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

HandWS LTD

RedCardinal wrote: »

There's no such thing as "good authority".

Nobody uses the words good/bad/poor for domain authority. You can use it as you wish.

What you are actually saying is that all sites have the same authority.

Interesting

honka_bonka wrote: »

HandWS LTD,

Seriously now,

You say CMS 's are bad for ranking ( same as a non W3C validated website ) yet Wordpress based websites ( CMS ?) are loved by Google ( full of coding flaws thou ) and usually rank better and faster than others ( talking about Google SERPS )

Please tell me why ?

Thank you ( and sorry to interfere but couldn't help it ),

Me.

Are you serious?? I never said a CMS is bad for ranking. So its not a valid argument. They can rank well but can rank better by fixing up the code internally.

2 posts overall and in the same thread;). Nice one.

honka_bonka

Are you serious?? I never said a CMS is bad for ranking. So its not a valid argument.

My point was that the CMS's coding is not unique, always comes with errors ...

Thats a quote from one of your replies HandWS LTD and because you insist that a clean W3C validated code helps you rank better , yes I assumed that you believe that CMS is bad for ranking ( I know, I know " assumption is the mother of all ****ups " )

2 posts overall and in the same thread. Nice one.

Yes . I'm not a big fan of Boards but following this thread made my weekend so I couldn't help it ( links to this thread - all over the place my friend )

Regards ! ( and goooood luck )

tomED

HandWS LTD wrote: »

They can rank well but can rank better by fixing up the code internally.

I was going to ignore this thread... but I just can't. This thread is seriously getting more ridiculous by the hour...

By "fixing up the code internally" on a CMS, it will help with your search engine ranking......................

I can't wait to see the next super SEO on the scene with that included in their own SEO guideline document... we'll know exactly where that logic came from!! Absolutely Hillarious

gnxx

I'm really unsure of this "CMS bad for ranking" stuff.

If a CMS is buggy and maybe has contention issues for database resulting in poor page load .... maybe ... but I'm not sure I'd even consider this as a "search engine ranking" issue .. it is more of a deployment issue and is likely to be noticed quickly. Also bugs in CMS systems tend to get fixed very quickly.

On the plus side for using a CMS:

1. Can use nice URL structure that includes a published date ( search engine developers like nice URL's )

2. Often have decent meta tag generation that the user can't tamper with ( so you don't get name="date" content="Fluffy toys in Ireland" )

3. Often generate good HTML code from a crawler viewpoint; and often leave content rendering to CSS ( meaning the HTML loads quickly )

More and more, search engines are getting smarter how and when content is indexed. Of the top of my head, I can think of several places where we determine the content management system when crawling a website, and then optimize for this particular case.

For large sites or clients that want to publish content etc, I can not see any viable option other than a CMS.

I don't develop web front-end stuff normally. When I do develop web stuff, I try to apply w3c and other standards to the best of my ability. However, sometimes I find that this leads to a poor user experience. In these cases, I drop the standards approach in favour of getting the best user experience with the least code complexity.

I've taken part in standards commitees etc in my previous jobs and believe that standards are great once they really mature. However, with rapidly evolving technology ( like web 2.0 ), they are often outdated before the final version is agreed.

I actually feel the pain of organisations that try to adopt technical standards within their development work. After 20 years in this business though, I've found (a) products rarely meet the required standards -- and often the market leading product is the worst offender (b) by the time the standards become more robust the world has moved forward and new stanards are required (c) adopting a standards only approach leads to stiffled innovation ( remember that a core of web 2.0 is async requests which was a Microsoft IE feature ).

All this stated, I still can not think of a single reason why w3c would lead to better web ranking. If anybody is willing to help me experiment on this subject, then we can try it with the main search engines.

I suppose one concession that I'm willing to grant on w3c standards and SEO is that it prevents stupid mistakes. For example, missing / illegal tags or plain stupid HTML/Javascript combinations etc. However, I would also point out that good quality control will have the same result as will using a CMS.

Anybody who believes that w3c offers benefits in ranking, please try to back this up with some technical facts. Honestly, as somebody involved in search engines I can not think of a viable reason why w3c would increase ranking, but I'm very willing to accept facts or even wild theory if its thrown out ...

That is my 10c worth on this topic.

gnxx

HandWS LTD wrote: »

They can rank well but can rank better by fixing up the code internally.

I'm not sure I understand this statement, but even the most horrible HTML tends to get equal ranking with poor HTML.

