Tables to CSS, W3C validation and Search Engines

[Webnauts]

If I will redo a site, switching from tables entirely to CSS and I also make it W3C compliant, can that be something that emerges?

Could it be that the cleaner the code is, that Google and the search engines will get a better idea of what the site is about?

What do you think?

[GiorgosK]

If nothing else the code would be much lighter

and you can put your CSS in a seperate file that will be downloaded once for the whole site.

I am sure spiders appreciate this and will probably eases their job.

[wige]

My understanding is that content is weighted based on how far down the document it is - content closer to the beginning of the file is considered more important. By switching to a CSS design method, you get two advantages. You remove code overhead, that results in all your content moving a little bit closer to the beginning of the document, and you also have the ability to change the order items are displayed. For example, on my main web site, the navigation and headers which browsers render first are actually the last thing in the page. I use CSS to move these less important elements to the bottom of the file, which would not be possible in a tabled layout.

There is another issue, that might mitigate this advantage, however. Searching through Google Webmaster Help a few days ago, I found a question about the "100 link limit" that is in the webmaster guidelines. The response was that the 100 link limit was made up, based on a cache limit. Originally, the spider would only index the first 10k of a document, and over 100 links would make the document longer and some parts of the page would not be indexed. (Not sure how the two concepts really relate, myself) However, that limit has become meaningless because the limit was raised several years ago to 100k, and now spiders index (and run the discovery process) on the first 500k. Depending on the importance of a page (probably a reference to the page rank), spiders may even index documents of up to 1Mb.

[mjtaylor]

I did that recently on a site and it slipped in the search engines. I think when the site was redone, the keyword density was too high ... removing all the bloated code changed the ratio. I am adjusting the keyword density (please don't tell anyone I used that term ;0) and we'll see if that helps.

In prior experiences, positions have improved; this was the first time going to CSS seemed to have a negative effect.

Cheers, MJ

[dharrison]

keyword density was too high ...

Wash your mouth out child!

I wouldn't say that CSS and validation = search engines is the be all and end all: we have all seen sites written in Frontpage that are #1. but I do agree there is the advantage of main content being more prominent in the page.

Furthermore, I also feel that CSS and W3C validation widens your audience, and that is always a good thing.

[Webnauts]

Well I see you that you all would not agree with me, if I say that tableless CSS and valid code can improve your rankings.

Therefore you do agree with Bruce Clay and Google either:

When I redid my site, I switched from tables entirely to CSS. I also made it W3C compliant. That may be something that emerges. I was moderating a panel at adTech and Google said that the cleaner the code, chances are the search engines will get a better idea of what your site is about. From that point of view, go to CSS because it's simpler.

Source: Organic Listings Forum: SES, San Jose 2007 » PageTraffic Blog

Anyway...

[Webnauts]

Wash your mouth out child!

I wouldn't say that CSS and validation = search engines is the be all and end all: we have all seen sites written in Frontpage that are #1. but I do agree there is the advantage of main content being more prominent in the page.

Furthermore, I also feel that CSS and W3C validation widens your audience, and that is always a good thing.

Today a customer called me telling me that his site made with FP have dropped all at it sudden from #1 to he does not know where, without doing anything on the site.

[rumblepup]

John,

Sorry my friend, but table based design IS W3C compliant.

Table layout has not be depreciated. It is permitted in HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. There is a Tables Modules in XHTML 2.0 that allows complex content in the cells.

Here is a link

Tables in HTML documents

11.1 Introduction to tables

The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells.

So a tableless design in not necessarily the end all be all.

Further, both Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox have publicly said that Googlebot can and does strip html from content.
On an interview with Rand Fishkin, right here at WebProNews, she said that it doesn't matter how much code, or bloated code is in a document, Googlebot can read the content. Matt Cutts has gone on record saying that W3C standards don't mean much to Search Results.

Now for Yahoo and MSN, it might be VERY important to have as little code as possible to mess up their bots. Not so much for Google.

Now that I just read that, Bruce Clay was the ONLY SEO who noticed anthing. I remember that meeting cause I was there.

Here is the entire quote

Q: I have a text driven site and I have dynamic pages that I need to optimize to get into the top 10 in most of them. I was wondering if there's significant advantage of CSS over tables and if I should take that fight to my IT department.
Greg: Yes, you should, only because that's how the web progressive and that's how we roll these days. I don't think there's an SEO benefit but I think it's important to follow and maintain some of those standards. If your website is using the font tag, that's bad becasue it's deprecated. Can you make an argument that you can rank way better? Not really. I wish that search engines did reward valid code but they don't.
Dave: Way back, if you had a lot of elements inside of your table, the page wouldn't render until everything loaded. It's about user experience too.
Jill: The bottom line is that it's not going to affect your SEO. If it's a big deal to revamp your site, don't do it.

That is Greg Boser, Dave Naylor, and Jill Whalen. Bruce Clay might be one of the greatest SEO's around, but he's not the only one, and he's sitting up there with EQUALS.

[Webnauts]

John,

Sorry my friend, but table based design IS W3C compliant.

Table layout has not be depreciated. It is permitted in HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. There is a Tables Modules in XHTML 2.0 that allows complex content in the cells.

Here is a link

Tables in HTML documents

First, I never said that tables are obsolete! But if we are going deeper in this issue, you better read what are tables made for. Tables are used for the presentation of tabular data and not web page layout. Period.

About Vanessa, Matt and Rand I only would like to say here, that I do not take everything they tell for granted. And I am sure other experts do not either.

I cought them all telling certain stories which were at a certain point far beyond the reality.

If you want to backup something, please avoid referring me to certain persons statements, and stick on facts.

And about Bruce, I took his comment as a confirmation of my experiences, and additionally a confirmation of a Google employee. That was all.

[rumblepup]

Now John, I did point to facts, a quote from W3C.

Their is nothing in the HTML Transitional architecture which discounts table based design.

In fact, I bet you I can point to a table based design that is W3C compliant, and that sucker has images in cells, and tables within tables, and all that good stuff.

Here's the W3C test page for an Inc 500 site

John, you've know me long enough to know I'm not against you in any way. Just a difference of opinion.

About Vanessa, Matt and Rand I only would like to say here, that I do not take everything they tell for granted.

I could care less about Rand, but Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox? You wanna double check who they are?

Bruce Clay is a fantastic SEO bro, but he is also the inventor of LinkMaps, a wierdo technology that never really worked, and he has stopped selling.

We all have our defects, and I am for sure someone full of defects, but I think we are all here to have an open mind as well.