount of extra effort and it might make a difference.

Exactly!

[Palindrome]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is not an accurate argument buddy, since search engines do not need to search to find themselves.

Wish that was simply pasted to the top of every SEO forum.

The points made about structure are quite important and tend to be a natural part of disciplined coding.

There may be a more specific reason to make the effort. Google states that valid coding is not that vital, yet the pieces of data I've seen that relate to page load, size and crawlability tend to suggest otherwise. As mentioned earlier, good code may allow more of a page to be indexed but may also allow more pages to be indexed, within the same time frame. This can only benefit a site.

[craigmn3]

There is clean and then there is WC3 Clean

Clean, nicely constructed code is important in getting indexed and searching well. Some search engines place different values on "cleanliness" It was reported to be a vital a few years ago but I think with the advent of newer media, dynamic pages, and other coding niceities the search engines have dialed back that importance to allow for more socially and media relevant web pages.

So make the code clean enough for the spiders to navigate...in fact make it as clean as you can (let's tidy up our playground) but if you trip a few WC3 violations don't bee too concerned. Keep the content over keeping the clean code

[bosmolskate]

Cleaning up the coding cannot do you harm, unless you do not understand it, and change something around. It also help in the future if you need to change the layout or anything else clean coding helps. As for the SE clean coding helps the spiders naivigate through your site more easily. How much weight does it have in the algorithm is a mystery that we will not know for a long time

[DrTandem1]

I can cite numerous examples of sites that are at the very top of the SERPs with terrible coding. That being said, valid code has more to do with compatibility issues. In other words, what good is it if you are at the top of the SERPs, but your site doesn't display properly. Search robots don't need to see your layout, people do.

So, design the site with people in mind. Validate the code. It is a separate issue from SEO, however, validating may show you areas where your site will not only improve with regards to compatibility, but also to have more to index. The "alt" attribute for images comes to mind.

[mtuba4u]

Clean code that is laid out with correct syntax is important, in fact every thing is important, just some are more important than others.

The search engines algorythm uses all items in a complicated equation that is rumored to have more thna 1200 variables, which are squared, cubed, squre rooted and processed using very advanced mathematics such as calculus to determine limits of variables which are then inserted into other equations.

If you score badly in any specific field this will drag down your over all results, so you do need to score well every where to be in the top 10.

Having clean code has other advantages such as the ability to make small changes with ease, and applying CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to groups of pages that have similar lay outs and a common theme.

[inertia]

Clean code is another part of "the SEO pie" (sorry to keep goin back to the pie analogy - lol!)

[kgun]

If two sites have identical content, (that is only theory of course) in an ideal world, (also theory) the site with correct markup should be preferred.

Which site would you prefer:

1: 2 + 2 = 4. Incorrect code?

2. 2 + 2 = 5. Correct code.

That does not mean that I advice people not to write correct markup, preferrably xhtml well-formed.

The top of laziness is to do everything correct from the beginning, especially if you make a new site from scratch.

[Webnauts]

I think this is a cool read about this topic: CVS.com Blocks Opera... and Google

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Kloans

So I have seen several people tell others to clean up their html. Really, how important is clean html in search results? I know that the html certainly doesn't need to be perfect or even close to it to get indexed or even get in the top ten in certain categories. However how much is it hurting someones chances at achieving better results?

SE's do not care about Code, only about Content.

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

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

SE's do not care about Code, only about Content.

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

Sure. Our member here and client of mine was editing his pages title tags like this:
<title=Manolya Hotel></title>

Do you want to ask him yourself what happen? PM him. His member name is Manolyahotel.

I don't tell what happen, because most probably many here won't believe me.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by mtuba4u

Clean code that is laid out with correct syntax is important, in fact every thing is important, just some are more important than others.

The search engines algorythm uses all items in a complicated equation that is rumored to have more thna 1200 variables, which are squared, cubed, squre rooted and processed using very advanced mathematics such as calculus to determine limits of variables which are then inserted into other equations.

