W3C validation - How important is it ?

[DVDStar]

Hi,

I’ve let this one slip a bit with some of my sites, and have just ran a W3C check on my usb (http://www.amstore-memory.co.uk) site, and it reports 14 errors.

Most of these are generated by the cms adding "/" to the end of brackets, and it will only insert these again if I take them out.

Therefore, just how important is it to be W3C compliant? Will it effect my SERP rankings in any way ? Does Google take it into consideration?


------------------------
Cheers

[wige]

Generally speaking, W3C validation is not necessary. No search engine takes it into consideration. However, search engines do need the code of your pages to be understandable by their bots. One of the best ways to make sure your site can be read by the widest range of clients (browsers and bots) is to pass the page through a validator like the one provided by the W3C.

[kgun]

One of the most complete WPW threads on this topic I know of is this:
http://www.webproworld.com/search-engine-optimization-forum/58226-css-destroyed-my-rankings.html#post309965

[green8659]

Short answer is NO it doesn't effect your search rankings directly. However, as the number of websites is soaring it wouldn't be unbelievable that Google would eventually start taking it into account as PR and other factors keep getting abused.

[datetopia]

Google doesn't seem to fully comply so basically they probably don't expect other websites to comply either:
[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.google.com/ - W3C Markup Validator (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&verbose=1)

[janeth]

Hi,

I’ve let this one slip a bit with some of my sites, and have just ran a W3C check on my usb (http://www.amstore-memory.co.uk) site, and it reports 14 errors.

Most of these are generated by the cms adding "/" to the end of brackets, and it will only insert these again if I take them out.

Therefore, just how important is it to be W3C compliant? Will it effect my SERP rankings in any way ? Does Google take it into consideration?


------------------------
Cheers

Want make a difference as long as none of the errors affect Google's ability to spider the site.

[incrediblehelp]

SO MANY posts on this already in WPW:

site:webproworld.com validate - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US251&q=site%3Awebproworld.com+validate&btnG=Search)

[kgun]

Here

http://www.webproworld.com/accessibility-usability-forum/60033-validator-w3-org.html#post321975

is another classic WPW thread, may be the best on the subject.

[Steven1976a]

I ran a check on Google (http://www.google.com) and they had 63 errors, amazon 1883 errors. So if they cant get it right then I wouldnt worry to much.

[Orion]

I ran a check on Google (http://www.google.com) and they had 63 errors, amazon 1883 errors. So if they cant get it right then I wouldnt worry to much.

If you have the same amount of money for marketing that those companies do I wouldn't worry either lol...

Basically..

It doesn't have to have 0 errors, sometimes there's valid reason to code something different, I think that a competent designer should know that and know why they chose not to use valid coding.

A valid page will:

not cause any issues with a search bot
not cause any issues with a browser causing the page to load slower
shows professionalism especially if you are working for a company that has people in marketing or other designers and developers that will be working on the site
is a great habit to develop
you won't have to recode anything should an engine decide to use validation in it's algorithms (note: google does say in it's tips that your code should be clean and well formed)
a pretty good idea.. but don't lose tons of sleep over it

[jordanmcclements]

Dont worry about it if your site works properly in IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari.

[davidweb]

It doesnt matter whether your website is W3C validated or not, but "Error Free HTML" could help you avoid pitfalls especially if you have several hundred pages on your website.

Take for example, if your developer forgets to close <h2> tag on several pages, then it could be mistaken as spam by search engines.

Therefore having a W3C validation is good, since your website displays evenly across all web browsers. Moreover, it means that your website HTML is error free.

It is upto you to decide whether you would prefer to have a W3C validated website or not. Personally, I would recommend to have W3C Validated website if you have big big website. Atleast it can help you make your website error free :)

[Orion]

oh.. also really good if another designer takes over the site down the road.. they'll have a clue what was happening! LOL

Again... not required.. but definitely beneficial...

[ericajoieake]

some of the website owners just want to comply to W3C validation just to make sure their website competitive advantage to other website, but it is not necessary to comply with this as long as your website is SEO friendly there's nothing for you to worry about.