For example:

<b>I like beans and chips</b>

<p>I like beans and chips</b>

Will both be stripped to plain text. Most parsers will automatically close the "hanging" tag.

Sadly, browsers will render the most awful HTML. Since they actually make such a good job of handling even the most awful cases, the developer doesn't notice they've made a mistake.

Since browsers took this route of rendering even badly formed HTML, search engines are also forced to do the same.

At the end of the day, a search engine crawler just rips text it considers visible from a HTML page and stores this text. Some text maybe treated with higher priority ( for example a title ), but for the most part, the text is ripped and shoved into a plain text file. This is why I have problems understanding why a w3c compliant page would rank higher?

RedFly

gnxx wrote: »

At the end of the day, a search engine crawler just rips text it considers visible from a HTML page and stores this text. Some text maybe treated with higher priority ( for example a title ), but for the most part, the text is ripped and shoved into a plain text file. This is why I have problems understanding why a w3c compliant page would rank higher?

Exactly.

cormee

This conversation probably relates to x/html markup, but following W3C 2.0 accessibility guidelines would definitely make a site more crwalable than if they had been ignored (and yes, I realise 2.0 has been superceded).

Some examples of the parallels between the W3C accessibility guidelines and good SEO practice:

1.1.1 Non-text Content
All images, form image buttons, and image map hot spots have appropriate, equivalent alternative text. (OK, this one is somewhat debatable)

1.3.1 Info and Relationships
Semantic markup is used to designate headings (<h1>), lists (<ul>, <ol>, and <dl>), emphasized or special text (<strong>, <code>, <abbr>, <blockquote>, for example), etc. Semantic markup is used appropriately.
Tables are used for tabular data. Where necessary, data cells are associated with their headers. Data table captions and summaries are used where appropriate.

1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence
(Level A)
The reading and navigation order (determined by code order) is logical and intuitive.

2.4.2 Page Titled
(Level A)
The web page has a descriptive and informative page title.

2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)
(Level A)
The purpose of each link (or form image button or image map hotspot) can be determined from the link text alone, or from the link text and it's context (e.g., surrounding paragraph, list item, table cell, or table headers).

2.4.6 Headings and Labels
(Level AA)
Page headings and labels for form and interactive controls are informative. Avoid duplicating heading (e.g., "More Details") or label text (e.g., "First Name") unless the structure provides adequate differentiation between them.

2.4.8 Location
(Level AAA)
If a web page is part of a sequence of pages or within a complex site structure, an indication of the current page location is provided, for example, through breadcrumbs or specifying the current step in a sequence (e.g., "Step 2 of 5 - Shipping Address").

2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only)
(Level AAA)
The purpose of each link (or form image button or image map hotspot) can be determined from the link text alone.

2.4.10 Section Headings
(Level AAA)
Beyond providing an overall document structure, individual sections of content are designated using headings, where appropriate.

RedCardinal

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Nobody uses the words good/bad/poor for domain authority. You can use it as you wish.

What you are actually saying is that all sites have the same authority.

No, where did I say that? Authority is scalar (none, some, a lot), but using the term "good authority" shows you have zero grasp of this particular metric.

No real point in adding any more to this thread now - I think everyone who has read it has likely drawn their own conclusions...

HandWS LTD

RedCardinal wrote: »

No, where did I say that? Authority is scalar (none, some, a lot), but using the term "good authority" shows you have zero grasp of this particular metric.

No real point in adding any more to this thread now - I think everyone who has read it has likely drawn their own conclusions...

Its a matter of opinion - with which you are making this into being a problem.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Its a matter of opinion - with which you are making this into being a problem.

I find RedC's comments highly relevant and very polite & professional. Your comments I find are borderline insane.

Listen to this little re-run of events: YOU asked a question, publicly, we're answering the question.

Cop on

HandWS LTD

link8r wrote: »

I find RedC's comments highly relevant and very polite & professional.

I'm sorry David, you talk about professionallism quite alot.

Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking Part Deux

link8r wrote: »

It's Dave (@Redlfy) btw!

link8r wrote: »

:eek: what names? I just pointed out that his first name was "Dave"

link8r wrote: »

I merely pointed out that your web page about SEO was rated as 0/10. Thats the Google PageRank, not my rank.

link8r wrote: »

Before you call the Forum Police for "Thread Wandering"

links to this thread - all over the place my friend

Doesn't make sense. Thats truely childish and unprofessional. So on behalf of all the professional's, moderators and myself....i will help you find the door. 4th link down from the top right hand side of this page, called "Log Out", will open the door to a whole new world for you.