If you score badly in any specific field this will drag down your over all results, so you do need to score well every where to be in the top 10.

Having clean code has other advantages such as the ability to make small changes with ease, and applying CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to groups of pages that have similar lay outs and a common theme.

What is the definition of "clean code?"

Can it be objectively measured?

If so, by what whose standard(s)?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

What is the definition of "clean code?"

Can it be objectively measured?

If so, by what whose standard(s)?

Maybe W3C? The ones who found HTML, XHMTL, CSS and co?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Sure. Our member here and client of mine was editing his pages title tags like this:
<title=Manolya Hotel></title>

He was doing that why?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Maybe W3C? The ones who found HTML, XHMTL, CSS and co?

Any code can be compliant with a given standard and still be "dirty."

"Clean," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Understand, I am not arguing against good coding practices, but only that, if the SE can properly discriminate between the Code and the Content, the SE's requirements are met.

This battle over "good" coding practices dates back to the days of machine language programming; it is one which can never be won by either side. The machine doesn't care what your code looks like, only that it can understand the instructions given it. I.e., the machine cares about function, and gives no thought to form.

[Webnauts]

He was trying to build a web site with FrontPage and without any HTML knowledge.
He did not even know that there are validators to check his pages.

He also had several other similar code issues.

What happen? Many members have followed the story here at WPW already.

And as I am the one who dealed with the site and fixed it after all, I can only confirm that those issues screwed him up.

If guys believe it or not, bad markup can kill your rankings. PERIOD!

I don't say that all errors can harm you. Though, one critical error can hurt you and 100 other lower level errors might not cause a problem at all.

And the question remains: How can someone know which error can harm? Especially people building web sites with WYSIWYG editors without any HTML knowledge background?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I think this is a cool read about this topic: CVS.com Blocks Opera... and Google

So, there's justice after all!

Their "ExtraCare" rebate program is the most deceptive that I've ever seen; their descriptive literature says one thing, and their web site another, with their actual practice complying with neither.

Their responses to my complaints re. such can best be described as "tough sh*t."

I'm pleased to see that they're still managing to shoot themselves in various parts of their corporate anatomy.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If guys believe it or not, bad markup can kill your rankings. PERIOD!

I don't say that all errors can harm you. Though, one critical error can hurt you and 100 other lower level errors might not cause a problem at all.

And the question remains: How can someone know which error can harm? Especially people building web sites with WYSIWYG editors without any HTML knowledge background?

Granted. But, that's because the requirements of function have not been met, not those of form, the latter of which some here seem to believe is judged by SEs.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Granted. But, that's because the requirements of function have not been met, not those of form, the latter of which some here seem to believe is judged by SEs.

SE don't judge you. If they do not understand or can crawl your pages or part of them, they definetely don't have a problem. The one who has a problem is the site owner.

[wige]

You might find the article at Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics interesting, where a group of Google engineers reworked one of their bots to gather statistics about how pages are written. You can glean some interesting information about how tolerant to errors the bots try to be, as well as some of the tags that are commonly used but utterly worthless. My favorite quote?

"To our knowledge only one search engine has ever supported it, and that search engine was never widely used — at this point, it is nothing more than a good luck charm. A remarkably widely used one. More pages use the completely worthless <meta name="revisit-after"> than use the <em> element!" - Google (their bolding)

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

SE don't judge you.

Best keep this a secret.

If word gets out that the much ballyhooed SE Ranking Algorithms are mere myth, that the search results & their ordering are in fact arbitrary and capricious, a lot of SEOs will be seeking new lines of work!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by wige

You might find the article at Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics interesting, where a group of Google engineers reworked one of their bots to gather statistics about how pages are written. You can glean some interesting information about how tolerant to errors the bots try to be, as well as some of the tags that are commonly used but utterly worthless.

Damn; as if I didn't already have a lifetime of reading in the queue.

