Who uses search engines?

[icb01co2]

Hi all,

I’m very new to all of this but the more I read the more prejudice I become towards Google. It’s funny because I read many posts with people stating 'Google isn’t for webmasters it is for its users'.

I find this quite amusing because if you talk to the average browser (i.e. someone who has nothing to do with web dev) you'll find that they use the Internet and search engines a hell of a lot less than us webmasters. Even when they do, they don’t care if they use Yahoo, Google or MSN.

From what I see the average search engine user is like the average banker. They use what they know, they don’t know if there's better services out there, and they don’t care. They're loyal without a cause.

My point is that people involved with the Internet use (and praise) the Internet more than those not in the industry. So, is it really worth it to piss us all off with weird new algorithm changes?

The next fumbled point I have is about the W3C standards. I have heard many arguments about SE’s favouring web pages that validate. I have also heard other arguments against this point.

Why argue? It may be that they favour pages that validate, it may not, why take the risk? Is it really that hard to make your pages validate?

Finally, I have to apologise for my post, I am at the end of my degree and decided that wine would help me through my 'EBusiness' coursework. Obviously a bad idea because all I have done is spend my time reading posts here, dreaming of having a highly ranked, highly profitable site that'll make me rich enough to not have to read these post :-)

[Faglork]

From what I see the average search engine user is like the average banker. They use what they know, they don’t know if there's better services out there, and they don’t care. They're loyal without a cause.

I have seen people who even didn't know that there was more than the forced-by-proxy-homepage of their access provider ...

Why argue? It may be that they favour pages that validate, it may not, why take the risk? Is it really that hard to make your pages validate?

Excellent point. Actually, it is quite easy to validate a site. I really can't see why it should be desireable to have a sloppy coded website. What's the benefit of that? The least the customer should get is an error-free page - that should be the minimum standard.

Alex

[janeth]

Why argue? It may be that they favour pages that validate, it may not, why take the risk? Is it really that hard to make your pages validate?

Flash in the header will not validate. Sometimes making pages validate cause them not to work in all browsers.


But the problem with letting things go, that are not true, is they add up. Then you have a new guy that puts all his money into a website, he spends the first month trying to make everything validate and the next 3 months writting content and wonders why he is not getting traffic.

Do you think it is fair for him to be told information that is incorrect or untested?

[Faglork]

Flash in the header will not validate.

Who cares? "You got to know the rules before you break them". If flash does not validate, so be it. It won't hurt at all.

We are not talking about minor problems like non-validating flash. Many sites that don't validate do it on a large scale, with crappy code and hacked-up markup that makes even spiders choke.

Sometimes making pages validate cause them not to work in all browsers.

I have never seen that. Can you give me an example?

he spends the first month trying to make everything validate

Come on ... if he needs a month to validate a page, he indeed has a problem, but not with the validation process ...

Do you think it is fair for him to be told information that is incorrect or untested?

If someone is new, don't you think he is better off in the long run if he learns how to code correctly? Nobody says that validation in itself will get you traffic. The point is that validation HELPS newbies to write better code, and thus will minimize problems (when later porting the code for mobile devices or feeding the content into a CMS or or or ...). I think it is no good advice to say "write bad code, it won't matter anyway". This is simply not true.

If you are able to write correct HTML from scratch, you do not need to validate. I can, but I validate habitually - it makes it so much easier to spot an occasional error, and fixing structural problems for IE is no big deal (compared to fixing problems caused by broken code).

All in all I do not see anything which could be gained by writing incorrect code. So why would someone want that?

Alex

[icb01co2]

janeth wrote:

Flash in the header will not validate.

Im a little confused here. Do you mean flash within the <head> ... </head> tags? Why would you put flash (or any content) in these tags?

Chris

[janeth]

janeth wrote:

Flash in the header will not validate.

Im a little confused here. Do you mean flash within the <head> ... </head> tags? Why would you put flash (or any content) in these tags?

Chris

lol

No not in the head tags but on the top of the page.

[janeth]

faglork

There is nothing wrong with writting code that validates but it is wrong to lie to someone just because you think it is good for them to do.

So when you say code needs to validate inorder for your site to rank well or that code that validates ranks better then code that does not.

You have either not tested this or your just lieing.

[Faglork]

faglork

There is nothing wrong with writting code that validates but it is wrong to lie to someone just because you think it is good for them to do.

So when you say code needs to validate inorder for your site to rank well or that code that validates ranks better then code that does not.

You have either not tested this or your just lieing.

Janeth, just *where* have I said that??? I never made such a statement.

In fact, let me quote myself:

Nobody says that validation in itself will get you traffic.

Just how you can infer from this sentence that I say "code needs to validate inorder for your site to rank well" is beyond me. You did not read the post, did you?

Besides, to accuse me to deliberately lie in this forum is somewhat stark, don't you think? If this is your way to handle discussions that don't go as you would like it (or whatever is the case, I simply can't find a reason for your aggressive behavior), I'd rather not discuss anything with you. Comparing your posts in this forum, it seems you are on a sort of "crusade" against validation - just why, I cannot even imagine. Never mind, it is ok when you have your reasons against validation, but to use false accusations to "strengthen your point" is not ok.



Alex

[janeth]

The question I was answering was here

Why argue? It may be that they favour pages that validate, it may not, why take the risk? Is it really that hard to make your pages validate?

I was answering it from post I had seen others make around the forum. Not from any post I had seen you make.

[Faglork]

Janeth: I do not want to be picky, but

faglork

There is nothing wrong with writting code that validates but it is wrong to lie to someone just because you think it is good for them to do.

So when you say code needs to validate inorder for your site to rank well or that code that validates ranks better then code that does not.

You have either not tested this or your just lieing.

is NOT an answer to icb01co2's (btw rethorical) question

Why argue? It may be that they favour pages that validate, it may not, why take the risk? Is it really that hard to make your pages validate?

Instead, it is an accusation directed at me (not the op). Just what you want to achieve with such statements, escapes me.



Alex