Do We Need SEO Standards?

[inertia]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

That's not fair... And it's like saying that if the police would respond more if people called them there would be less crime. (which is not true unless you want to live in a police state).

If Google responded more efficiently to black hat techniques (whether algorithmically or when webmasters reported them) then there would be far fewer people attempting to employ black hat techniques. That would level the playing field for us all. I agree that we don't need a "police state" but how many sites do you see in the top ten that don't even comply to G's guidelines?! G could tighten the net a lot more before it gets anywhere near to a "police state".

The argument about building a site for the SE versus the user comes up on a regular basis here. I don't really understand why? None of us make sites purely for one or the other, we make sites for both! Whats the point in building a site purely for the user if you haven't got any?

[1dmf]

we make sites for both! Whats the point in building a site purely for the user if you haven't got any?

Exactly!

But I do beleive there needs to be standards, and it doesn't need to be policed persae.

If you created content / a site, that failed the standards, quite simply the SE's should fail to index it *until* it meets the minimum standard requirements.

If you did some DIY building on your house, it MUST meet standards, be it building regs or what ever.

If you fail to meet this standard it doesn't mean the police come arrest you, and sling you in jail does it, it simply might mean you cannot inhabit the property until they meet the minimum standards, and so you have to keep changing things until they do.

Then when you finally meet the standards required they get passed off as OK and everone's a winner.

Makes simple sense to me, but I always seem to find myself at loggerheads with the general SEO community, so what do I know!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

That would level the playing field for us all.

The playing field is level. Black hat and white hat has nothing to do with it. What method do they use they you are unable to out rank them?

[inertia]

"Make pages for users, not for search engines."

That really should be quite obvious, given that SEs are designed for users and not for SEs.

I think it can get quite confusing for people who are new to SEO when the advice they get is - "make a site for your users, don't think about the search engines". They must think "ay?! i thought id join WPW to learn how to make my site search engine friendly and i get told not to think about it??".

Obviously we know what people really mean...think of your user 1st then think of the search engines 2nd, but that sometimes goes unsaid. Anyway... I am digressing a little!

The playing field is level. Black hat and white hat has nothing to do with it. What method do they use they you are unable to out rank them?

The playing field is as level as you want it to be? If you choose to use the same unscrupulous tactics as a competitor then you are on the same level. The "line in the sand" and tactics used are eternally debatable, which is why seo standards will never work!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

The playing field is as level as you want it to be? If you choose to use the same unscrupulous tactics as a competitor then you are on the same level. The "line in the sand" and tactics used are eternally debatable, which is why seo standards will never work!

Name one tactic that is used in black hat that is so powerful you can not get around it using white hat?

[inertia]

Come on Janeth! You know there are many sites and practices which don't comply with search engine guide lines! I'm not saying you cant compete with them but it will take more time and therefore money.

Here's a thread from last week which sums up my point about Google not responding well enough to guideline infringements - Google in 2008 - Still susceptible to white on white text Spam!

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by inertia

If Google responded more efficiently to black hat techniques (whether algorithmically or when webmasters reported them) then there would be far fewer people attempting to employ black hat techniques. That would level the playing field for us all. I agree that we don't need a "police state" but how many sites do you see in the top ten that don't even comply to G's guidelines?! G could tighten the net a lot more before it gets anywhere near to a "police state".

The argument about building a site for the SE versus the user comes up on a regular basis here. I don't really understand why? None of us make sites purely for one or the other, we make sites for both! Whats the point in building a site purely for the user if you haven't got any?

Show me one SERP that is completely dominated by sites that are blackhatted into the top 10. You won't find any.

Not complying with the G-guidelines doesn't imply that you're thus a blackhatter.

The argument about building a site for the SE versus the user comes up on a regular basis here. I don't really understand why? None of us make sites purely for one or the other, we make sites for both! Whats the point in building a site purely for the user if you haven't got any?

If you build a site you should follow the HTML standards. You do that for your users and you make life for a search engine a lot easier too. The thing is that often SEO's say that they use better link structure, titles, etc. for the search engines, but in reality you do that for the user. And if you do that for the user, search engines will reward you. Not because you´re doing it for them, but because you make it easier for them to index and understand the content of your website.


Blackhat sites are exceptions in the SERP's of the search engines. If you can't get a high ranking that doesn't mean it is because of blackhat sites. Sure you can find examples of a blackhat site having a top 10 position, even in first position. But if your main conceren is that 1 keyword at that specific position, then you´re missing out on a lot of search engine refered visitors.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

But if your main conceren is that 1 keyword at that specific position, then you´re missing out on a lot of search engine refered visitors.

That could be a huge sacrifice for some people?

Exactly! You CAN find examples of black hat sites occupying the top ten search results. Why is this? Why doesn't Googles algo pick this up and penalise them? Why don't they respond to reports from Webmasters? If they did this there would be far less black hatting and a level playing field. That would be enough to not need regulations?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

That could be a huge sacrifice for some people?

Exactly! You CAN find examples of black hat sites occupying the top ten search results. Why is this? Why doesn't Googles algo pick this up and penalise them? Why don't they respond to reports from Webmasters? If they did this there would be far less black hatting and a level playing field. That would be enough to not need regulations?

Show me five.

[tenkiya]

bj is right - follow what Google has put up for guidelines.

As far as standards go: We don't need no union thugs.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by inertia

That could be a huge sacrifice for some people?

Exactly! You CAN find examples of black hat sites occupying the top ten search results. Why is this? Why doesn't Googles algo pick this up and penalise them? Why don't they respond to reports from Webmasters? If they did this there would be far less black hatting and a level playing field. That would be enough to not need regulations?

No, not exactly,..... but exactly the opposite. You can not find SERP's that are completely dominated by blackhat sites. Don't turn my words around,.

Show us one SERP where each site is a blackhat site.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by inertia

The argument about building a site for the SE versus the user comes up on a regular basis here. I don't really understand why? None of us make sites purely for one or the other, we make sites for both! Whats the point in building a site purely for the user if you haven't got any?

An organic listing is but one of many means by which a potential visitor might learn of your site. And, obtaining a sufficiently high SERP so as to attract an adequate numbers of visitors may not the most cost effective way of reaching ones goal.

For example, sales sites may find that various forms of advertising provide a ROI that greatly exceeds that of investing in SEO for the purpose of securing a high enough SERP. An example of such would be TicketsNow, the largest online secondary market ticket broker, and currently in the process of being acquired by Ticketmaster for the sum of $265 Million. Their success did not come by way of organic listings.