All the best.

link8r

You and the moderators? The moderators haven't mentioned any issues to me...


I can't see how any of the comments I made weren't professional. They definitely don't agree with you, sure, but to suggest that I should leave because I don't agree with you is just so stupid. Nobody else is agreeing with you. Maybe if you're looking for the source of the problem, you don't have to look too far.

Hope that helps.

Sully

Mod Note:
I think this topic is nearing towards closure, as I fail to see how its even on topic at this stage.

I think the OPs question has been answered here. Does this thread serve any further purpose? Ill wait until Monday and see if it survived the remainder of the weekend.

Until then, can we please try and get on nicely? Putting compeditive behaviour aside and trying to pretend we all can get along without hating each other?!

Thanks.

HandWS LTD

Hi Sully,

The thread does serve further purpose. I will be posting my answers to the question of the Poll on the 28th of Dec, when the poll is shown to everyone. I would appreciate it, if it stayed open until then. People are still answering the Poll but not leaving a comment.

Any harsh comments towards me between now and then.....i will not be answering.

Sully

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Hi Sully,

The thread does serve further purpose. I will be posting my answers to the question of the Poll on the 28th of Dec, when the poll is shown to everyone. I would appreciate it, if it stayed open until then. People are still answering the Poll but not leaving a comment.

Any harsh comments towards me between now and then.....i will not be answering.

If the topic continues in the circle its currently going - it will be locked. Regardless of what the outcome of the poll says (and I doubt its going to change very much between now and the 28th). In addition, if this thread is going to serve no purpose until the 28th then ill just lock it. Don't create a thread if your not going to get involved in the discussion or respond to points.

HandWS LTD

ok......fair enough. I ask for one thing. Can you please PM me before you lock it so i can leave my answers.

HandWS LTD

Thank you all for getting involved in this thread. Firstly, I’d like to apologise to anybody reading this thread and to those I have come across as ignorant and unprofessional towards. However, there is a reason for this attitude and using my company name in this thread to get the right response. You will not see this attitude again. My survey has nothing to do with the title "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??". The results of this thread means nothing to me but the survey does. Now, for me to answer the question "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??"................ Who knows? There are no known FACTS that it does. Only Google has come out and said it doesn't. No other search engine has said anything about this. As my tests have shown.....it's hard to say if it does or not. That’s not good enough. So nobody actually knows for a fact. If nobody knows, what harm can it do to have your website error free......and maybe it will increase your ranking. No harm at all. I'm not saying it does help your ranking. I can't answer that, like everyone else can't. This is not a reason why our (and our clients) websites are error free. These websites are error free for a number of reasons with which I am not going to talk about now. Every answer I argued with has shown that those companies I’ve argued with are wrong, due to them not looking at the big picture and expanding the arguments into something that is not even a valid argument. This is the surprising part. In late February at the earliest, I will be mentioning in my blog what the survey is all about and it will be titled either with the correct name or with “Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??”.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Thank you all for getting involved in this thread. Firstly, I’d like to apologise to anybody reading this thread and to those I have come across as ignorant and unprofessional towards.

You have also been rude and just plain ignorant.

HandWS LTD wrote: »

However, there is a reason for this attitude and using my company name in this thread to get the right response. You will not see this attitude again. My survey has nothing to do with the title "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??".

I can't see how this justifies the unprofessional and rude replies you've made to posters. You started a thread on a public forum and whinged like a little baby when people didn't agree with you. Shame...

HandWS LTD wrote: »

The results of this thread means nothing to me but the survey does. Now, for me to answer the question "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??"................ Who knows? There are no known FACTS that it does. Only Google has come out and said it doesn't. No other search engine has said anything about this. As my tests have shown.....it's hard to say if it does or not. That’s not good enough.

Then why didn't you just run a poll on PollDaddy or your site or something. Why did you come to Boards.ie to the SEO section and pose a question if you didn't want a reply. It doesn't sound like an intelligent thing to do....

HandWS LTD wrote: »

So nobody actually knows for a fact. If nobody knows, what harm can it do to have your website error free......and maybe it will increase your ranking. No harm at all. I'm not saying it does help your ranking. I can't answer that, like everyone else can't. This is not a reason why our (and our clients) websites are error free. These websites are error free for a number of reasons with which I am not going to talk about now.

