TIP: Before you submit a site for review do this... - Page 2

Webnauts · #51 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigd11

It awesome what you can find and learn on the net

It would be more awesome what we can learn and byy on the net, if you would also update your spammy signature, which make you and your services less credible to potential customers here at WPW.

Webnauts · #52 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigd11

It awesome what you can find and learn on the net

And it would be a good idea to update your spammy signature too, which make you and your services less credible to potential customers here at WPW.

SLBushway · #53 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 06:55 PM

Where is the evidence to suggest that visiting http://validator.w3.org and having a compliant site is in any way going to help your organic search rankings? Every site that is kicking my butt out there not only fails validation but with 100's of errors. Where is the evidence that customer's care? One of my competitors is closing in on 43 million dollars this year - somehow I don't think he cares if his site looks the same on all browsers. In fact there is some evidence to suggest that sites that pass validation don't perform as well on Google but do better on MSN. And I don't think customer's care if your borders on IE are blue but on Mozilla are grey. As long as they don't have to scroll too much and as long as the page loads reasonably fast - customers could care less about valid HTML.

I have a site that doesn't validate and I have over 450 pages. I am not too unhappy with how my site appears across different browsers and so before I spend 100's of hours in an area that in the end may have little impact - I was wondering if you could point me to specific case studies where valid html was worth the effort and led to a higher ranking and an increase in the conversion from visitor to sale.

Thanks

Tim · #54 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 08:19 PM

SLBushway,

You might want to read these two discussions and add your observations and question to either of them;

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...982&highlight=

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...189&highlight=

greeneagle · #55 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

"Where is the evidence to suggest that visiting http://validator.w3.org and having a compliant site is in any way going to help your organic search rankings?"

Matt Cutts recently confirmed that there is nothing in their algorithms that favors validated code:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...51959310&hl=en

However, almost any business depends on repeat customers. Your site traffic should show more return visitors than new SE generated traffic in a short period if it is worth anything to anyone at all.

That's much harder to accomplish with sloppy code!

Ken

begabloomers · #56 (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 12:06 AM

Hi Tim and all,

I have submitted my site before reading about the 20 posts prerequisite ( sorry )- may i suggest this is why there appear to be so many banal comments like " good site" or "looks good" which you commmeted on negatively. Basically as a newbie to make 20 posts i either need to ask 20 questions or post something equally banal - I am in no position to help anyone with any substantial comments or responses. There may be a bit of cause and effect going on here.

I built my site with NVU which is not bad to use although finding help for specific questions is a bit difficult . There is an NVU forum but it doesn't seem to be very well frequented.

susan

yoyo · #57 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

Tip: Before you submit a site for review here do this..

Check your site at http://www.sitereportcard.com and keep tweaking until you get 'perfect' on all checks.

Check your site at http://validator.w3.org and don't stop tweaking until your site validates. Flash insertion probably exempt(?).

Check your site on http://www.instantposition.com for the first 5 of your keywords.

Check your site on http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

Good Luck.

Very usefull information, I spent almost 1/2 a day to go through all the URLs above. Check and modify and repeat... Woh! great job.

PapaJim · #58 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006, 12:54 PM

I went through the tools suggested and faired pretty well except @ W3c. My problem is I began this site using a template from my host who used a prgm called "Web Builder" It had some serious flaws that were very frustrating, so I started doing my revisions by hand, keeping the template.

The majority of errors detected by W3c have to do with DOCTYPE and whether "attributes" are used properly IN THE TEMPLATE not the content. Looks like the template is proprietary so I don't see how I can ever pass W3c without starting from scratch...not a pleasant thought cause I've received quite a few compliments from my customers about the site.

What to do...what to do?

Tim · #59 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006, 01:02 PM

Hi PapaJim,

What's the URL?

By the way, the second site in your signature is unavailable.

PapaJim · #60 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006, 01:34 PM

Hi, Tim,

Thanks for your interest. The URL I am trying to improve on is the first one below: http://itllbefun.com.

