Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??

HandWS LTD

I would like to see how many seo's, web designers, web developers in boards.ie alone, find that by following the w3c guidlines and having your website error free, WILL this give you an extra added weight to your Search Engine ranking?

Alot of people believe it does but on the other hand other people believe it doesn't. So i want to know how many people in boards.ie alone, believe it will help your ranking or not.

My opinion will never change whatever the score is.

RedFly

Ok, a lot of talk about this lately in the Internet Marketing / SEO forum here.
Let's put this to bed once and for all here. W3 compliant code is NOT a ranking factor.

Straight from the horses mouth (sorry Matt):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBACTS-tyg

While W3 compliant code is easier to maintain and (almost) futureproof, it's NOT a ranking factor.

The confusion lies in Google's ability to crawl a page/site. A W3 compliant site facilitates that but it's not necessary. The messiest code in the world can still be crawlable.

On a final note, Google have suggested that page load time WILL be a ranking factor in 2010. Having clean code that caches well and minimizes requests will help, but again, compliant code only facilitates that.

I hope that your opinion that "will never change" agrees, because it is a fact.

HandWS LTD

I never mentioned google. ALL search engines. All search engines are different with different factors.

RedFly

Brian, this has been done to death.

Why don't you go ahead and validate the top ten results in each search engine for 30 common/competitive keywords in different verticals.

I think you will find that there is no identifiable correlation between validation and ranking.

And when you think about it, why should there be? Search engines want to return the MOST RELEVANT results to it's users. Just because a page isn't valid, doesn't make it relevant.

HandWS LTD

Sorry Davis. Thats where your wrong. It cannot be tested like that by getting the top ten results as you explained. This is due to google adwords and link building. You should know that.

Have you ever tried testing it?

RedFly

Of course it can't be tested like that. Unless you have indexed sites who's source link is the same and with one valid and one not.

Then there are other variables (source links order etc).

Also, if it cannot be measured like that, then IF there was any weight, it would be too small to bother.

While we try to always validate for the reasons you should, we don't worry about it. Why? Because the main search engine in the world states specifically that it doesn't carry any weight. Why else? Common sense. Why assign a LESS relevant page more weight to a relevant page because it's valid?

I don't see you giving any reasons or evidence to the contrary.
I'm done with this now.

RedCardinal

My opinion will never change whatever the score is.

What's the point in asking then?

link8r

RedCardinal wrote: »

What's the point in asking then?

Excellent reply!

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Sorry Davis. Thats where your wrong. It cannot be tested like that by getting the top ten results as you explained. This is due to google adwords and link building. You should know that.

Have you ever tried testing it?

It's Dave (@Redlfy) btw!

I don't understand your reply - maybe I'm missing something.

You've asked this already and you failed to produce any authoritative links, evidence or other. By this I mean something from Bing or Yahoo or other search engine's own site. I've gone through these and I've found a lot of information to suggest that you're wrong and I posted this.

I don't get how you can say Dave is wrong. Unless you have been brought in to Bing and told that this is fact, then you are working off speculation. How can speculation be used to matter of factly point at two of the most respected gentlemen of SEM (Dave + Richard) ?

HandWS LTD

link8r wrote: »

It's Dave (@Redlfy) btw!

I don't understand your reply - maybe I'm missing something.

You've asked this already and you failed to produce any authoritative links, evidence or other. By this I mean something from Bing or Yahoo or other search engine's own site. I've gone through these and I've found a lot of information to suggest that you're wrong and I posted this.

I don't get how you can say Dave is wrong. Unless you have been brought in to Bing and told that this is fact, then you are working off speculation. How can speculation be used to matter of factly point at two of the most respected gentlemen of SEM (Dave + Richard) ?

Link8r, i said he was wrong on what he mentioned about testing it. He agreed. Whats with the names? I mentioned his surname. That is bringing the topic elsewhere. I am not producing any links here but will in a new blog at a later date. Its not speculation.