We didn't say it did any harm, we just said it didn't count - I strongly recommend studying the English language further if you wish to continue holding debates using it.

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Every answer I argued with has shown that those companies I’ve argued with are wrong, due to them not looking at the big picture and expanding the arguments into something that is not even a valid argument. This is the surprising part. In late February at the earliest, I will be mentioning in my blog what the survey is all about and it will be titled either with the correct name or with “Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??”.

You are patently wrong. This is an official PDF from Microsoft that details, oddly enough, what you need to do to rank on Bing, which are:

• Target only a few keywords or key phrases per page
• Use unique <title> tags on each page
• Use unique <meta> description tags on each page
• Use one <H1> heading tag on each page (and if appropriate for the content, one or more lesser heading tags, such as <H2>, <H3>, and so on)
• Use descriptive text in navigation links
• Create content for your human visitors, not the Bing web crawler
• Incorporate keywords into URL strings

Oddly Bing does like Meta data and some keywords (2 per page at most it goes on to say). Note the severe lack of W3C compliance mention. Now it does also recommend that the code doesn't hinder the bots (which has been repeated by replies on this post) and that you can check for W3C validation at validator.org (good idea to check if you had, say duplicate HTML or really bad HTML that stopped the bots from reading your page) but it's 100000miles away from achieving compliancy.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/5/4/454C13D4-D94D-4B54-8E46-FE403DF7632B/WMC_FAQ.pdf

HandWS LTD

David, I'm sorry your very angry. You are now talking in circles. Trap was planted and you fell right into it. Now you are trying to get out of a hole you dug.

It's not a wise move to continue to be an argumentative company.

RedCardinal

HandWS LTD wrote: »

David, I'm sorry your very angry. You are now talking in circles. Trap was planted and you fell right into it. Now you are trying to get out of a hole you dug.

It's not a wise move to continue to be an argumentative company.

Wow, I'd never come across you previously, but suffice to say that after this "ingenious" thread I'll be ignoring most of what you do in the future...

tomED

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Thank you all for getting involved in this thread. Firstly, I’d like to apologise to anybody reading this thread and to those I have come across as ignorant and unprofessional towards. However, there is a reason for this attitude and using my company name in this thread to get the right response. You will not see this attitude again. My survey has nothing to do with the title "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??". The results of this thread means nothing to me but the survey does. Now, for me to answer the question "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??"................ Who knows? There are no known FACTS that it does. Only Google has come out and said it doesn't. No other search engine has said anything about this. As my tests have shown.....it's hard to say if it does or not. That’s not good enough. So nobody actually knows for a fact. If nobody knows, what harm can it do to have your website error free......and maybe it will increase your ranking. No harm at all. I'm not saying it does help your ranking. I can't answer that, like everyone else can't. This is not a reason why our (and our clients) websites are error free. These websites are error free for a number of reasons with which I am not going to talk about now. Every answer I argued with has shown that those companies I’ve argued with are wrong, due to them not looking at the big picture and expanding the arguments into something that is not even a valid argument. This is the surprising part. In late February at the earliest, I will be mentioning in my blog what the survey is all about and it will be titled either with the correct name or with “Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??”.

A "thanks" masked with a "you're all wrong and I'm right" message.

This has to be the most ridiculous post of the lot. I really don't see what you are trying to achieve with this post at all. In one breath you are saying that you are right and in the other you are saying that no-one can really tell.

I don't think anyone here really cares that you are going to write an article on your blog about this. While you're off ranting about how much you know and your mis-informed concepts, the rest will be off ranking websites for real.

But in saying that.... I hope that in the new year, you get lots of clients from this thread and the article you plan to write - that way you won't have time to waste everyone else's with ridiculous posts like this.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

David, I'm sorry your very angry. You are now talking in circles. Trap was planted and you fell right into it. Now you are trying to get out of a hole you dug.

What trap ? What hole ?

link8r

Sully wrote: »

If the topic continues in the circle its currently going - it will be locked. Regardless of what the outcome of the poll says (and I doubt its going to change very much between now and the 28th). In addition, if this thread is going to serve no purpose until the 28th then ill just lock it. Don't create a thread if your not going to get involved in the discussion or respond to points.

do please lock it!

Sully

link8r wrote: »

do please lock it!

Agreed.

This topic is going nowhere - so before it goes down the route where bans are issued, ill close it now so everybody can walk away.

Topic Closed