[Webnauts]

I never had the chance to run a test yet, but someone else did.
Maybe you would like to see his results:
Google SEO Test - Google Prefers Valid HTML &#038; CSS | Hobo SEO UK (http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/index.php/official-google-prefers-valid-html-css/)

[janeth]

I never had the chance to run a test yet, but someone else did.
Maybe you would like to see his results:
Google SEO Test - Google Prefers Valid HTML & CSS | Hobo SEO UK (http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/index.php/official-google-prefers-valid-html-css/)

I get an error on the page?

[wige]

I never had the chance to run a test yet, but someone else did.
Maybe you would like to see his results:
Google SEO Test - Google Prefers Valid HTML & CSS | Hobo SEO UK (http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/index.php/official-google-prefers-valid-html-css/)

Of course, I'd have to pick a few nits about the test:
The pages that have invalid HTML have the invalid HTML surrounding content, which could affect how the search engine parses that section of text, causing the page to be filtered in favor of the valid page, which search engines may see as having more content. For this test to be more convincing, the HTML error should have been in an element that did not surround text - an image or an empty span perhaps.

The page with invalid CSS actually contained less CSS errors than the indexed "valid" page. Again, this seems to contradict the claimed results of the test.

[Webnauts]

I was just viewing SEOMoz "Web Developer's SEO Cheat Sheet".

They had there something called like "Important SEO Html Tags".

Source: SEOmoz | The Web Developer's SEO Cheat Sheet (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-web-developers-seo-cheat-sheet)

My questions are, how Google or other engines will perceive and weight the following examples:

<h1>This is a piece of text</h2> (as an h1 or an h2 tag?)

or

<strong>This is a piece text</i> (as a strong or an italic tag?)

or

<i>This is a piece of text</b> (as an italic or a bold tag?)

The above are not just based on a theory, since I have seen often such errors.

I know there might be some members here who might probably don't believe in the high value of on-page optimization (e.g. markup), but since I do give equal value for bot, on- and off page optimization, I would appreciate any further thoughts or opinions.

[Webnauts]

I get an error on the page?
I do not understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

[wige]

Actually, search engines should be able to interpret those mismatched tags without a problem, as it was considered acceptable as recently as HTML 4 as long as the closing tag matched the "type" of the opening tag. Any inline (<b>, <i>, <strong>, etc) tag can close any other inline tag, any header tag can close any other header tag, and any block level tag can close any other block level tag. This even goes as far as table tags - clients should be able to handle a <td> being closed with a </th>. The rule used by browsers (and most likely used by search engines) is that the content of the tag is rendered according to the opening tag and closed by the next closing tag of the same type. This only becomes unsupported with XHTML, which attempts to more closely follow the stricter XML standards.

[seo-2009]

I dont think W3c validation plays a major role in displaying SERPs. But it is one of the quality guidelinke about the site.

[Webnauts]

Actually, search engines should be able to interpret those mismatched tags without a problem, as it was considered acceptable as recently as HTML 4 as long as the closing tag matched the "type" of the opening tag. Any inline (<b>, <i>, <strong>, etc) tag can close any other inline tag, any header tag can close any other header tag, and any block level tag can close any other block level tag. This even goes as far as table tags - clients should be able to handle a <td> being closed with a </th>. The rule used by browsers (and most likely used by search engines) is that the content of the tag is rendered according to the opening tag and closed by the next closing tag of the same type. This only becomes unsupported with XHTML, which attempts to more closely follow the stricter XML standards.
I guess I do not understand you Wige.

Let me explain:

<h1>This is a piece of text</h2> Would Google weight this as an h1 or an h2 tag?

[tamecrow]

Site A fully validates to W3C standards. Siet B does not. Assuming all other factors are entirely equal, I believe that yes, site A would be ranked higher than site B. Of course, valid code will not have a major effect on your rankings by itself and it is nowhere near the top of the pyramid in terms of SEO importance, but it's well worth considering. I believe it's very important that web designers and SEOs should be able to code XHTML & CSS cleanly and semantically.

[wige]

I guess I do not understand you Wige.

Let me explain:

<h1>This is a piece of text</h2> Would Google weight this as an h1 or an h2 tag?

Google would consider it an <h1> tag. Firefox, IE and most other browsers would also render it as such. This was considered acceptable - not recommended, but accepted - before the switch to XHTML.