[james113]

I agree that SEO standards are simply Search Engine standards and that the search engines themselves should be policing their search engines. I was hired by a guy to do some SEO/SEM work on his drywall services website. I got the job by responding to an ad on craigslist and a so called SEO specialist replied to the ad after I had been hired. After not being hired(since the job was taken), he then used some kind of black hat trick to make another drywall service website (my boss' competition) to rank higher than my boss' website when users search my boss' company name(doesn't have the word drywall in it!). So then my boss' website ranked #2 when you searched his company name instead of #1. If there was a way to report this stuff to the search engines I sure would.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by james113

I agree that SEO standards are simply Search Engine standards and that the search engines themselves should be policing their search engines. I was hired by a guy to do some SEO/SEM work on his drywall services website. I got the job by responding to an ad on craigslist and a so called SEO specialist replied to the ad after I had been hired. After not being hired(since the job was taken), he then used some kind of black hat trick to make another drywall service website (my boss' competition) to rank higher than my boss' website when users search my boss' company name(doesn't have the word drywall in it!). So then my boss' website ranked #2 when you searched his company name instead of #1. If there was a way to report this stuff to the search engines I sure would.

There is a way to report it but it sounds like all he did was through a couple links at the other site.

[1dmf]

Show us one SERP where each site is a blackhat site.

Well if i'm to understand part of SEO to be link building, and alot of these links are from either paid links, companies with access to 1,000's of websites to add links, network of blogs, social networking sites etc. etc..

then most SERPs are black hatted!

The only true genuine PR vote (link) is someone off their own back, with no knowledge of PR or what an inbound link does for SE's, puts a link on their website, because they genuinely like the site they are linking to.

as soon as a webmaster, deliberately does anything what so ever to encourage a link to their site, that under G! guidlines is BLACK HAT!

be them paid links, recipricol, insentive based, auctioned, rewarded by some other method to make them look 'non-paid' , what ever.

So sorry, 99.9% of sites on page 1 for any given search phrase, is there through SEO , not because a million people on the planet genuinely love the site!

I don't recall any one but myself adding our site to directories!!!!!!

i don't recall a member of the public requesting I be included in DMOZ or paying for my site to be in the Y! Directory.

Jezus you SEO's really have your head up your ass sometimes!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

Well if i'm to understand part of SEO to be link building, and alot of these links are from either paid links, companies with access to 1,000's of websites to add links, network of blogs, social networking sites etc. etc..

then most SERPs are black hatted!

The only true genuine PR vote (link) is someone off their own back, with no knowledge of PR or what an inbound link does for SE's, puts a link on their website, because they genuinely like the site they are linking to.

as soon as a webmaster, deliberately does anything what so ever to encourage a link to their site, that under G! guidlines is BLACK HAT!

be them paid links, recipricol, insentive based, auctioned, rewarded by some other method to make them look 'non-paid' , what ever.

So sorry, 99.9% of sites on page 1 for any given search phrase, is there through SEO , not because a million people on the planet genuinely love the site!

I don't recall any one but myself adding our site to directories!!!!!!

i don't recall a member of the public requesting I be included in DMOZ or paying for my site to be in the Y! Directory.

Jezus you SEO's really have your head up your ass sometimes!

Anyone that tries to get traffic to their site is blackhat. I'll just have to be blackhat. And blackhat should be a good thing and blackhat's should be rewarded with top rankings.

I'd much rather see a site in the top where a guy has tried to work with the site and get people to link to him. He has studied what works and what does not work with the search engines, site visitors and competition.

He has earned the right to rank in the top of the search engines vs the lazy ass that has done nothing.

[1dmf]

Don't get me wrong, Janeth, I agree, which is why there needs to be standards, and some real honesty in the SEO world.

And i'm not tarring you all with same brush, I have met some genuine, ethical SEO's, who are definately experts in their field, but part of their arsenal, is 'technically' black hat, if we all followed G! guidelines to the letter.

we try to game the SE's by trying to understand how the SE's work, and then make changes, or do things to improve our SERPs.

But while the industry burries its head in the sand and makes ethical claims of 'never do anything for SE's', it's just pure nonesense.

I believe if there was a true SEO consortium, like W3C for HTML/XML/CSS standards, who could actually liaise with the SE's and truly build ways in which we can all play the game , following the same rules and utilising the same 'accepted' techniques, being open and honest.

This would hopefully weed out the real 'black hatters', give everyone a chance, and somewhere to turn.

Now I know that there are forums like this, enabling us all to discuss and learn from each other, but we all have different ideas at times, there is so much SEO 'myth' it's unbelievable and sometimes it's purely 'it used to work till algo update xyz'

I'm a member of many forums, some for techy stuff while programming and some like this one for webmastering, but I still find it hard to decipher everything I read on these forums and see so much contradiction with many people having different views, or simply not seing the true 'cause vs effect'

If there was a place , recognised by the industry and 'endorsed' by the SE's I could go, like W3C, wouldn't you think this would be better than the current situation we have.

I'm bombarded every day from compaines via email or even telephone wanting me to pay for links in their directories and i'm not talking obscure link farm black hatting SEO, i'm talking BT local bussiness, Thompson, Yellow Pages, SE's such as Excite & Ask.

Not to mention the SEO companies claiming to have access to 10's of 1,000's of website and place 'keyword rich' text links on these site, in a manner that leave no (and i quote in their words) 'footprint', which SE's can pick up as spammy, paid or any other 'shady' method.

So do I beleive them, do I report them, is reporting them to the SE's going to help improve my ranking, or is taking them up on their offer a better approach if I want to make money, is it possible to place links on 1,000's of website without breaching any rules or being blackhat or leaving a footprint. Is this perfectly acceptable fair game as far a simple business is concerned.

should companies that have 1,000's and 1,000's of websites be allowed to offer SEO ? or inbound links, at the end of the day, we can all pretend we are 'ethical' and doing it on releated websites, purely for the related visitors it brings and PR never crossed our minds EVER, hhmmm, yeah right!

And hey, it's only those who try to understand SEO and investigate it, that really understand potentially what these companies who ring us really might be offering.

So Joe Bloggs gets a call, hasn't got the first clue about SEO, they have a simple website they paid someone to write and it serves their purpose.

The caller offers to get them to page 1 of G! with a months free trial to proove they can do it, the company is purely offering to put relevant links on their network of websites, to bring them traffic and increase ranking.

Mr Bloggs, didn't understand half of what was said, but likes the idea of a month FREE trial, they trial it, it works, now their no.1 for their keywords, because of the phenomenal amount of inbound links this company has gained for them on their network of websites, and we are not talking link farms, steath , article / blog spam or any of the other methods, which every 'ethical' SEO considers REAL BLACK HAT.

Now Joe Bloggs doesn't know his site might be no1 purely through gaming the system and PR juice, they just assume this company knows their stuff and lets them get on with it, and if we the 'Ethical' SEO'ers don't employ similar methods, how on earth are we meant to compete.