Regarding the second site, I just signed up with this program yesterday and stepped into some issues with their server. Seems they had some glitches show up in the software this weekend and they seem to be growing :(

Hope it's solved soon because the products are near to my heart and drive (see profile).

Again, thanks

ultimatehandyman · #61 (**permalink**) 08-18-2006, 07:40 AM

Some of the links to the tools at the start of this thread are great, but the w3 validation tool seems totally pointless to me.

My site came up with 69 errors, so I checked Google.com and it had a similar amount and this site has it's fair share- http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ebproworld.com

Personally I think that the W3 validator is a complete waste of time, if your website works ok in most browsers than who cares if W3 find petty little faults with it?

The sitereport card is a very useful tool and is saved to favorites.

Tim · #62 (**permalink**) 08-18-2006, 10:11 AM

Many people make spelling mistakes, so does that make dictionaries totally pointless too? As has been discussed at length (eg. here and here) errors can have a considerable detrimental effect. Even a simple (petty) error can cause blind people and search engines to miss content even if it renders in the regular browsers. There is, of course no compulsion to follow the recommendations (or spell correctly) but generally it's good practice and if you do happen across a browser oddity it's going to be a lot easier to discover the cause with clean code.

clubkid66 · #63 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 11:59 PM

MY website is
Mod Edit - CTABUK - Please don't spam us, reply on topic next time - thanks

Xen2 · #64 (**permalink**) 10-27-2006, 12:15 PM

I have tried this all before, but ended up having a large headache! One test said I had a broken link, and when I checked it it was fine. It said I had 18 spelling mistakes, like "didnt" and my name. But didnt was spelt with a ' and how is my name spelt wrong?? Another useless piece of software!

I have tried before to clean up my html, but was a waste of time, because no matter what I did, I always had problems. My site ranks in the top ten on the majors and the site can be read by most.

I want a site that makes money and don't care if this organization or that organization agree with my code. If Google, Yahoo and MSN like it, then that's just fine by me. I have seen sites that have many errors in it, some reeally bad ones, yet they are in the top 10, which suggests that the Top 3 SE don't care either. Google's own sites have tons of errors!

Give me a break!!

Webnauts · #65 (**permalink**) 10-27-2006, 01:56 PM

Xen2 no one cares if you like to build crappy sites, as with invalid code and/or broken links.

But just FYI, Google for sure would care if you have broken links. And can Search Engines can have difficulties spidering your pages which have invalid code.

I hope this will cure your headache. ;)

Xen2 · #66 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Xen2 no one cares if you like to build crappy sites, as with invalid code and/or broken links.

But just FYI, Google for sure would care if you have broken links. And can Search Engines can have difficulties spidering your pages which have invalid code.

I hope this will cure your headache. ;)

Thank you for your considered response. My sites all do well and are indexed within a week and have healthy Page Ranks. If you think my sites are crappy, then that's fine, my bank account says different!

Oh, by the way, you have a broken link on your http://www.webnauts.net/ site!!

Webnauts · #67 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006, 10:24 PM

Xen2 I did not mean that your sites are crappy. I just said if you like to build such sites it is fine with me.

And maybe you are ranking well now, lets see how it looks like next year.

And how do you rank here by the way? http://labs.google.com/accessible/

And thanks for the broken link hint. I will check that right now.

Webnauts · #68 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006, 10:27 PM

Xen2 I just run XENU and I have not found any broken links. Can you tell where it is?

Xen2 · #69 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006, 05:47 AM

This is the result I got:

Processing http://www.webnauts.net/

This may take some time... (why?)
Anchors

Found 16 anchors.

Valid anchors!
List of broken links and redirects

Fragments listed are broken. See the table below to know what action to take.
Code Occurrences What to do
(N/A) 9 The link was not checked due to robots exclusion rules. Check the link manually, and see also the link checker documentation on robots exclusion.
404 1 The link is broken. Fix it NOW!

http://ekstreme.com/socializer/?url=...ulting+Company
What to do: The link is broken. Fix it NOW!
Response status code: 404
Response message: Not Found
Line: 197

Xen