Html coding effect ranks?

bcyber · 02-05-2005, 10:23 PM

If you're html isn't super clean does it have any effect on se rankings?

jstcrzyengh · 02-05-2005, 10:56 PM

Did you get hit on Yahoo too? I ask because we are in somewhat the same industry and just wondering why they are changing things up. I went from #3 to #36 and the only thing I changed is add some DEEP content and about 250 links that are all PR4+

bcyber · 02-06-2005, 01:57 PM

No I've held #1 for a while now and try not to change much.

docquesting · 02-06-2005, 02:45 PM

Thats sort of what I was wondering awhile back but no one answered. So if you dont go by w3c completly when creating a page, shouldnt matter so much so long as you dont change anything much afterwards?

Dave Hawley · 02-07-2005, 12:56 AM

Quote:

If you're html isn't super clean does it have any effect on se rankings?

Highly unlikely.

The w3c link back is more of a link scheme than anything. Anyone can upload a VERY basic page with no errors, get the w3c logo, then switch.

bcyber · 02-07-2005, 01:34 AM

I originally wanted to know because I ran that report in dreamweaver and I had a ton of errors on one of my sites. A lot of font things that I noticed that could be grouped. example

realestate · 02-07-2005, 03:04 AM

One of our links got pr0 when expecting pr5. Serps was ok, but in one of the links there was a aref which didn't mean anything, in source code.

Shawn · 02-07-2005, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazareth

The w3c link back is more of a link scheme than anything.

Linking to the w3 to show valid html is not a scheme, they invented the world web web, and are it's governing body. I highly doubt they need a link from joe bob's website.

Shawn · 02-07-2005, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcyber

I originally wanted to know because I ran that report in dreamweaver and I had a ton of errors on one of my sites. A lot of font things that I noticed that could be grouped. example

Generally speaking if you have tons of font tags, div tags, strong tags etc, I would group them css instead. It's much cleaner code. As for ranking higher, well hypothetically your code would be cleaner and smaller. And supposedly, the file size should be as small as possible.

Dave Hawley · 02-07-2005, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Linking to the w3 to show valid html is not a scheme, they invented the world web web, and are it's governing body. I highly doubt they need a link from joe bob's website.

The logos are there for anyone to grab and hence hold no value.

Shawn · 02-07-2005, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazareth

The logos are there for anyone to grab and hence hold no value.

we'll sure, but saying they are a w3 linking scheme is incorrect.

Dave Hawley · 02-07-2005, 03:42 AM

Quote:

I originally wanted to know because I ran that report in dreamweaver and I had a ton of errors on one of my sites. A lot of font things that I noticed that could be grouped. example

As a rule of thumb, if your browser can display it as it should be seen, Google will likely not encounter and problems.

Keep in mind that "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". A 50 billion+ $ business with this mission is not going to let some code errors (unless gross in which case you will see them) stop them from organising the pages in order of relavance. The searcher could not careless, so long as they can read it, so neither will Google. It is very likely a page with umpteen code errors (probably 7 billion out of the 8+) will be relevant to the search term.

Dave Hawley · 02-07-2005, 03:46 AM

Quote:

we'll sure, but saying they are a w3 linking scheme is incorrect.

If anyone can grab them, linked or not, compliant or not what is the point? If they were serious only those that comply all continually would be able to link.

Shawn · 02-07-2005, 03:53 AM

Well, in theory, they are only supposed to be used when your html is in fact valid.

Quote:

The author of the Web page you come from once used our service to validate that page, and the page passed validation. The author was then authorized to use the icon on that page, as a claim of validity.

http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html

Dave Hawley · 02-07-2005, 04:01 AM

But you can use them when your code is not. Any serious validation, or stamp of approval, should stand-up correctly at all times, not once only. I could even place one in this post!

Johan007 · 02-07-2005, 04:03 AM

For a page to work on a browser you don’t need valid HTML especially cos there are so many browser cracks and bugs.

It would also take up too much processing power IMO.

awall19s brother · 02-07-2005, 06:28 AM

I might change blog platforms to feed my site. Blogger hasnt updated thier html codes and even if you start with a fresh domain and put a post of hello it isnt w3c valid.

Johan007 · 02-07-2005, 07:14 AM

w3c is only a recommendation and is not a SEO issue. Use a valuator to fix visible display bugs if needed.

Rivux · 02-07-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan007

w3c is only a recommendation and is not a SEO issue. Use a valuator to fix visible display bugs if needed.

For those that take the guidelines written my SEs as gospel handed down from above, MSN says

Quote:

Use only well-formed HTML code in your pages. Ensure that all tags are closed, and that all links function properly. If your site contains broken links, MSNBot may not be able to index your site effectively, and people may not be able to reach all of your pages

Does that mean they rank sites lower that don't have well-formed code? I have my doubts, but its something to keep in mind.

Edit: For those interested, I quoted MSN from http://search.msn.com/docs/siteowner.aspx

Shawn · 02-07-2005, 08:06 AM

In all honesty, I would be more worried about the people looking at your site, than the robots. Some senior citizen who has a 10 yr old browser may be seeing a messed up version of your site if the code is not valid html. Obviously it depends on how bad it is, but that is something to consider too.