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

link8r

AFAIK - Forums are public arena's for open discussion and debate etc.

So if a user wants to run a private Poll, fine but that doesn't mean we can't run another public one!

Original thread here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055753670

tomED

Ooopppsssss!!! I voted yes by accident!!! I expected "no" to be in second position...

link8r

lol, I'd thought about that. Then also, I expected you'd read before you voted Tom! (way to let the whole team down)

We'll call it 8:1 then.

tomED

link8r wrote: »

lol, I'd thought about that. Then also, I expected you'd read before you voted Tom! (way to let the whole team down)

We'll call it 8:1 then.

Probably a usuability issue!
I just expected it to be the second option!

Sorry for letting the team down!!!

We're at 8 : 2 now - would love to know who that other person is....

Chuckymonster98

Will be interested to see the results

link8r

lol 1 post & 1 vote - no doubt someone creating fake accounts to alter results - although that would be pretty sad!

mneylon

Not many replies, but the answer is pretty clear ..

hobnob101

I voted no.... but I wish the answer was yes. I wouldn't like to buy meat from someone who didn't keep hygiene standards, why should I want to buy a website from someone who doesn't meet web standards?

For me it's not about ranking, it's about being able to take pride in what I produce.

W3C standards can't be a factor because such a small proportion of sites actually meet them. Then again, there are standards and there are standards. If the code is really really messed up, then it's not going to be readable. If it can't be understood by a bot, then it can't be ranked.

tomED

hobnob101 wrote: »

I voted no.... but I wish the answer was yes. I wouldn't like to buy meat from someone who didn't keep hygiene standards, why should I want to buy a website from someone who doesn't meet web standards?

Another terrible analogy.... Why do people insist on exaggerating the improtance of standards compliance. Clearly, if you put unhygienic food into your body, you'll probably get sick. That would never happen with a website, you don't eat them, and they'll never do anyone any harm.

In fact a non standards compliant website will probably work better across a number of different browsers rather than just the latest ones....

The standards debate has been done to death at this stage, do we really need to go there again?

p

Why this discussion again? The answer is pretty simple?

Marking your code up well, which W3C stanards advise is one thing you should do to make your site is search engine friendly. Do search engines check for validating code, no, because they only want something that is relevant to the visitor, validating or not.


Creating websites using web standards is good practice in general, but it's more to do with browsers than search engines.

kdaly100

I ate a website this AM and I was very sick after doing so. I wasn't sure if it was clean when I ate it though as I found it on the main street on a small stall There was a great clean restaurant in one of the back streets that had great reviews but this web site was from a small stand that I found straight away outside the shop I came out of and I was pretty hungry.

It was the first one I found, I was starving so I ordered an index.php with some meta sauce. The meta sauce didn't really change the taste but it looked good on top.

Yum yum

hobnob101

lol @ (what's the symbol for with?) kdaly100. Cheers!:D

kdaly100

....what symbol sorry??

HandWS LTD

Those 2 analogies from (hobnob101 and kdaly100) were pretty clear in what they were saying. Nothing to do with ranking but what websites should be like.

hobnob101

....what symbol sorry??

Sorry, bit of a stream of consciousness. I meant that if the @ symbol is "at" then what is the symbol for "with". I just meant that the lol was with you rather than at you. Been a bit overly cautious since getting flamed for a misunderstanding.

link8r

hobnob101 wrote: »

Sorry, bit of a stream of consciousness. I meant that if the @ symbol is "at" then what is the symbol for "with". I just meant that the lol was with you rather than at you. Been a bit overly cautious since getting flamed for a misunderstanding.

You weren't flamed. Engage with HandW and you'll know what flaming really is.

Please can we close this thread.

Totally agree with @TomEd.

Turning into a nasty case of Deja Vu.

Dear @ HandWS

You're just so wrong. I have no idea where to start. Oh, wait, we're done with that.

kdaly100

Yes please please close the thread - I second that. I have been subscribing to newsgroups, forums, online chat etc etc etc etc for over 25 years (yes I am that old - I had an Apple II when I was 15 - can write HTML faster than English, hosted several newsgroups when I had lots of time - blah blah blah blah -)

This HandWS guy is just off the wall and I have NEVER spoken badly about anyone as I think everyone deserves an opinion but what he is saying is blatantly incorrect. Let me summarise why - feck it I won't - he is just wrong.:D

HandWS LTD

link8r wrote: »

You weren't flamed. Engage with HandW and you'll know what flaming really is.

:eek:

link8r wrote: »

Dear @ HandWS

You're just so wrong. I have no idea where to start. Oh, wait, we're done with that.

Part one is finished and has the answers, we are talking about something else here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055753670&page=6

In your own opinion, how can it be wrong for any person who buys a brand new website, to receive it without errors?

Can you go and find me one person that wants to buy a brand new website with errors.

mneylon

HandWS LTD wrote: »

:eek:



Part one is finished and has the answers, we are talking about something else here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055753670&page=6

In your own opinion, how can it be wrong for any person who buys a brand new website, to receive it without errors?

Can you go and find me one person that wants to buy a brand new website with errors.

So it's ok to give them a website that makes their eyes bleed, but hasn't got any errors?

Is that what you're saying?

