SEO Companies FAIL
Blurb by Shaun Anderson (Hobo) -If you want to make your website more accessible (and generaly more interoperable between browsers) then validating your website HTML and CSS at the W3CÂ is a good first step.
Edward Lewis AKA pageoneresults decided to test seo companies’ websites and call out those seo whose websites failed validation after reading Aaron Wall’s article about, essentially I thought, companies who touted validation as a necessary SEO service.
As you can see from Edward’s article, the Hobo SEO company site passed (although I stil think there’s big improvements that can be made to inner pages of our site to improve rendering and page load speed, interoperability and accessibility).
It is interesting just how few seo companies actually seem to consider basic validation important on their own sites considering it’s required by LAW in many countries for websites to meet basic accessibility requirements.
Never mind if it helps you move from rank no 143 to 142 in Google, in the UK, web managers have a legal responsibility to consider within the UK DDA where relevant to websites.
Note – It’s widely considered W3C technologies would be cited if a case ever got to court in the UK.
We've recently updated our comments policy and increased the number of comments a visitor has to make to get seo friendly links in comment signatures to reward long term readers and make it a bit harder for dofollow spammers ;) - I told you dofollow spamming wasn't a long term strategy....
Nice to see that arrogant tw@@tt Lee whatever get a red.
Some kind of payback for threatening me with a lawsuit?
David
xoxoxoox
I am confused as ever lol!
That’s a very very long list of websites with red boxes beside them, I see even Matt Cutts website is listed with 43 errors!
This is such an easy thing to do when developing a website, i don’t know why they would promote this and then not bother to do it themselves.
Can’t be good for business for them after that article. I wonder how many will suddenly be valid after reading that
T
“Can’t be good for business for them after that article.”
This makes no sense at all. Do you honestly think potential clients care if a site validates or not? Its extremely easy to show a client that validating code does not matter at all – pick any competitive search term and show them how many of them validate.
Searching for “credit cards” here is the top 3 results:
Result: 21 Errors, 74 warning(s) (creditcards.com)
Result: 56 Errors, 3 warning(s) (visa.com)
Result: 804 Errors, 475 warning(s) (mastercard.com)
I could go on but I’m sure you get the point. The original article was nothing more than a pointless link bait. Google has never cared about code validating, and never will. Are they going to start penalizing all the biggest sites on the web (microsoft.com, hundreds of errors, etc). I think not!
Its a shame for the original owner that too few people care about validating – nobody is likely to link to his post and say “oh look, our site doesn’t validate”.
I’d far rather a website I owned was a single place higher in the serps, than had validating code. I don’t make any attempt whatsoever to make any of my sites validate, and I don’t check them either. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that every single one of my sites won’t validate. Complete waste of time and effort even trying…
I know W3C compliance is not a key part of SEO work but as far as I understood things websites that were W3C compliant tended to perform slightly better in search engines (probably just because where the two paths cross eg every image having to have an alt tag etc)
I could understand having a few errors but Guardian.co.uk with 2341 is crazy, I wouldnt like to be the person responsible for making that site right now.
Again, I’m sure the owners/webmasters of the Guardian couldn’t care less.
With their first page ranking for the term they appear to be targeting (going on their page title) “uk news”, their pr9 and top 300 alexa they are doing just fine from an seo point of view.
Everyone would be much better off if they simply forgot about this validating nonsense and got on with some real seo.
@Phil – I think we (web designers) should be building accessible sites. Full stop. Regardless wether or not it helps in Google and I am an SEO! Or at least web development companies should
I am constantly on at my team “does that site we’ve built validate” etc and always ensure when we build a site for launch it meets basic accessibility criteria (although that’s a minefiled).
Pointless link bait from Edward – no, I think he’s just a man possessed with obsession.
obsession over something irrelevant = pointless to me
I’ve not seen a single person put forward a legitimate reason yet for having code validating.
There is a huge difference between “accessibility requirements” and “code validating” but people seem to be treating them as the same thing.
Your site can be perfectly accessible and have 5000 errors in the validation.
The only times I’ve really discussed validation with anyone is when designers are trying to pull the wool over my eyes and sell it to me as a huge plus point why I should go with their company for a quote I’ve been given. I’d much rather have a pretty design than validating code.
The ONLY time I would even consider attempting to validate the code would be if I was selling design services. And even then it would only be to appease the ill-informed people who expected it to validate.
There are just endless examples of Google not caring at all whether your code validates or not. If they did it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black – Result: 39 Errors, 2 warning(s) (google.com)
“@Phil – I think we should be building accessible sites. Full stop. ” doesn’t convince me of your argument. I’m honestly curious as to what real benefit you see from making it validate.
How much extra work is involved in writing code that will validate? If its more than an hour, I’m sorry but I reckon you just wasted an hour that could have been better spent elsewhere.