Hey are you telling me all you SEO professionals only have clients that you beleive in their website, because you love their website, the companies ethics, the products they sell

Some of you perhaps yes, but most, hey we are all in business and a paying customer is a paying customer.

So all i'm trying to say is as the point of this thread was all about - Do We Need SEO Standards, I say 'Yes', and hopefully i've explained my reasons why.

I did not mean to offend anyone in particular by my comment, @ the end of the day I am 1DMF!

[MarkGatESS]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

I believe if there was a true SEO consortium, like W3C for HTML/XML/CSS standards, who could actually liaise with the SE's and truly build ways in which we can all play the game , following the same rules and utilising the same 'accepted' techniques, being open and honest.

I'm with you on that. I mentioned an SEOC on my last post.

Is it really SO wrong to have some kind of standard to at least start from? If you were to use the W3C's HTML Validator to check some of the popular websites out there, most of them will come back with errors that they "don't comply with W3C standards". Perhaps maybe 75-80% of the site might be W3C-compliant or even less, yet they look great across many web browsers. Why? Because there IS some kind of standard being followed, even if it's less than 100% compliant.

But if we, the web designers/masters creating the pages didn't have some kind of standards to go by, and if makers of web browsers didn't comply with some basic standard for displaying page content and some standards of HTML formatting or CSS, we would basically have to learn a whole markup language for EACH web browser - because each browser would want you to use only THEIR browser and learn to code for ONLY them (kinda like Microsoft! ). Instead, there's one "standard" markup language, some additional languages that ALL browsers interpret in basically the same way (referring to XML, Java, JavaScript, ASP, PHP, etc.), and then there's some "additional" markup that is browser-specific. However, we all work from a general same platform and build up from there.

So why can't there be some kind of "standard" so that it would be, "If you do things this way, you will get better page rank across all search engines"?

Give us something to start with. Then, if we want to target higher ranks in a specific SE (i.e. - Google or Yahoo! or Ask.com, etc.) here's a handy reference of current, up-to-date guidelines for the particular SE of your choice. A central depository of information and links, run by SE optimization experts/professionals who - in their collective, educated consensus - agree that THIS is the best way to optimize your website for search engines while still giving your users great content.

aka - a Search Engine Opimization Consortium.

What's wrong with that? Or are the tools and "tricks" of the trade worth so much that they can't be shared by all on the Internet as how the W3C shares HTML and other web standards? Should we, those who question why there are no SEO standards, be sniffing for a money trail?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

I did not mean to offend anyone in particular by my comment, @ the end of the day I am 1DMF!

lol I was waiting on someone to define blackhat and your post was perfect.

[MursPlace]

1. There are too many ways of skinning the SEO cat.
2. We can’t even agree on the definition of search engine optimization.
3. There are already laws to protect people from SEO scam.
4. There’s no such thing as “cheating” in SEO.

I read this thread earlier and have been really trying to word a nice reply regarding the SEO industry from a Merchants point of view. (I'm sorry I can't say this nicely at all but it has to be said because some type of standard needs to be in place.)

There has to be standard procedures.
I know there are different methods of reaching the same goals but procedures are needed to show progress in most cases.

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to rip apart a couple of SEO companies. It's not personal but I can say the only reason I cam to this site was to find a SEO Expert to refer to a few clients. (maybe)

By the way, I've very protective over merchants I work with so you need to keep in mind that I'm technical and my merchant that sells Dolls online isn't. If I have problems figuring out who can help her I couldn't imagine the issues she would have.

How I started my search for an SEO. by Mur

Step One:
Search "SEO"
Close your eyes
Click on page.

Seriously I searched that same way 6 months ago when I started looking for an SEO. (Still don't have one.) I then looked for a forum in hopes I could find an post of how to find a good SEO.

I have to say WPW is good if you want to become an SEO. It's confusing and needs more Proof of Concept posts but it's got allot of good information.

My Disclaimer: The sites I'm using in this post were the top 2 paid links from Google.Com as of this date. I never saw them before in my life and most likely will never look again at them.

Side Note: If you have ever had to write a technical review about a process you will know why I am posting this site. I have to explain to merchants why things are done in a specific order and what is important for the future. If I told you xHTML 1.0 Strict needs to be used then I would expect you to use it. If you Copy and Paste HTML from another site then fill it with content thinking I'll be impressed you need to read a few reviews I have written.

We have standards for a reason. Read on....

I Typed SEO in Google.
The first Paid Link I found was is Search-Engine Optimization (SEO) Services by Pepperjam™

Great looking site now let's see if they know what HTML is all about.

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.pepperjam.com/search/search-engine-optimization.php - W3C Markup Validator

ERROR:
The character encoding specified in the HTTP header (utf- is different from the value in the <meta> element (windows-1252). I will use the value from the HTTP header (utf- for this validation.

Is META something to do with SEO services?

Don't answer that, let me. Character Encoding is a standard with most using windows-1252 for english sites but I also make Asian sites and other sites so Character Encoding is very important mostly for what? ..... Decoding Characters.

Aren't Characters important in the SEO industry?

Next example
(I took the second paid link)
Search Engine Optimization Services Company, SEO & PPC Management California
[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.seop.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

Failed Validation, 369 Errors (I don't even want to continue.)

Can I make recommendations to the SEO industry?

First If you are going to copy and paste a website that someone programmed in xHTML 1.0 XX please delete that full header and type html in between the < > .

Can you imagine me calling these people? (April 1st yes but any other time no)

I didn't even get a chance to do my fun tests on the sites to see if they are at my level and my merchants level. (I wont read content from Experts until they prove they are Experts)

"Don't create a bad name for yourself and your company by not following W3C Standards and Other Standards set by those that have been online much longer."

I'll suggest a few standards at this point.

SEO Skills Standards.
1. xHTML compliant and tested.
2. SQL / MySQL fundamentals of operation (not coding just how database driven sites work)
3. Zero Access to wwwroot folders. (You should be able to do your job without server access)
4. CSS Fundamentals
5. Show Measured Statistics of your site and your top client's site on accredited sites like QuantCast.Com.
(Note: Alexa or Compete reports are not accurate and are easy to inflat. An most consumers don't use these reporting bars, well at least I don't know any.)

I apologize if I have offended anyone, but I will not apologize to anyone that claims to be an expert and shows slop like my examples. They should be banned from even owning a domain name for life.

When you claim to be an Expert you best be able to prove it.

Sloppy work can be detected before a check is written. Many examples are out on the net but the only ones that are important to me are the ones that affect me.

In the USA we are in a recession, Many merchants will be closing down while some are going to be investing to keep things going. I will be asked more than a thousand times this year what they can do to increase revenue and reduce overhead.