Now my point in asking the question from the thread is to see the opinion of the irish professionals on boards.ie that have designed/developed websites. Lets say its a little survey to see what the irish market is like in this area.

RedFly

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Lets say its a little survey to see what the irish market is like in this area.

What do you think and why?
And why have you hidden the poll results?

HandWS LTD

Pole results will be shown in 30 days from being started, this is just to not let people make wild guess's by following the results.

This is not based on google (they may/maynot in the future.) as we all know google does not rank sites being valid. But google does crawl them much better by being valid.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Link8r, i said he was wrong on what he mentioned about testing it. He agreed.

Allow me to summarise it: RedFly, RedCardinal and myself have all said we don't agree and you're saying we're wrong - thats what that is in reference to.

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Whats with the names? I mentioned his surname. That is bringing the topic elsewhere. I am not producing any links here but will in a new blog at a later date. Its not speculation

:eek: what names? I just pointed out that his first name was "Dave" - in English don't you normally refer to someone by their firstname and not their surname?

(If you don't have a sense of humour, please stop reading). I'm sorry for pointing out something - I wasn't aware that this was unacceptable in a forum and I apologise.

[QUOTE=HandWS LTD;63250731Now my point in asking the question from the thread is to see the opinion of the irish professionals on boards.ie that have designed/developed websites. Lets say its a little survey to see what the irish market is like in this area.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen anyone agree with you - so you're on you're own there? :pac:

Just thinking out loud - you should probably try the same poll on IWF. On second thoughts, I don't really think there is a need for this poll but you would possibly find more SEO thinkers on IWF maybe.

mneylon

RedFly wrote: »

And why have you hidden the poll results?

I was going to ask the same question.

It's odd.

Most polls run on fora don't hide the poll results

mneylon

link8r wrote: »

:eek: what names? I just pointed out that his first name was "Dave" - in English don't you normally refer to someone by their firstname and not their surname?

The only exception would be if you wanted to be very formal and wanted to show your respect for Mr Davis, but I suspect that wasn't the case here .. though of course I could be completely wrong

Personally I find people referring to me or anyone else by their surname alone to be quite childish and a bit rude / offensive

link8r

Blacknight wrote: »

The only exception would be if you wanted to be very formal and wanted to show your respect for Mr Davis, but I suspect that wasn't the case here .. though of course I could be completely wrong

Personally I find people referring to me or anyone else by their surname alone to be quite childish and a bit rude / offensive

Thanks BK - glad I'm not losing my mind!

HandWS LTD

My god....if RedFly did not like it then he would have said so and i apoligise. I'm sorry guys it was not mean't to be rude. Barristers are required to address one another by surname .... so maybe this is why its stuck in my mind.

tomED

HandWS LTD wrote: »

My opinion will never change whatever the score is.

When I saw this the other day, I thought... what's the point in this conversation...

I don't think anyone here agrees with you HandWS, sounds like you've eaten a forum on SEO theory and brought it to a level that makes sense in your own head.

I see it a lot on other forums where someone will respond to a question like this and it is taken completely out of context by others and then it gets legs and runs on its on.

It's a topic that irks me a lot to be honest. I hate seeing articles on compliant code where one of the benefits of compliant code is "helps with ranking on search engines". The bottom line is, it doesn't. However, if the code is clean (generally is with compliant code) it makes it easier for search engines to indentify important content and links. That's about it!

Anyway, I don't know why I even bothered replying to this when you don't really care what others beliefs are. It's kind of a pointless topic...

HandWS LTD

what's the point in this conversation...

Ha ha....I always thought this when it was talked about online without any fact.

When i noticed something in a test, i thought maybe the w3c valid code is the reason for it, and plays a small role in the ranking factors in the search engine. Its a fact with google, that it does not help ranking. You are right in saying what the search engines do with the compliant code is that it makes it easier for them to identify important content, links and more. This goes for all search engines.