I’ll disagree with you on this one Phil
I used to be obsessive with standards web design, and I feel I know how to make better websites that render in browsers quicker and easier if you stick fairly close to standards. As a web developer, if you know standards, I believe you make a better website, and get it out in the wild faster. For me it’s a professional choice. I also want to build websites that can be accessed by the (over) 8 million registered disabled people in the UK.
Forget about SEO for a minute…. (if you can lols)
Hmmm. I might get one of my impaired friends to fire off a couple of changes to your site so they can access it (you know by UK DDA guidelines you’d need to VERY MUCH CONSIDER complying with their request or end up in a court.
(Kidding of course)
Valid HTML & CSS for me is the foundations of creating a more accessible site which is cross broswer compatible and you can do worse than “waste” your time reading the W3C guidelines – see why validate.
I just re-read your comment, and I’m not aiming to convert you by offering you gold at the end of the rainbow by creating an accessible site. I just want to build a solid site that most can access, regardless of ability. I’m not chasing the pounds on this one, it’s more of an ethics thing for me. From a professional point of view, I would however look down lol on a “website developer” who hadn’t a clue how to validate or comply with WCAG. If you are a good web developer who can turn their hand to anything, you can validate a site and ensure the next site you build you think of validation etc before you build so it takes ten minutes to validate rather than the hour. That’s what I tell the boys in the office – and I pursue them on it.
If one person phoned me today / contacted me today and said they couldn’t access the information on my site because of a disability I would get it sorted for them – immediately. ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. If that’s not a ‘legitimate’ reason I don’t know what is – or are you meaning from a purely seo point of view?
Forgive me – I’ve got web accessibility on the brain just now
I don’t really think Matt will be too bothered about a few errors. I mean how many of us visit his site regardless?
His posts and sharing get his blog more traffic and, after all, his site isn’t monetized.
I reckon he’s kind for sharing what he does as it is.
Can I have a Google Wave beta now? I have a Google Apps premium account
David
Obviously Phil http://Twuna.com/V/SEOorguk
Apparently you didn’t read the entire article I just put together providing just a “few” of those reasons, not ALL of them, but just a “few”.
http://Twuna.com/W3/Validation
^ If you are NOT convinced after reading that document along with ALL of the associated official references, then we don’t need to have this conversation any longer. Ever hear the phrase “that’s like talking to a brick wall.”? That would apply in this instance. [Shuffles feet like Ali, preparing...]
Actually the two work hand in hand. Where is the huge difference? The first thing that needs to be done before making a website accessible is to perform validation routines. How would you know your website was accessible if you didn’t perform validation of some sort? Also, how would assistive technolgies handle “your” current 28 parsing errors as shown in the validation report linked above? Are you 100% certain that your page is being interpreted as best as it can be? Have you run it through the tests to see? Try running your site through the Semantic Data Extractor, we’ll see how well it can be parsed for semantics from a somewhat strict routine.
http://Twuna.com/Semantics
No it can’t! What kind of a statement is that? Show me a site with 5,000 errors that is accessible, please! You’re probably going to go out of your way to prove me wrong on that. I’ve seen “very few” sites with 5,000 errors and they would NEVER, EVER come close to passing even the simplest of accessibility tests.
“The only times I’ve really discussed validation with anyone is when designers are trying to pull the wool over my eyes and sell it to me as a huge plus point why I should go with their company for a quote I’ve been given.”
Typical response from the crowd who knows very little about HTML and how UAs treat that HTML. Keep thinking that way.
Again, that is obvious. Why can’t you have both? That is the question I always ask folks like you. What is different between writing valid code and not writing valid code? I know what it is. It’s not knowing how to along with a lack of professionalism for one’s trade. Not to mention being a lazy arse Webmaster who contributes to the boneyards of the Internet.
You’re starting to contradict yourself here.
Oh, okay, back on track. Did you say “ill-informed”? Whew! You know this conversation can work both ways. < Read between the lines.
Boneheads! Ya, I'm calling all of you out who continue to use that as an excuse! Do you know why Google doesn't validate? Ever go through the errors they have and look closely at them? Now, take those errors, correct them and see how many bytes of information you added to the overall experience. Google is breaking the rules here because of the volume of requests it serves.
Did you know Google is using an HTML5 DOCTYPE? Have you read the HTML5 Specs yet? Prepare yourself!
"How much extra work is involved in writing code that will validate? If its more than an hour, I'm sorry but I reckon you just wasted an hour that could have been better spent elsewhere."
Boneheads again!
WTF is up with folks these days? You mean to tell me that you'd rather have someone provide you with improperly nested code, missing closing elements, a blend of HTML/XHTML, elements, etc? Whew! I can pretty much see where others stand on this topic. Phil, you’re in the wrong place to be dissin’ us folks who know better. Back up to the Surface with ya! 