Do any of you think for a minute I'd allow a sloppy SEO to do any work for merchants on tight budgets that trust my judgement and my experience? Not a chance.

So clean up or get out of the industry. If you need a Web Designer to redo your html code to actually match what you claim to run then get a web designer.

If you need a SQL programmer (db) then get one.

I see many of you as assests to my company in the next 30 days. You don't know it but you will soon find out by email.
When I get my team of experts in the US and Europa then those sloppy sites will mean nothing but jokes around the water cooler a year from now.


Standards start at the Current Standards Level. Learn one before creating another.
Thanks,
Mur

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MursPlace

"Don't create a bad name for yourself and your company by not following W3C Standards and Other Standards set by those that have been online much longer."

I've never heard of anyone creating a bad name for themselves because their site did not validate. Google does not validate and I've yet to hear someone say, I am not using Google because their code does not validate.

Code does not have to validate for a site to rank well. As a matter of fact you picked the top ranking sites and their code did not validate. Guess that says it all.

Originally Posted by MursPlace

I'll suggest a few standards at this point.

3. Zero Access to wwwroot folders. (You should be able to do your job without server access)

With no access to the server, I'd say all the rest want matter. Someone else will have to make the changes.

Originally Posted by MursPlace

5. Show Measured Statistics of your site and your top client's site on accredited sites like QuantCast.Com.

I believe QuantCast requires you to add code on your site. I'd not want to add code to my site like this.

Originally Posted by MursPlace

I apologize if I have offended anyone, but I will not apologize to anyone that claims to be an expert and shows slop like my examples. They should be banned from even owning a domain name for life.

And why not line them up and have them shot as well? And I am sure we could do something to their family and kids.

[MursPlace]

Originally Posted by janeth

I've never heard of anyone creating a bad name for themselves because their site did not validate.

Janeth are you telling me you have never heard of a company online creating a bad name for themself? Heck, you would call me a jerk in a heart beat for what I just did. Wait I think you kind of did just do that. Did I just create a bad name for mayself? Then Ban Mur for Life Please!

Want my opinion?

Doesn't matter you're going to get it now. (In a nice way)
But first A quick Reply:

Google does not validate ..

Yes and ? Validation isn't for google or any search engine it's for your visitors. Remember those things call "Web Browsers" or whatever you might call it, the stuff that came after Telnet which was really bad for colors.

Validation is for industry software and devices that have internet browsing capabilities. Like that GPS in your new car just might be able to shop from one of our merchants because we used standards that match the manufacturers suggested applications code. Maybe even grandpa's pocket watch can surf our sites. Might be to slow.

It's not you or your SEO websites I'm concerned about.
It's if you code Merchants or Customers websites like your own that concern me. (not you directly)

I've seen allot of the sites here and most WPW do code very good even great. You had a first time website poster today that did very well for their first commercial website. I really want you to understand if I told a Merchant to Search the letters SEO on Google what I posted is what they would have seen.
And guess what they would have asked me the next day.
Mur do you think these guys are any good?

hmmm, what do you think I would say?

You really need to understand that most of your work comes from Designers or Programmers. Because we are the ones that are suggesting they hire one of you to increase traffic. Even Google recommends site owners hire an SEO but who do site owners trust because of you being a kind of new industry. I think that webmaster / designer / colorblind old guy might have a thing or two to say before they go off dropping bucks into the pond hoping for a ripple of traffic to be generated.

We have our limits and I know my limits. I understand you have a place in my website but I don't have to love you I just have to work with you and on my standards not your made up I don't care because google doesn't require me to code correctly to be ranked number one standards.

Standards make working with people like me and others much easier that's all I am saying.

you picked the top ranking sites and their code did not validate. Guess that says it all.

Yes, I did click the top PAID ADVERTISED SITE and I picked on them.
But I do the same with a site called MyPowerMall.Com because they say they are not a MLM and I just can't believe them so I check back often via paid links.

Look again, that wasn't a organic search it was a paid advertisement. Does that impress me? Nope that's why I clicked on them. But about 4 or 5 down after all google's junk about SEO you'll find a site that seems to be an organic result proving SEO is a good search and only returns 1 silly java id error that I can email about and they can fix in a second.

1 error comparied to 300+ and a Character Set issue. Heck no, I'll go with seo.com if I was looking this morning.

I'm just trying to help you SEO's out and give you the opinion of a programmer and how I see your industry as totally unregulated and uncontrolled. Black Hat, White Hat, Reverse Hack, Google Hack, Cloaking, Leeching, oh my what standards I could come up with just for this. In another post an SEO is going to test a honeypot to prevent scraping and I'm setting up to do the same but in a disallow all then grant based on Agent. I have a bigger problem of being scraped then I do for coming up on Google pages.
Mur's Wishlist: I want a Great SEO that can code to my standards.

I believe QuantCast requires you to add code on your site. I'd not want to add code to my site like this.

Yes that is true it is a small script but don't you use Google Scripts and allow them to track your visitors? You might find it interesting to check Google's Analytics againts QuantCast.Com's system. Makes for good reading if you ask me. And when someone like me asks.

"Hey, can you tell me about your sites traffic and your customers please." I could have just looked you up in QuantCast after you used them for a few months.
(I know, it really stinks at first. One of my sites is really low, 3 visitors all last month. Is Disallow: / a bad thing?)

Stats show where we are at and if you don't show your stuff we can't help you right?
You would want to see my stats if you worked with my sites right? Well then I'll show you mine when you show me yours. Google Analytics PDF will do just fine thank you.

And why not line them up and have them shot as well? And I am sure we could do something to their family and kids.

Do you think I was a little rough on them?
Sorry, Just can't come up with words that match. Hope you see that sloppy really doesn't work for me even if you pay top billing in Google and paid my ticket to their country to train them. Just doesn't fly. Kind of a "It's a little to late in the game to be learning HTML isn't buddy?".

But just about 4th or 5th is a site that uses the same code I use and it's good. (1 error but just an id that can be corrected fast. 1 error at seo.com compared to 300+ and a Character Set issue. When all three sites had the choice of what code to use. Now please tell me, after what I just showed you who would you contact work with? Be honest.

LOL I should have just finished them off and instead of posting here I could have rewriten their site to be a standard and posted what it should look like after validation. But I don't work SEO websites, they wont give me root access. !!!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by MursPlace

Janeth are you telling me you have never heard of a company online creating a bad name for themself?

I believe I said, get a bad name because their code does not validate.

Originally Posted by MursPlace

Maybe even grandpa's pocket watch can surf our sites. Might be to slow.

I'd have to see that but I've seen more then my share of websites not validate and work fine in all the browsers.