Nice find; thanks.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Damn; as if I didn't already have a lifetime of reading in the queue.

Nice find; thanks.

I posted that a year ago at another forums, as some guys there were claiming that Google supports the "visit-after" meta tag.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I posted that a year ago at another forums, ...

That explains why it's new to me; I'm only up the end of 2002 material - ignoring, that is, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - on my reading list.

[Veikoh]

As long as I'm constantly complaining to google, yahoo and MSN regarding those sites that will appear in my search results using their WAP interface with my mobile device, they are now taking my (and others I have got to my network) complaints seriously and not showing anymore sites that will crash my browser because of improper XHTML code or other issues.

[wcwebs]

From my point of view, I believe clean code does make a difference; at least I have found it to be true on my own site and that of my customers.

One theory that I did not see discussed in this thread (unless I missed it), I would compare to that of using CSS as opposed to using just tables and cells.

It has been discussed in several CSS forums that since spiders usually only read pages on your site in a brief amount of time, the less presentational code you have leaves more time for the content to be read. Using CSS requires much less presentational markup code.

With that thought in mind, I would think that broken code would impead the spiders ability to easily navigate your pages in the short amount of time it stays on your site anyway.

Since cleaning up my site to pass WC3, my site ranking has definitely improved. (I am not referring to toolbar pagerank but pagerank as in higher result listing).

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by wcwebs

From my point of view, I believe clean code does make a difference; at least I have found it to be true on my own site and that of my customers.

There is a functional difference between code that is "broken," and that which does not meet standards but is still understandable to the SEs.

If a SE can properly differentiate between Code & Content, then, with regards to the SE's ability to properly index your site, it makes no difference whether or not the Code meets any given standard.

Originally Posted by wcwebs

One theory that I did not see discussed in this thread (unless I missed it), I would compare to that of using CSS as opposed to using just tables and cells.

This matter has been argued many times here at WP. As it is not germain to this particular thread, it is not been here discussed.

Originally Posted by wcwebs

It has been discussed in several CSS forums that since spiders usually only read pages on your site in a brief amount of time, the less presentational code you have leaves more time for the content to be read. Using CSS requires much less presentational markup code.

Have you any evidence to support the contention that failure to use CSS can cause a page to not be indexed?

Originally Posted by wcwebs

With that thought in mind, I would think that broken code would impead the spiders ability to easily navigate your pages in the short amount of time it stays on your site anyway.

While broken code may interfere with the ability of the SE to properly distinguish Code from Content, it remains to be demonstrated, as with the above mention of CSS, that time is a critical factor.

[wcwebs]

Thanks for the good feedback on my comments.

Understand, I was not saying the failure to use CSS would not cause a page to be indexed. I was saying that using tables and cells adds more presentational markup to be added to your code.

If it is true that spiders only spend a limited amount of time on each page or each site, it would stand to reason that one may want more content and less presentational markup.

I apologize for the bringing the CSS topic into this thread, I only meant to use it as a comparison. In efforts to not pull this thread off in the wrong direction... I digress.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by wcwebs

Understand, I was not saying the failure to use CSS would not cause a page to be indexed. I was saying that using tables and cells adds more presentational markup to be added to your code.

If it is true that spiders only spend a limited amount of time on each page or each site, it would stand to reason that one may want more content and less presentational markup.

True, SEs spend a "limited" amount of time indexing, but "limited" in the sense of being a "finite" amount of time, as opposed to an "infinite" amount.

Your concern re. the amount of time consumed in differentiating between Code and Content would be borne out only were it the case that the SE both 1) have a predetermined amount of time in which to perform this time, and 2) perform such task in real-time, i.e. while its reading the page.

In practice, the spiders merely retrieve a copy of the page, and return such to one of several data centers, where the actual job of indexing it is performed at a later time.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I think this is a cool read about this topic: CVS.com Blocks Opera... and Google

John and the message is?