ROTFL – Edward you don’t hang about.
@Phil – you have met Edward haven’t you
Worried that some people seem to think that websites that validate automatically = accessible. This is not the case. You could build a wonderful website, fully standards complaint and validating perfectly, that would fail on accessibility guidelines.
Shaun (once again) hit it on the head with the following line:
“Valid HTML & CSS for me is the foundations of creating a more accessible site…” – note the word *foundations*.
Current guidelines state that you should not discriminate against those that aren’t able-bodied, and that you should make changes to accommodate them if you are requested to do so. It doesn’t mean your site has to validate perfectly. If blind, deaf, non-mouse etc users can fully access all the information on your site then in my opinion you needn’t worry.
That said, validation is good practice, like making sure all the bolts are tightly screwed into your flat-packed furniture. Sure, your chair may look right and you can sit on it, but those screws sure look a bit dodgy…
Also, pageoneresults:
“‘I’d much rather have a pretty design than validating code.’ – Again, that is obvious. Why can’t you have both?”
Hear, hear.
A fellow once told me that his firm didn’t build standard compliant sites (or use CSS for layout) because clients didn’t ask for them. I have to admit I was dumbfounded by this. No client has ever asked me to validate a site either, but they aren’t designers so I don’t expect them to know about such things, any more than my mechanic expects me to tell him the best way to replace an alternator.
Adhering to Web standards shouldn’t be about responding to client need, but about building a firm foundation that supports the client’s marketing, SEO, design and other goals. I build W3C standard compliant sites using semantic (X)HTML markup because doing so supports accessibility, browser compatibility, SEO, etc.
Valid mark-up may not guarantee success in all those areas but it gives me a good start. When I test a site in Firefox, Opera, Safari and Internet Explorer and discover a problem with the way it renders in IE, the first thing I do is check the code. If there is a validation error, then fixing it may solve the problem. If the code is error free then I know to look for a specific IE related problem. If my code wasn’t clean and I had 500 errors, I could spend all day troubleshooting the problem because each error is a potential culprit. The same goes for accessibility. If I fail an accessibility test or if something looks wacky when viewed in Lynx, I can find and solve the problem more easily if my code isn’t otherwise a mess.
This doesn’t mean my code is perfect. I validate pages as I go and may make a typo that causes an error but I try to keep my pages as clean as possible. And if for some reason the code can’t be fixed (such as using a Facebook widget or other embed that won’t validate) then I try to make sure that the error isn’t major. In terms of errors it’s the quality rather than quantity that matter. One missed closing tag could cause a series of errors that don’t cause any problem at all, while something else could cause 1 single error that causes a noticeable change in the way a browser renders the page.
Regarding Google, it doesn’t matter to me that they don’t care about validation. Google’s job is to index sites and produce search results that will help end users find the most relevant information they seek while allowing Google to present the most relevant ads. Since so many sites are poorly coded, Google must ignore validation errors to meet their own goals. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care.
Validation helps us check our code, adhere to standards and ensure that are sites are less likely to break as browsers evolve. It may seem petty or trivial to some but I’ve found that taking the time to code things properly now will help me save time as I have to make modifications in the future.
(@Jack from Shaun – I had to edit this as WP screwed it a bit
)
This is a great article and it’s great to see SEOs finally pulling up the “big boys” and trying to get them to get their act into gear. However, this test isn’t really on a level playing field.
I don’t think it’s as simple as telling people “Hey, your pages don’t validate. Here’s a validator run it through and then fix all the errors you see.” Hopefully a lot of people already know what I’m about to write because it’s critical to marking up web pages but stranger things have happened.
I believe that before we start going down the route of validators we should be educating them in the !DOCTYPE. The line that is the first thing you see when you view the source of a website. If you look at the results you will see that people are using a mix of strict and transitional. The trouble with a !DOCTYPE is that most people don’t even understand what it is for in the first place. People normally just load up their text editors and take it for granted that everything at the top of the page, that has been pre-created, is fine for there needs when this is not the case at all.
Here’s a little introduction to the !DOCTYPE.
What is a DOCTYPE
Now, transitional is probably what we all know and love because it forgives our little mistakes, transitional forgives you when you include presentational markup in your source ie, including div style=”background-color: #FF0000;” and things like that, quick fixes that I’m sure we’ve all used at one point.
If you’re using the strict doctype like some of the people on the list and have included the above you can forget about having a valid page, you just won’t get away with it.
On a side note, if you look at my site code and even the almighty googles you’ll notice that the pages don’t validate. This is because they are both declaring the new HTML5 !DOCTYPE and that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong and a validation issue.