Originally Posted by MursPlace

It's not you or your SEO websites I'm concerned about.
It's if you code Merchants or Customers websites like your own that concern me. (not you directly)

Writing text and making a couple little changes here and there should not mess anything up. It's not like they are coding the whole site.

Originally Posted by MursPlace

You really need to understand that most of your work comes from Designers or Programmers. Because we are the ones that are suggesting they hire one of you to increase traffic.

I am not an SEO. If I am going to work on ranking a site it will be my own. I am not interested in making someone else the money I could be making myself.

And I guess some would call me black hat because I don't think on site optimization gets you very far. But I do understand what you are saying.

[Peter (IMC)]

Yes and ? Validation isn't for google or any search engine it's for your visitors. Remember those things call "Web Browsers" or whatever you might call it ....

Validation is mostly to keep technical freaks happy.. The reality unfortunately is that if you make sure that the code validates at all times, you´re going to increase your implementation costs to levels that you´re too expensive. We usually work in a way that we rebuild a client's website from scratch so we don't have to improve the existing code, but simply create our own optimized code. We use their design and content to build the optimized website. We always build tableless.

So using correct HTML is important (that's part of what SEO is all about anyway) but you need to stay practical. Standard checks to make sure the site works correctly in the most commonly used browsers is normal practice.

You really need to understand that most of your work comes from Designers or Programmers. Because we are the ones that are suggesting they hire one of you to increase traffic.

I completely disagree with that. Most of our work comes from marketing people and directors / owners of businesses. Designers and programmers generally see SEO as not liked because we are going to make changes to their work. (I have to say that not all designers and programmers are like this, many are very willing to work with us, especially when they are working in bigger companies. and programmers often like a challenge, so they´re pretty cool with us too. Designers that love flash and other non-HTML languages are the worse though.)

Mur's Wishlist: I want a Great SEO that can code to my standards.

If your standards are very high you will also expect to pay high, right?


Your main focus seems to be on coding, not so much on actual results. I guess that makes it true you´re very technical. Results meaning a lot more visitors to your website. This is something that is confusing. You hire a company to get more visitors to your website through SEO but you´re going to determine the results they get you by checking if the pages validate.

Don't get me wrong, huge (website breaking) errors have to be avoided, but simple warnings should not be an issue.

[1dmf]

I do find it amazing the SEO's that dismiss coding standards.

if I hired a builder, he better meet the required standards, if I get a gas engineer round he'd better be Corgi registered.

If I hired a mortgage adviser, he better have the right qualification and be authorised by the FSA

If I have to have an operation, the surgeon better meet the required 'standards'.

Designers and programmers generally see SEO as not liked because we are going to make changes to their work.

err only if the changes are going to invalidate 'MY' work.

are you telling me it is not possible to optimise a site without breaking W3C standards? i don't beilve it, and if it screws with my code and makes my work look shoddy, then I aint gonna let you make the changes.

I don't beielve us coders have a problem with SEO, it seems with that remark SEO's have a problem with standards and producing quality work.

Surely the two can co-exist, which is why ANYTHING needs to have standards, because if you meet standards, you can guarantee a specific , minimun 'quality' of work.

Be it food, clothes, cars, double glazing or even a website. Hey poor coding might look fine in IE or FireFox, but what about the blind with screen readers, and the point of W3Cs accesibilty guidelines, or do SEO's not care about disabled people, are they not profitable enough ????

Validation is mostly to keep technical freaks happy.. The reality unfortunately is that if you make sure that the code validates at all times, you´re going to increase your implementation costs to levels that you´re too expensive.

hmm looks that way doesn't it - lol

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

i don't beilve it, and if it screws with my code and makes my work look shoddy, then I aint gonna let you make the changes.

Do you believe the code and the site belongs to you or the site owner?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

Be it food, clothes, cars, double glazing or even a website. Hey poor coding might look fine in IE or FireFox, but what about the blind with screen readers, and the point of W3Cs accesibilty guidelines, or do SEO's not care about disabled people, are they not profitable enough ???? hmm looks that way doesn't it - lol

So disabled people can only use websites that are W3C validated?

[1dmf]

No, but it's required by law 'at least for the UK' , to make allowances or provide methods which either make it possible or easier for disabled people to do things.

Some sites no-one can use because of errors or invalid code or even poor design.

And i'm not trying to define what the standards should be, that's the point of having independent consortiums to build the foundations of standards.

But if I employed a web developer, who didn't produce valid, quality code, I sure as hell wouldn't pay them until they did! or I had to replace them with someone who did deliver the quality I expected.

But again, the reason so many can get away with sub standard work, is many companies who employ these services, don't understand the technology, what the standards are , how to check they are getting 'industry standard' quality work..etc..etc..

All they see is a website working in their browser, and just accept it at face value.

duno, maybe it's just me and the standards I place upon myself, I didnt know before I found W3C, that my work was sub standard, once I found out, I changed things, may be it's a pride thing.

I wouldn't be happy now knowing the standards if my work didn't meet them, so I validate every page I ever create, I also try to write semantic code which doesn't neccissarily fail validation, it's not just about valid code it's about a 'standard'.

Understanding the standards and trying to meet them, by its nature tends to lend itself to you automatically producing better quality work, and surely that's a good thing.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

But again, the reason so many can get away with sub standard work, is many companies who employ these services, don't understand the technology, what the standards are , how to check they are getting 'industry standard' quality work..etc..etc..

The hell with rather the code validates, I want to know that when the site is finished I'll make money with it. I've got a customer that does $160,000.00 a month online with his site.

People buy from him because he has a kick ass design, the site works, and they can see everything in their web browser. I've seen many sites online with valid code that hurt my eyes so bad I could not stick around long enough to find out what they were selling.

Valid code ain't going to put money in my bank account but a kick ass design and some good SEO will.

Don't get me wrong, the code needs to be correct but it does not have to validate.

[1dmf]

the code cannot be 'correct' and 'invalid' at the same time.

It can 'work' but be 'invalid' and only because the browsers have built in error correction!

Try leaving out an end tag in an XML file and get it to work. I guess you don't get or care about standards , just profit.

You must be Ferengi

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

the code cannot be 'correct' and 'invalid' at the same time.

It can 'work' but be 'invalid' and only because the browsers have built in error correction!

Try leaving out an end tag in an XML file and get it to work. I guess you don't get or care about standards , just profit.

You must be Ferengi

Google works good in my browser, how does it work in yours?

or how about

Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more

MySpace

Learn about Dell's laptops, desktops, monitors, printers plus computer electronics & accessories.

Apple

It looks like they are more worried about how well their sites work than how well the code validates.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

I guess you don't get or care about standards , just profit.

You got that right, profits for me and my clients.