Now if you had <h1>This is a piece of text</td>, the spiders and web browsers would probably have a problem with it.

[kgun]

X(HT)ML with unproperly nested and open tags do not follow the rules, so it is not a well-formed document and of course not a valid document.

It will also break the DOM model, so meaningful DOM manipulation is impossible.

[Webnauts]

X(HT)ML with unproperly nested and open tags do not follow the rules, so it is not a well-formed document and of course not a valid document.

It will also break the DOM model, so meaningful DOM manipulation is impossible.
Google in the webmaster guidelines state:

"Check for broken links and correct HTML."

If a page is created in (X)HTML and has improperly nested and open tags, would it violate that guideline? And would that be well-formed HTML, ok in this case (X)HTML?

Attention! I did not mention the word valid! I said well-formed... ;)

[kgun]

HTML is a bad dialect of X(HT)ML that you should not learn anybody.

As a rule (http://www.angelfire.com/super/badwebs/main.htm) valid markup / code is less important than content (in a HTML world).

In an XML world that IMO is the future (http://www.w3toolbar.com/) it will be difficult to do anything meaningful with non well-formed code. Valid code is very important for professional consistent document handling, especially in large companies.

[Orion]

all valid documents are well formed.. (it's a requirement for xHTML) and I believe that all well formed code would be valid also, except for the fact that you could have a snippet of code that is well formed but on it's own could not be considered valid because it would be missing things like a DTD etc.

I believe the terminology is well formed code and valid document. not valid code??? might be wrong on that one.. Ok I'm tired and confusing myself now ... gonna have to read this to see if it makes any sense tomorrow lol..

[Webnauts]

Most of us know that this topic is going on for years never has an end. The argument of the ones who do not even know to markup HTML or XHTML, because most probably never really learned to, that you still can write improper markup and still be valid. Posed otherwise, if you don’t follow semantic markup for your pages still can validate, because the W3C or other validators cannot know if you’ve used other tags to fake your headings or not.

For example:

<div class="heading">This is a heading</div> (styling the font size with CSS), instead of <h1>This is a heading</h1>.

So once again:

What does Google mean with the term correct HTML? And what ever the answer is to this, am I not violating the guideline if I do not markup correct HTML?

NOTICE! If all here have noticed already, this guideline have been changed. A while ago they had there "well-formed HTML", and now they have there "correct HTML".

I always markup 100% well-formed, semantically correct and valid (X)HTML, no matter if that helps my rankings or not. But I still want to know what does Google mean. Is that so difficult to get an answer to such a simple question? Come on SEO experts...

[Webnauts]

And what is he talking about? How to Fix the Bloated Code that is Jacking Up Your SEO - Search Engine Guide Blog (http://www.searchengineguide.com/stoney-degeyter/how-to-fix-the-bloated-code-that-is-jack.php)

I think we should setup a list of the markup errors that can hurt rankings.

What do you think? Or does someone have one? I am sure the ones who do not care to markup valid code should have one. Why don't share?

[richard-s]

Therefore, just how important is it to be W3C compliant? Will it effect my SERP rankings in any way ? Does Google take it into consideration?

We're missing something here:

Under UK law, when offering "goods or services" it is illegal to discriminate against people who have disabilities.

This means that all web-sites which offer "goods and services" MUST be "accessible."

The automated "accessibility" and "validation" checkers give some help but can never prove that a web-site is "accessible" to a real human using real software.

Those lapses into XHTML, when your web-site is declared to be HTML 4.01 (Strict) will be ignored by most web browsers, but may possibly trigger a bug in eg. a screen-reader program used by a blind person.

Some HTML tags are wrong; also your server claims to use "charset=ISO-8859-1" but the pages claim to use "utf-8."

More serious, are the problems not reported by the automated checkers. For example:

1. With my enlarged fonts, text in your left-hand menu wraps and becomes superimposed over the next line - making both unreadable.

2. Some of the text is hidden behind some of the images - again making those paragraphs unreadable.

These types of faults are common on web-sites which are "plastered" with compliance "award" banners!

So: Yes, it is important for web-sites to be made as "accessible" as possible; No, results from automated checkers are only a guide.