The question is related to, does it help ranking in any one of the other search engines - Bing, Yahoo etc. Most people ignore these search engines when answering the question. That is a mistake. Ok, google is the most popular used and contains a high amount of those users searching via their search engine, but you should never ignore the others....as they are still being used by a good amount of users.

tomED

HandWS LTD wrote: »

The question is related to, does it help ranking in any one of the other search engines - Bing, Yahoo etc. Most people ignore these search engines when answering the question. That is a mistake. Ok, google is the most popular used and contains a high amount of those users searching via their search engine, but you should never ignore the others....as they are still being used by a good amount of users.

The fact remains that it doesn't make a difference - well certainly it never has from any site we have ever worked on.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

When i noticed something in a test, i thought maybe the w3c valid code is the reason for it, and plays a small role in the ranking factors in the search engine.

The question is related to, does it help ranking in any one of the other search engines - Bing, Yahoo etc. Most people ignore these search engines when answering the question. That is a mistake. Ok, google is the most popular used and contains a high amount of those users searching via their search engine, but you should never ignore the others....as they are still being used by a good amount of users.

The site must have been in a very small index if it ranked and the only thing you did was to check W3C validation. If you started out with 2 sites, how can you be sure of all of the factors weighing in. They would have different domain names, how do you know one of these domains hadn't been registered before (say 2 years ago?). I think you've picked up on something because you want that to be the reason.

In a way - its a bit like people who go in for new age Wicca, or fairies or other unproven/unprovable things - they want to, it makes them happy despite any evidence, proof etc.

HandWS LTD

link8r wrote: »

They would have different domain names

Not entirely differently. To test, it has to be very very similar. Same keywords but different ending. History....was looked at and didn't find anything.

link8r wrote: »

I think you've picked up on something because you want that to be the reason.

If someone tests something....then they are aiming to see if one or two things can be the reason. Then thats how you do it. Is there another way???? Maybe....but i haven't tried another way....as this was the easiest way.

link8r wrote: »

In a way - its a bit like people who go in for new age Wicca, or fairies or other unproven/unprovable things - they want to, it makes them happy despite any evidence, proof etc.

Everyone needs proof, otherwise its nothing. I don't believe anything until the proof is seen for itself or comes from the people responsible for the search engines (like matt cutt said about google).....otherwise it will just drive you nuts.

RoadKillTs

I think the OP is a bit obsessed with the W3C guidelines
It doesn't make a bit of difference imo.

HandWS LTD

RoadKillTs wrote: »

I think the OP is a bit obsessed with the W3C guidelines
It doesn't make a bit of difference imo.

I would not call it obsession. As a web solutions company....by having your website valid shows how professional you are. This is a requirement and should be the case for any web company. Being valid has its advantages.

We provide error free websites. Would you like to buy a brand new car thats not error free? I thought not....so anybody looking for a brand new website would not want to recieve it with 20%, 10% or even 5% of errors. Its like they are not getting what they paid for.

RoadKillTs

Well that's fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But the question you asked was "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking?"

And the answer is no. there is no proof what so ever to back it up.
As another poster said look at the top ranking sites in different industries and look at the amount of errors they have. I'd say you would be hard pushed finding a high ranking site which was W3C compliant.

On another note would you mind showing us some example of your work?
I cant seem to find a portfolio section on your site. (maybe i'm blind)

tomED

HandWS LTD wrote: »

I would not call it obsession. As a web solutions company....by having your website valid shows how professional you are. This is a requirement and should be the case for any web company.

Don't really want to get into the standards argument - but I completely disagree.

HandWS LTD wrote: »

We provide error free websites. Would you like to buy a brand new car thats not error free? I thought not....so anybody looking for a brand new website would not want to recieve it with 20%, 10% or even 5% of errors. Its like they are not getting what they paid for.

What a terrible analogy. Even a badly coded website can work and function 100% in a browser, so you just can't compare them to a car.

HandWS LTD

tomED wrote: »

Don't really want to get into the standards argument - but I completely disagree.