Companies charge money to validate code and try to make the clients think it is the end all of all things. As long as their code validates it's all that matters.

These people are the same as the people that submit your site to the search engines. Worthless.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

I do find it amazing the SEO's that dismiss coding standards.

if I hired a builder, he better meet the required standards, if I get a gas engineer round he'd better be Corgi registered.

If I hired a mortgage adviser, he better have the right qualification and be authorised by the FSA

If I have to have an operation, the surgeon better meet the required 'standards'.

err only if the changes are going to invalidate 'MY' work.

are you telling me it is not possible to optimise a site without breaking W3C standards? i don't beilve it, and if it screws with my code and makes my work look shoddy, then I aint gonna let you make the changes.

I don't beielve us coders have a problem with SEO, it seems with that remark SEO's have a problem with standards and producing quality work.

Surely the two can co-exist, which is why ANYTHING needs to have standards, because if you meet standards, you can guarantee a specific , minimun 'quality' of work.

Be it food, clothes, cars, double glazing or even a website. Hey poor coding might look fine in IE or FireFox, but what about the blind with screen readers, and the point of W3Cs accesibilty guidelines, or do SEO's not care about disabled people, are they not profitable enough ???? hmm looks that way doesn't it - lol

The thing is that hardly anybody cares about HTML coding standards. 99% of the sites on the web don't validate. So most client websites don't validate. After we´re have rebuilt the website, there are very few errors left, simply because we rebuild a site from scratch. But some errors and warnings may be left over. Not a great worry.

And what does the fact that most sites don't validate say about HTML coders? That most don't care, don't you think? You probably are one of the few that really make an issue out of validation. And there is nothing wrong with that. No worries..

I doubt that accessibility breaks with some validation problems. This whole validation discussion shows up every now and then in this forum and there are always people that are extremely fanatic on HTML code errors. And some that aren't afraid to say that validation isn't the only thing that matters in websites.

I never used a screen reader, so I have a question: "How good are screen readers at dealing with errors? A browser can handle errors pretty good. Are screen readers so sensitive that the smallest problem makes them say: "This page is not readable."?

So your remark about disabled people is completely wrong. CNN.com doesn't validate, newyorktimes.com doesn't validate, even the whitehouse.gov doesn't validate. I can not imagine that if these sites would be a huge problem for disabled people, nobody would complain about it.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

the code cannot be 'correct' and 'invalid' at the same time.

It can 'work' but be 'invalid' and only because the browsers have built in error correction!

Try leaving out an end tag in an XML file and get it to work. I guess you don't get or care about standards , just profit.

You must be Ferengi

Now we´re getting somewhere. There is a difference between functionality and validation. You seem to think that functionality is compromised when a site doesn't validate. All we´re saying is that functionality needs to be good, regardless of validation errors. And I'm sure you can write validated code that doesn't work properly.

So what is more important?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

the code cannot be 'correct' and 'invalid' at the same time.

It can 'work' but be 'invalid' and only because the browsers have built in error correction!

Try leaving out an end tag in an XML file and get it to work. I guess you don't get or care about standards , just profit.

You must be Ferengi

Actually, it can be "invalid," "incorrect," and still "work."

And, error correction is not needed in order for "invalid" code to be "workable;" all that's required is a suitable default action be available.

Validity, correctness and workability are in fact 3 different things.

[1dmf]

if the code isn't valid for what you want it to do it wont do what you want, so there for it isn't correct.

if you make a mistake in a CSS file, firefox stops processing the file from the error and so the page does not have the correct CSS applied and so it doesn't diplay properly , this is a FACT.

it depends on what bit of code is invalid, as to what the effect of that code will be.

I'm not saying all errors will cause the site to not function, but why not write valid code in the first place? because debugging tag soup is a waste of time, effort and money.

Also in JS if there is a major error in the script, the whole script stops working.

But if you don't want to follow standards be it coding, seo , or any other that is your choice.

Enjoy your soup

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

if the code isn't valid for what you want it to do it wont do what you want, so there for it isn't correct.

if you make a mistake in a CSS file, firefox stops processing the file from the error and so the page does not have the correct CSS applied and so it doesn't diplay properly , this is a FACT.

it depends on what bit of code is invalid, as to what the effect of that code will be.

I'm not saying all errors will cause the site to not function, but why not write valid code in the first place? because debugging tag soup is a waste of time, effort and money.

Also in JS if there is a major error in the script, the whole script stops working.

Validity is not related to the developer's goal, but rather to compliance with the grammer and syntax formally described by the language being used. Even where it desirable, a validating program cannot know whether or not any particular code will or will not produce the desired end results for any given set of input data outside of very limited and well defined boundary conditions.

And, the results of invalid code may or may not the executable; and, is so, may or may not yield acceptable results, over the expected range of input data, depending on what the default error handling procedure is.

I.e., invalid code may yield "good" results, while valid code may yield "bad" ones.

Originally Posted by 1dmf

But if you don't want to follow standards be it coding, seo , or any other that is your choice.

Did I ever argue against coding standards?

Are coding standards and SEO "standards" one and the same?

[1dmf]

Did I ever argue against coding standards?

No.

Are coding standards and SEO "standards" one and the same?

No.

But if you don't want to follow standards be it coding, seo , or any other that is your choice.

'you' was the royal you, not you you!

Must have hit a nerve

[MarkGatESS]

Okay, so far we've learned this:

1) People are divided on the subject of having SEO Standards (no duuuh!)

2) We're told that we should write pages for the users, not the search engines

3) Search engine bots/programming take into account number of inbound links as well as relevant content (and keywords) on the site

Am I also to understand (from other postings on this forum as well as other forums) that how popular a keyword is (as in there are more results for one keyword over another) affects where your page will rank?

I did a little test using Google (the infamous unofficial "official" search engine of the web or of web surfers):

I entered the following keyword(s) to search "Helen Reddy" (no quotes)

I got these results: www,helenreddy.com - PageRank of #2 of 472,000 results and the site is ALL Flash. I used www,online-utility.org's Domain Inbound Links Checker and found that the site had 199 inbound links

I then tested our company website: www,endoscopy.com

Entered "endoscopy" (again, no quotes) as the search keyword.

Our company site's PageRank was #11 (2nd page) of 3,850,000 results and our site is mostly static images with image maps/links from the images and text, as well as ASP pages (for the shopping cart system). I used the inbound links checker and found that our site has 200 inbound links (just one more than the Helen Reddy site).

I was under the impression that sites with all flash (because of most search engine's inability to read text in images) would have less natural ranking because the SEs can't "see" the text. So, wouldn't the helenreddy.com rank lower than sites that have more actual text on Helen Reddy? Or is the fact that it is "www,helenreddy.com" a factor?

