SEO through W3C standards

[janeth]

I dont know that I agree to be honest.

Take a validated page. It has meaningful well written text. Also a few keywords adequately spaced out (not stuffed) in it. In addition, some good headings and sub headings.

Then take an invalid SEOed page. Keyword stuffed headings and text with lots of links to it. Are you sure that you could out rank the above?

Even if you could, in the long term who would win out? The page that people cant read because of it invalid nature or the page that after 10 years still is readable accessible and usable for that matter? Also which page would have more good quality incoming links?

You are trying to compare apples with oranges to prove a point.

[Webnauts]

I wanted to ask here, if google ignores web pages code, how do they evaluate heading tags, semantical tags like bold, italic, etc?

[crankydave]

Since there seems to be some "confusion", here's a link a posted quite some time ago in another thread.

Video: Google's Vanessa Fox on Sitemaps and PageRank

The whole video is worth the watch but pay particular attention at the 4:54 mark.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Since there seems to be some "confusion", here's a link a posted quite some time ago in another thread.

Video: Google's Vanessa Fox on Sitemaps and PageRank

The whole video is worth the watch but pay particular attention at the 4:54 mark.

Dave

There is a more recent video with MC that said the same. I assume your post here was not an answer to my post above or?

[crankydave]

No John.

Let's be sure and make a distinction here. "Reading" and "ignoring" are 2 different things. We know they can "read" the meta description and keywords. We also know that they "ignore" them when it comes to actual ranking metrics.

Let's also make the distinction between "broken" code that cannot be read and "invalid" code that can be read. Just because code does not validate doesn't mean it cannot be read and will not render properly.

Furthermore, validated code does not make a site/page more relevant to a query. Validated code does not make a site/page more of an authority on the its subject matter.

Dave

[Webnauts]

No John.

Let's be sure and make a distinction here. "Reading" and "ignoring" are 2 different things. We know they can "read" the meta description and keywords. We also know that they "ignore" them when it comes to actual ranking metrics.

I agree.

Let's also make the distinction between "broken" code that cannot be read and "invalid" code that can be read. Just because code does not validate doesn't mean it cannot be read and will not render properly.

I agree.

Furthermore, validated code does not make a site/page more relevant to a query.

I agree.

Validated code does not make a site/page more of an authority on the its subject matter.

I agree.

I am not advocating since some time now that valid code can have a positive effect for rankings. Valid code is not a ranking factor for Google. But correct and clean code is a requirement of the Google Webmaster Guidelines.

There are HTML elements that are included in the Google rankings factors, like titles, headings, bold and italic tags, alt attributes, etc.

I still recommend to check your code with a validator to make sure that you do not have fatal errors that can choke the crawlers.

One fatal error is BOM, which I asked WilliamC if he thinks too that can choke a crawler, but he was not sure, since he did not test that yet.

For the Web Standards Advocates reading or participating in this thread, I would like to add here that I am a Fanatic Web Standards Advocate, but still I must live with the fact that Google doesn't give a damn about valid code. Trust me.

Look at the page technical statement on my web site. There is my Advocate profile.

[crankydave]

Well said John. Sums it up rather nicely IMO.

Dave

[williamc]

but still I must live with the fact that Google does give a damn about valid code. Trust me.

I think you meant to say "doesn't".

And as Dave said already, well said.

[Webnauts]

Well said John. Sums it up rather nicely IMO.

Dave

Don't forget Dave who was my teacher.
And he was a very strict man!

[Webnauts]

I think you meant to say "doesn't".

Thanks you William. I could still edit my post.

And as Dave said already, well said.

Thanks man.