Thats ok. Thats how i feel, and i'm sure everyone looking for a website would agree.

tomED wrote: »

What a terrible analogy. Even a badly coded website can work and function 100% in a browser, so you just can't compare them to a car.

Ok. Car...was just the first thing that popped into my head. May not be a good example. Would this be an example for you......i write a cv for a new job....spill coffee over it and hand it in, it can still be read and 100% functional... will the employers like it?? no...there's your error. A badly coded website can work and function 100% in a browser (all browsers?? depends) BUT will it be read the way the spiders want it read. It will still be read if it has some errors but not smoothly.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Thats ok. Thats how i feel, and i'm sure everyone looking for a website would agree.

Ok. Car...was just the first thing that popped into my head. May not be a good example. Would this be an example for you......i write a cv for a new job....spill coffee over it and hand it in, it can still be read and 100% functional... will the employers like it?? no...there's your error. A badly coded website can work and function 100% in a browser (all browsers?? depends) BUT will it be read the way the spiders want it read. It will still be read if it has some errors but not smoothly.

You're really trying very hard to make this really black&white here and its not.

Clients are buying presentation & marketing. If a site came up as unreadable or gave off alerts - that would count as not professional. Handing in your CV (which is basic and formal in terms of presentation) and having a coffee mark on it is not the same as having validation mistakes - its widely agreed here that professionals don't care - they don't see a problem, neither do the search engines. The only person who does care seems to be you...

Secondly, cars ship with errors - there are build errors in every car. Its not as crucial as buying the car and the engine doesn't work - that would be like having a site that doesn't run. But cars have flaws, like no car's wheels will point exaclty 100% in alignment, the engines aren't perfect - they will wear, its a built-in flaw. The computers are there in the engine management system to balance out the way the engine is burning petrol.

I find your posts and comments extraordinary...

HandWS LTD

link8r wrote: »

Clients are buying presentation & marketing. If a site came up as unreadable or gave off alerts - that would count as not professional.

Agreed.

link8r wrote: »

Handing in your CV (which is basic and formal in terms of presentation) and having a coffee mark on it is not the same as having validation mistakes - its widely agreed here that professionals don't care - they don't see a problem, neither do the search engines. The only person who does care seems to be you...

I'm not on my own !! I'm the only one putting the arguements here. Others prob won't so they won't get into arguments. They'll agree or disagree with the post.

link8r wrote: »

Secondly, cars ship with errors - there are build errors in every car. Its not as crucial as buying the car and the engine doesn't work - that would be like having a site that doesn't run. But cars have flaws, like no car's wheels will point exaclty 100% in alignment, the engines aren't perfect - they will wear, its a built-in flaw. The computers are there in the engine management system to balance out the way the engine is burning petrol.

Your right in your example....cars ship with errors..... CV's don't. When something like the coffee happens.........they fix it or replace it with a new one....error free. Websites are the same.....easily fix it. They shouldn't be shipped with errors by a web company.....thats make you unprofessional. I would not like to buy a brand new xmas toy that was faulty. Thats unprofessional.

RoadKillTs

But who says the website is faulty?

I don't think it's faulty
The client doest think it's faulty
The client's customers don't think it's faulty
Google doesn't think it's faulty
The designer doest think it's faulty.

You seem to be the only one that does.

Edit: By the way some of your own site is not compliant. You might want to fix that before you start preaching about
coding practices.

HandWS LTD

RoadKillTs wrote: »

But who says the website is faulty?

I don't think it's faulty
The client doest think it's faulty
The client's customers don't think it's faulty
Google doesn't think it's faulty
The designer doest think it's faulty.

You seem to be the only one that does.

I don't see any website mentioned. If you use an imaginery one then your right. Show me your website and i'll tell you.

by the way.....my website is compatible. It's still under construction....so maybe one or 2 pages haven't been looked at yet, out of how many, over a hundred. Pages i don't find valuable....are left to be fixed last. Any page in particular?

i'm currently working on another site.