Richard

[Orion]

We're missing something here:

Under UK law, when offering "goods or services" it is illegal to discriminate against people who have disabilities.

This means that all web-sites which offer "goods and services" MUST be "accessible."

The automated "accessibility" and "validation" checkers give some help but can never prove that a web-site is "accessible" to a real human using real software.

Those lapses into XHTML, when your web-site is declared to be HTML 4.01 (Strict) will be ignored by most web browsers, but may possibly trigger a bug in eg. a screen-reader program used by a blind person.

Some HTML tags are wrong; also your server claims to use "charset=ISO-8859-1" but the pages claim to use "utf-8."

More serious, are the problems not reported by the automated checkers. For example:

1. With my enlarged fonts, text in your left-hand menu wraps and becomes superimposed over the next line - making both unreadable.

2. Some of the text is hidden behind some of the images - again making those paragraphs unreadable.

These types of faults are common on web-sites which are "plastered" with compliance "award" banners!

So: Yes, it is important for web-sites to be made as "accessible" as possible; No, results from automated checkers are only a guide.

Richard

Same laws in Canada and the US regarding accessibility. The issue here though is Validity of the pages not accessibility. Granted, having valid pages GREATLY increases the easy of making them accessible, but you could have a fully accessible website that still throws an error on the W3C validation tool.. (not many errors though!)

[richard-s]

Same laws in Canada and the US regarding accessibility. The issue here though is Validity of the pages not accessibility. Granted, having valid pages GREATLY increases the easy of making them accessible, but you could have a fully accessible website that still throws an error on the W3C validation tool.. (not many errors though!) Perhaps, but assuming that we're designing web site for PEOPLE rather than for search engines, it would seem important that people can actually access those web sites.

So far, the UK laws on accessibility of web sites have not been enforced rigorously. But for how much longer?

Similarly, there are new UK laws which dictate that companies MUST display certain company information on each web page (and email). Again, there are severe penalties.

For people who have not heard a screen reader, I've posted recordings of an old screen reader trying to read this AMS web page: Using Firefox 2.0.0.14 and using MS IE6 with MSAA.

Office Live Workspace (http://workspace.office.live.com/?id=pACQ5MmUxZTRkYi1hNDIwLTRjYTgtOGYxZC1kMTE2NmU2O GJlMzIAe_aKleA_vW9As9PLSjAz8359ABNyLnNoZXBAbnRsd29 ybGQuY29t&cid=40)

I have not edited these recordings. The long pauses are while the screen reader is moving to a new section of the page.

With Firefox, the screen reader mostly reads each line on the screen from left to right, ignoring column boundaries.

With MS IE6 with MSAA, the screen reader tries to read the columns, but often gets "lost."

The screen reader also tries to expand abbreviations: So SD becomes "South Dakota," the FL at the beginning of "Flash" where there is an error in the web page becomes "Florida."

Richard

[Orion]

richard-s...

very cool ! I wish that more people (designers / developers) would have the chance to listen to screen readers.

My wife and son have type one diabetes, and my wife's vision has deteriorated so that she needs higher contrast and she is also mostly colour blind too. We have quite a few friends that are well beyond that and a few of them have screen readers. It's a very eye-opening experience to listen to a page being read by one.

So few (especially basic or amateur) designers understand the reasoning behind always using <li> for menu items and using <abbr> and <acronym> tags for your shortforms, <address> around addresses etc... For those that require screen readers it makes for a much less frustrating experience!

thanks for your post and sharing those screen reader clips...

[Seo-optimizer]

no it doesnt affect you Pr but you must comply with it so that you can suitably display you site in alle browsers

[DVDStar]

Excellent feedback everyone, and thanks for the links to other posts as well.

Dave
---------------------
<please add your link to your signature>

[Webnauts]

W3C validation for a website design is good.
You can tell us your opinion without adding links to your site in your posts. OK?

Thank you.

[infrascape]

OK. I will that. Thanks for your advice.

[activeco]

I was waiting for Kgun to announce it, but since he's kind of late with this, let's do it:
1: Introduction to The Web Standards Curriculum/Table of Contents - Opera Developer Community (http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/1-introduction-to-the-web-standards-cur/)