Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

W3c Validator!


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 jass_blink

jass_blink

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 05:29 AM

Hi guys
I just heard the term w3c validator....
Does anyone have clue about this validator.. its purpose or uses
And does it have any stand from SEO point of view?

#2 nethy

nethy

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 06:11 AM

w3c validity means (i think) that your code is valid, as in compliant with the w3c consortium guidelines. Compliance would (I assume) mean that anyone who recognises w3c guidelines (browsers for example) would makes sure that you they are compatible with you.
I would assume that a validator is a tool, person, process, etc. that tells you whether or not you comply.

#3 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 27 August 2007 - 07:35 AM

QUOTE
And does it have any stand from SEO point of view
None at all

#4 Birmingham

Birmingham

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Location:Birmingham

Posted 25 September 2007 - 08:05 AM

w3c is the world wide web consortium and they invent the code that websites are made with.

they have many validators, the main one being the markup validator (validator.w3.org)

it's worth making sure you use valid code because that helps make ur site accessible and search engines rank accessibile sites higher because people search engine users want to find only accessible sites!

#5 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 25 September 2007 - 09:20 AM

QUOTE
And does it have any stand from SEO point of view ->
None at all


now now Chris, we've been here before, and it is 'possible' for invalid code to affect SEO.

but we won't go there again, let's just say, it is better to validate your code and 'should' for a webmaster to do this as a matter of course.

You can lay bricks without a spirit level or plumb line, but it's 'good practice' to use them. It's 'good practice' to validate your code!



#6 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 25 September 2007 - 12:09 PM

QUOTE(Birmingham @ Sep 25 2007, 09:05 AM) View Post
search engines rank accessibile sites higher

No they don't.

--Torka mf_prop.gif

#7 tamecrow

tamecrow

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 26 September 2007 - 04:50 AM

QUOTE(1dmf @ Sep 25 2007, 03:20 PM) View Post
now now Chris, we've been here before, and it is 'possible' for invalid code to affect SEO.

but we won't go there again, let's just say, it is better to validate your code and 'should' for a webmaster to do this as a matter of course.

You can lay bricks without a spirit level or plumb line, but it's 'good practice' to use them. It's 'good practice' to validate your code!


I'm in agreement here. I've seen instances where messy code has confused spiders and hindered their crawl of the site. Awkward code and making life hard for Googlebot makes for an unhappy search engine wink1.gif

#8 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 26 September 2007 - 02:30 PM

QUOTE
I've seen instances where messy code has confused spiders and hindered their crawl of the site.


Really? What happened, and how did you know it was due to the code? I'd be interested in learning more.

#9 piskie

piskie

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Location:Cornwall

Posted 26 September 2007 - 05:33 PM

QUOTE
I've seen instances where messy code has confused spiders and hindered their crawl of the site

I doubt you have seen this. However I think it could and does happen.
But then again that's me thinking which can be dangerous.

#10 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 26 September 2007 - 09:33 PM

QUOTE
But then again that's me thinking which can be dangerous.


No fair, that's what I was gonna say! giggle.gif

#11 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 27 September 2007 - 02:47 PM

the only time I have seen dodgy code confuse SE indexing is when the CMS in use fires out unicode characters at the top of the document. But the page still validated perfectly ok.

and then we have

W3C Validator

Misplaced Title at position 5 for me

doesn't seem to have caused any "issues" for Google

#12 MisterE

MisterE

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:NL

Posted 13 October 2007 - 04:03 AM

QUOTE(chrishirst @ Sep 27 2007, 09:47 PM) View Post
the only time I have seen dodgy code confuse SE indexing is when the CMS in use fires out unicode characters at the top of the document. But the page still validated perfectly ok.

and then we have

W3C Validator

Misplaced Title at position 5 for me

doesn't seem to have caused any "issues" for Google


There are a lots of usefull tools i prefer the https://addons.mozil...irefox/addon/60 and firebug for firefox

Also validation is verry usefull for the performance of your site to the seo its like an guide that your site is good to crawl.


#13 ditoweb

ditoweb

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 October 2007 - 08:48 AM

wow not many fans of valid code here...cleaner code means better performing websites. SEO is great but you have to keep your users happy. clean code means fast loading websites and users like that.

you can also validate your code within some HTML editors, such as Dreamweaver.

#14 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 13 October 2007 - 11:07 AM

I have no problem with valid code.

I DO, however, have a problem with those "valid code zealots" who run around claiming as true such myths as
  • Sites that validate automatically get better search engine rankings simply because they validate
  • Sites that validate are automatically more user-friendly simply because they use valid code
  • Search engines penalize sites that don't validate
  • "Clean code" and "valid code" mean exactly the same thing
  • Tables are invalid -- the only way to write valid code is to use "pure" CSS for positioning
  • Table-layout sites will not validate and can never be made to be accessible
  • Validated code automatically loads faster than non-validated code
  • Most users notice whether a site's code is 100% valid or not
  • Most users even know what validation is in the first place
  • etc. etc. etc.
--Torka mf_prop.gif

#15 Dimmerswitch

Dimmerswitch

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Location:Madison, Wisconsin

Posted 13 October 2007 - 12:19 PM

QUOTE(torka @ Oct 13 2007, 11:07 AM) View Post
  • Validated code automatically loads faster than non-validated code


This is actually very close to being a true statement. It's been my experience that pages which are rendered in quirks mode will take longer to display than pages which are rendered in standards-compliant mode. This makes sense, because support for a less-strict syntax means that the parser and layout engine for quirks mode have to do a lot more work to understand a document.

I know that's likely to be a controversial opinion in this forum, and I don't have enough time right now to hunt for a lot of citations, but a quick search turned up:

http://www.ibm.com/d...dex.html#N100C4

as well as note from the mozilla team during the release of Mozilla 1.0 (original link is apparently dead, but here's the google cache:

QUOTE
The Mozilla browser has two Web page rendering and layout modes, Standards-Compliance mode and Quirks mode. You can see what mode Mozilla has used to layout a Web page by clicking on View > Page Info. It takes Mozilla longer to lay-out Web pages in Quirks mode than it does in Standards-Compliance mode.


(emphasis added)

Note that I'm not arguing that minor validation issues will cause a page to render more slowly. Using an appropriate DOCTYPE can cause a page to render in standards-compliant mode, without the page being valid markup. I think that nugget of truth ("quirks mode is slower for browsers to render") has been misrepresented as "valid pages load faster". The former is true, although the latter is only true insofar as pages with valid markup are unlikely to be rendered in quirks mode.

[Edited to remove dummy link]

Edited by Dimmerswitch, 13 October 2007 - 09:21 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.