HandWS LTD

I asked a question without an answer. To answer your question....my website will be changed, don't you worry. Website's has been under construction for a while....Offline. The green has been annoying, and the red will be toned down. In your own opinion, how can it be wrong for any person who buys a brand new website, to receive it without errors? Can you go and find me one person that wants to buy a brand new website with errors. This is a simple question. Yes or No

hobnob101

So it's ok to give them a website that makes their eyes bleed, but hasn't got any errors?

I think the point was that the client can see if it looks wrong, but generally they won't know if it's error free or not. What a site looks like and how good the code is are two separate issues.

If a client hates how it looks they can do something about it. If the coding is shoddy they probably won't be any the wiser. Even if the code is valid, there could be some issues like - site made in tables instead of css or excessive code in general on the page. The structure could place the sidebar in a float instead of the main content. There are a whole pile of things that are not in the best interests of client that they are likely to be ignorant about. If they find out it gives us all a bad name.

Standards compliance shows some measure of competence to a client. It says that you have half an idea what you're doing.

honka_bonka

Here we go again
Please admin - don't lock this thread

mneylon

hobnob101 wrote: »

I think the point was that the client can see if it looks wrong, but generally they won't know if it's error free or not. What a site looks like and how good the code is are two separate issues.

<snip>

Standards compliance shows some measure of competence to a client. It says that you have half an idea what you're doing.

Standards compliance is all well and good, but if someone thinks that standard compliance equates with good design then they really are deluded

hobnob101

Agreed.

mneylon

HandWS LTD wrote: »

I asked a question without an answer.

So you honestly expect us all to follow _your_ rules of engagement, while you happily insult professionals left right and centre?

HandWS LTD wrote: »

To answer your question....my website will be changed, don't you worry.

Did I mention your website?

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Website's has been under construction for a while

Any website that isn't "under construction" on a constant basis in this day and age probably isn't much of a website

HandWS LTD wrote: »

In your own opinion, how can it be wrong for any person who buys a brand new website, to receive it without errors?

Errors in relation to what?

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Can you go and find me one person that wants to buy a brand new website with errors. This is a simple question. Yes or No

No, it's not a simple question.

You've got a hangup about web standards.

"Joe Public" doesn't care

"Joe Businessman" wants their website to be successful (how that is measured would obviously depend on what they were trying to achieve)

I'm not a mechanic

When I buy a car or take it to a garage to get something done on it I really don't give a damn if they've used some standard or other when they were doing the work.

All I care about is that the car gets me from point A to point B without breaking down, crashing etc.,

Do I care which kind of oil they used?
No.

Do most people?
I sincerely doubt it.

Does someone who is car fanatic?

Of course they do, but they're not the typical driver.

Pablo

W3C are just guidelines for accessibility, take a peak at http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/Overview.html

Now if metrics like bounce rate decrease / increase because of your adherence to these they it could matter. But tomED pointed this out already, that these 2 things are not, or don't have to be related.

link8r

@HandWSLTD

Thanks to twitter, this was pointed out from your site (aghast at the colour scheme, layout and aesthetics, which I would classify as the professional end of your site but hey)

You must adhere to the following terms and conditions to receive a link in our directory.

• The linking page to our site MUST have a minimum pagerank of 10.
• Our link MUST NOT be on a page with more than 50 other links.
• Our link MUST NOT have the attribute rel="nofollow" assigned to it.
• We MAY ask you to change the title of our link as opposed to what is displayed on our Submit Link page.

Our links directory is checked at least once every 24 hours for both new exchange partners verification of reciprocal links.




Hilarious - how many arguments have you had with people over this?

Laugh out loud...

link8r

Blacknight wrote: »

So it's ok to give them a website that makes their eyes bleed, but hasn't got any errors?

Is that what you're saying?

Brilliant

link8r

hobnob101 wrote: »

I think the point was that the client can see if it looks wrong, but generally they won't know if it's error free or not. What a site looks like and how good the code is are two separate issues.

If a client hates how it looks they can do something about it. If the coding is shoddy they probably won't be any the wiser. Even if the code is valid, there could be some issues like - site made in tables instead of css or excessive code in general on the page. The structure could place the sidebar in a float instead of the main content. There are a whole pile of things that are not in the best interests of client that they are likely to be ignorant about. If they find out it gives us all a bad name.

Standards compliance shows some measure of competence to a client. It says that you have half an idea what you're doing.

So what? Your computer software generates lots of errors and handles them or records them or 1 in a 100 crashes slightly with an error message or BSoD. So does your car. If the errors don't hamper UX (User Experience) why care?

If you really think W3C is better than building a business through good design, UX, content and SEO - then fine. But that is so idiotic...

honka_bonka

Think I got it now : HandWS LTD wants to sell his website and thinking of asking a big price for being W3C compliant...

Say it isn't so

hobnob101

@link8r

I didn't say that I thought W3C was better than design etc. I said that sites should be both. (in an ideal world).

The reason being that it offers some proof to clients that the stuff they don't understand is done properly.

Do they care? Not until they find out their site is not standards compliant. Then, even if they are told it's ok and nobody really cares about standards, it's going to start a niggle anyway. They will start to question more.

I reckon there is a ton of business to be made just offering to make sites compliant... using the insurance salesman approach.

If I'm supplying a site that isn't standards compliant then I'd feel that I was cutting corners. That's me. I don't want to feel like the dodgy builder who measures with his feet.