If the latter is true, then wouldn't "www,endoscopy.com", a URL of the keyword, rank higher? So, is the fact that our search term is one of over 3.8 million results and the other site is one of 472 thousand results a major or minor factor in the PageRank?

And (to keep with this thread) would some kind of SEO standards - standards that everyone from professionals to SEO novices can follow - help or hurt the results of these two sites? Would standards push the all-Flash helenreddy.com down on the SERPs and push endoscopy.com up? Push BOTH up, or both down on the SERPs?

[bj]

Re Helen Reddy and Endoscopy. How long have those top pages been in existence? Were other pages indexed and optimized before the flash was put on the homepage? Of the incoming links, how many link to the top Helen Reddy page use the anchor text "Helen Reddy" and how many link to the top endoscopy page use the anchor text "endoscopy"? Of the inbound links to either of those top sites, are any from edu sites or "authority" sites with very high PR? Do either have RSS feeds? Yes, inbound links play a part, but so do a lot of other factors. History, quality of inbound links, and Anchor Text are other very strong aspects of what makes a site rank higher in the SERPs.

Re flash, Google is now following links in flash, though I believe that anchor text can get "lost" if the flash dev doesn't know how to optimize, which still handicaps many, if not most, flash sites. But if inner pages get indexed, and they're not flashed, and they're well optimized, then the site can still rank well.

So indeed, blending all these different aspects of SEO can lean it much more towards an art than a science, especially since some of what makes a site strong are a result of stuff you can't directly control (and indirectly influencing those things is where the art comes in . . . )

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

No.
No.

'you' was the royal you, not you you!

Must have hit a nerve

AKA the "editorial" you.

Nope; did not hit a nerve. Being an old coder from as far back as 1958-1959, doing octal machine code on PENNSTAC (Penn State's version of ENIAC), I'm well aware of the issues here involved.

That I took it to be the personal "you" owed to the fact that such was in a reply to my post, as opposed to a general statement to all.

And, no offense taken; merely seeking clarification.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by MarkGatESS

Okay, so far we've learned this:

1) People are divided on the subject of having SEO Standards (no duuuh!)

2) We're told that we should write pages for the users, not the search engines

3) Search engine bots/programming take into account number of inbound links as well as relevant content (and keywords) on the site

Am I also to understand (from other postings on this forum as well as other forums) that how popular a keyword is (as in there are more results for one keyword over another) affects where your page will rank?

I did a little test using Google (the infamous unofficial "official" search engine of the web or of web surfers):

I entered the following keyword(s) to search "Helen Reddy" (no quotes)

I got these results: www,helenreddy.com - PageRank of #2 of 472,000 results and the site is ALL Flash. I used www,online-utility.org's Domain Inbound Links Checker and found that the site had 199 inbound links

I then tested our company website: www,endoscopy.com

Entered "endoscopy" (again, no quotes) as the search keyword.

Our company site's PageRank was #11 (2nd page) of 3,850,000 results and our site is mostly static images with image maps/links from the images and text, as well as ASP pages (for the shopping cart system). I used the inbound links checker and found that our site has 200 inbound links (just one more than the Helen Reddy site).

I was under the impression that sites with all flash (because of most search engine's inability to read text in images) would have less natural ranking because the SEs can't "see" the text. So, wouldn't the helenreddy.com rank lower than sites that have more actual text on Helen Reddy? Or is the fact that it is "www,helenreddy.com" a factor?

If the latter is true, then wouldn't "www,endoscopy.com", a URL of the keyword, rank higher? So, is the fact that our search term is one of over 3.8 million results and the other site is one of 472 thousand results a major or minor factor in the PageRank?

And (to keep with this thread) would some kind of SEO standards - standards that everyone from professionals to SEO novices can follow - help or hurt the results of these two sites? Would standards push the all-Flash helenreddy.com down on the SERPs and push endoscopy.com up? Push BOTH up, or both down on the SERPs?

You are comparing apples with pears, they´re both fruit but that's about all they have in common.

Also you´re not using the term "pagerank" the correct way. Pagerank has nothing to do with positions. It's an algorithm that gives information about the quantity and quality of all links that Google indexed that point to a page. Google Toolbar in order to be able to see the Pagerank of each page you´re visiting. (it's an indication of the real Pagerank value that Google has in its search engine. In the toolbar it's visible on a 0 to 10 scale.)

Each search in Google stands on its own. For each search a different set of results is created which are then ranked according to a whole bunch of variables. (At least 100 variables).

What you said about flash is correct, but it is more related to the quantity of different search phrases that a site is found for, than it is related to positions of a single keyword. A flash site can rank high, that's not the problem. The real problem is that it ranks high for just a couple of keywords. An optimized site that doesn't use flash can be found for thousands of keywords which brings in a lot more visitors.

We have a client that was found every month for about 100 different phrases. A site completely in flash. After optimizing it, the number of different keyword phrases the site was found for went up to almost 3000 per month. Number of visitors went from about 200 per day to now about 900 per day. That's what SEO is all about, visitors, not positions for a couple of keywords.


And to answer your last question. SEO standards are kind of impossible. It's like asking for standards for CEO's. All CEO's have to manage their companies by the same set of rules? Not possible. Everybody has his own ways. SEO is not a technical thing that follows certain rules. It's a human thing where you can only follow ethical rules. (i.e. Do an honest job and don't mislead clients.)

[1dmf]

Being an old coder from as far back as 1958-1959, doing octal machine code on PENNSTAC

wow you are old school, not sure you can count an abacus as computer coding though

I cut my teeth on the ZX81 , Vic20 etc.. though a friend had an Oric which I beleive was Fortran, it was way over my head, I was only 11.

I guess for us when compters had limited capabilities, let alone no inbuilt error correction or fault tollerance, 100% valid code was a neccessity.

The best you got was missing " at line xyz or syntax error!, you used to think well if you know it's missing! Problem was there was no way the compiler/interpreter knew where the quote was meant to be, just that it was missing!

I still feel that although browsers are so 'fault tollerant' that sometimes even the sloppiest of code will work, that shouldn't be a green light to write sloppy code deliberatley.

But hey I guess we are all guilty of bending the rules now and again

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

wow you are old school, not sure you can count an abacus as computer coding though

I cut my teeth on the ZX81 , Vic20 etc.. though a friend had an Oric which I beleive was Fortran, it was way over my head, I was only 11.

I guess for us when compters had limited capabilities, let alone no inbuilt error correction or fault tollerance, 100% valid code was a neccessity.

The best you got was missing " at line xyz or syntax error!, you used to think well if you know it's missing! Problem was there was no way the compiler/interpreter knew where the quote was meant to be, just that it was missing!

I still feel that although browsers are so 'fault tollerant' that sometimes even the sloppiest of code will work, that shouldn't be a green light to write sloppy code deliberatley.

But hey I guess we are all guilty of bending the rules now and again

You guys are talking about programming languages. HTML is not really a programming language. The types of codes you guys are talking about is more like server side programming. There code errors are not an option.

But HTML is a very different type of language. It's not really programming either. You can't do calculations, use arrays, create variables, etc. in HTML. HTML is just a simple language to be able to put a screen together. There's no "intelligence" in HTML.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

wow you are old school, not sure you can count an abacus as computer coding though

I cut my teeth on the ZX81 , Vic20 etc.. though a friend had an Oric which I beleive was Fortran, it was way over my head, I was only 11.

I guess for us when compters had limited capabilities, let alone no inbuilt error correction or fault tollerance, 100% valid code was a neccessity.

The best you got was missing " at line xyz or syntax error!, you used to think well if you know it's missing! Problem was there was no way the compiler/interpreter knew where the quote was meant to be, just that it was missing!

I still feel that although browsers are so 'fault tollerant' that sometimes even the sloppiest of code will work, that shouldn't be a green light to write sloppy code deliberatley.

But hey I guess we are all guilty of bending the rules now and again

Working whith native machine code was truly like working without a safety net. Even if the run didn't abend, from, for example, an invalid op code or accumulator overflow, you still had to validate the output. Otherwise, GIGO.

Today's "programmers" don't know how easy they have it.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

You guys are talking about programming languages. HTML is not really a programming language. The types of codes you guys are talking about is more like server side programming. There code errors are not an option.

But HTML is a very different type of language. It's not really programming either. You can't do calculations, use arrays, create variables, etc. in HTML. HTML is just a simple language to be able to put a screen together. There's no "intelligence" in HTML.

That's a debate that's not really worth starting here; you'll find zealous partisans on both sides of the argument. And, its a debate that quickly degenerates into an emotionally charged argument over what constitutes a "true" programmer.

HTML is a programming language in the strict sense, in that it instructs a computing platform, a browser, how to process the input data that it receives. A "programming" language need not have native numerical computational capabilities; a classic example of a non-computational language would be LISP.

So, while I do understand your point, the issue is not really about whether or not HTML is a "programming" language, but what type of programming language. HTML is a procedural language designed for the processing of alpha-numerical character strings.

This having been said, it does not follow that HTML coders are necessarily as knowledgeable of and skilled at manipulating the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of the "box" as are the practitioners of other languages. In fact, most likely very few possess such capabilities.

[magnets]

Looks like the "Do We Need SEO Standards?" thread has ended a few comments ago. While I had the opportunity to meet Grace Hopper, work with a "few MB" drum disk that was bigger than a car, . . ., and be red-flagged by some egotistical supposed "SEO expert" on this web board - none of those have to do with the topic of "Do We Need SEO Standards?".

So, perhaps someone in charge should close this thread and move the last few remarks concerning programming languages to a new thread.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by magnets

Looks like the "Do We Need SEO Standards?" thread has ended a few comments ago. While I had the opportunity to meet Grace Hopper, work with a "few MB" drum disk that was bigger than a car, . . ., and be red-flagged by some egotistical supposed "SEO expert" on this web board - none of those have to do with the topic of "Do We Need SEO Standards?".

So, perhaps someone in charge should close this thread and move the last few remarks concerning programming languages to a new thread.

You are quite right re. the "egotistical supposed "SEO experts" on this web board." Too many of them are given to mistaking opinions in general, and their own in particular, as being the equivalent of facts, with the result that one who dares challenge them is frequently subjected to their sophistic reasoning and emotional outbursts, which are sometimes made manifest by their employing the "red flag."

As often as not, that red flag is really a red badge of courage.

Non carborundum illegitimatae.

[1dmf]

Looks like the "Do We Need SEO Standards?" thread has ended a few comments ago.

How do you work that out, the discussion is about standards, validation and 'correctness' and the history of computers and their languages, have shaped what the current technologies, languages and 'standards' are today.

Saying 'who needs to validate code because bad code works' obviously needs to understand the history of when it didn't work, and WHY!

Hell I used to program computers with bits of card with holes in them, and you certainly couldn't punch sloppy holes!!!!

I don't agree HTML is a programming language, I've had this debate else where and in its true sense it is a 'Mark Up' language.

Just like XML , then there is CSS and JS which together forms AJAX and DHTML, which make web pages.

So unless you SEO's are only ever going to work on sites with nothing but HTML , I suggest you start learning about programming languages and how to validate your code!

[magnets]

Originally Posted by 1dmf

How do you work that out, the discussion is about standards, validation and 'correctness' and the history of computers and their languages, have shaped what the current technologies, languages and 'standards' are today.

Last I checked, the discussion was about "Do We Need SEO Standards?". Your statement is sufficiently broad to include a discussion of Microsoft's Sync software in automobiles and perhaps even the stupid TV commercials on that subject. In other words, not 'standards' rather "SEO Standards".

Originally Posted by 1dmf

Saying 'who needs to validate code because bad code works' obviously needs to understand the history of when it didn't work, and WHY!

Hell I used to program computers with bits of card with holes in them, and you certainly couldn't punch sloppy holes!!!!

I don't agree HTML is a programming language, I've had this debate else where and in its true sense it is a 'Mark Up' language.

Just like XML , then there is CSS and JS which together forms AJAX and DHTML, which make web pages.

So unless you SEO's are only ever going to work on sites with nothing but HTML , I suggest you start learning about programming languages and how to validate your code!

I've still got card-decks and somewhere around here I have papertape from TTYs. They have fully working programs on them as well last I checked decades ago!

But, the subject matter of this thread is "Do We Need SEO Standards?". The discussion has now devolved into the history of programming languages and how things need to be so exact - as we needed to do with card-decks.

Reading over all the past remarks, it seems clear that no two people agree on more than a hand full of things that might be called "SEO standards".

The exact nature of programming languages and the inexact nature of "SEO standards" have little to do with one another. Further, if you've ever taken the time to look at what a spider typically retrieves, rarely is their need HTML or anything related to a programming language. They deal with text. If that text happens to be within certain HTML tags (title, h1, etc.) there may, or may not, be significance attached based upon the particular spider. I run my programs through the W3C validator for minor efficiency reasons not because of SEO concerns whatsoever.

As far as the programming language versus other whatever language debate you like, i prefer spaghetti code. All my programs end up being a mixture of HTML, Jacascript, CSS and PHP. And, occasionally I add other languages if they provide something unique or timely. With that combination, I can do more than I could ever do with Fortran, APL, PL/I, COBOL, assembler, BAL and many many other programming languages.