I’m reminded of a luthier who used to review guitars in a music magazine in the 80s. He used to use a dentists mirror to check the internal struts and see how they were finished. The user couldn’t see them but it indicated to him whether the maker was a craftsman or not. A guitar may be finished in an attractive glossy laquer but if the inards are poorly constructed it won’t develop a good tone or last very long as a working tool.
Craftsmanship matters to me. A site that’s well constructed is likely to be more cross-browser compatible, easier to extend and add to, easier to debug if something goes wrong. Validation is a basis, like using a well set up workshop or properly seasoned wood. It’s not everything in itself, the code needs to be well designed and, in my view, elegant for it’s purpose. If the code is built elegantly then it’ll be quicker to load, easier to maintain, easier to spider.
And speaking as an SEO, although lack of validation won’t usually of itself cause problems, I know of certain faults that WILL stop a spider in its tracks. And those particular faults will automatically not exist if the code validates. Why avoid a tool/technique that will filter such problems? Why avoid craftsmanship?
Hehe so many comments and replies.
Too many for me to try and reply to individually, and ultimately nobody is going to convince me that validating is worth doing, and I’m not going to convince anyone of the opposite.
Maybe someone can take a look at my non-validating blog and tell me why it is non-accessible for disabled people. If its an easy change then I guess I would fix it. It looks accessible enough to me, but then I’m neither partially sighted or deaf. I presume my site is going to work with screen readers etc whether it validates or not.
Looking at the text browser preview http://whois.domaintools.com/searchengineoptimisation.org.uk it looks just fine to me.
I just took a look at this page – http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/Disabi lityRights/DG_4001068
Result: 24 Errors, 24 warning(s)
If the Disability Discrimination Act page on an official government website is not validating, I think I’ll get by just fine with my affiliate sites etc not validating
Ha. You know the very first time I happened accross accessibility is when I emailed the RNIB to ask why their website was invalid html and “inaccessible” when they ‘preached’ good web design. Julie Howell I think at the time replied thanking me for pointing it out, and said they did their best to make the site accessible but errors occurred. That put me on the road years ago to learn more and find out what I could about it.
Whenever you moan about accessibility, somebody holds you to task about it (like this thread). Whenever you say “I have an accessible website” – somebody pipes in …er, no you havent. It can be absurd, it’s a minefield, you’re not going to please everybody but that shouldn’t mean we don’t try and make the web accessible to all, and validation is such a simple measure.
I’d wager if you wandered into accessible web design you’d find it fascinating – most SEO would.
Hehe another late worker.
I just don’t really have the time to learn something that isn’t going to affect my bottom line. The sole extent of my design work these days involves installing some WordPress templates and then modifying from there. I’ve no idea if something like Thesis even validates out the box, I don’t have anything to test it on since I’ve modified all my installs of it.
I’m going to present in London next week for the construction of a website to meet the needs of people who have severe disabilities.
That’ll help my bottom line if I get it, believe me
But I get you from a seo / affiliate point of view (sort of) – get it out there and make a few quid.
If only web developers made their f*&^ing sites properly us SEO wouldn’t need to get involved
Have a good night Phil!
Thanks everbody who took part in this conversation – one of the most interesting I’ve been involved in in a while
Have a good night too, good luck with the presentation.
I’m off to keep searching through Sedo, need some new domains to develop. So much garbage listed though, hard to find diamonds in the rough. I quite fancied NewYork.co.uk but the competition looks a bit rough! Anyway thats enough offtopic chat from me, good night all
First off I’m on that list so obviously I have a bias. A validatiion don’t mean sh*t because the simple matter is all those pages render.. I had no doctype for a reason… because that’s my FB and NOHFB. Why help people pull uncool linkbaiting pimping the industry for self engrandizement BS. By rights you can’t even validate without doctype. The pimp will say that the browser chooses… well that same browser will display a document with no container tag. What’s that say about it’s ability to distinguish sh*t from shinola never mind choose a doc type. Of course Edward chose version 4 which I’m not even sure it was a standard when the site in question was built so again a choice made to embarass and pimp the industry… by the way I did validate the new sites… Including cleaning up the & from user input… so I wasted a few hours time… learned that validation is still whacked and it’s only real positive is it allows webdesigners and SEO who make assinine claims that it helps rank to pad bills doing meaningless tasks that are not needed or warranted.
Validation does have a purpose it’s just not for SEO.
You also have to look at it from a clients point of view. If I didn’t understand the ins and outs of website coding (like most people who go to professional web developers) I would be highly pissed off to find I had spent a big chunk of cash on a website that doesn’t validate.
For someone who is not in the industry it would be very easy to just take validation as a sign of quality. It would also be very easy to take any explanation from the firm that built the website as them just making excuses for poor coding.
I for one would prefer for the odd client to find out along the line that their website validates than for them to be faced with a big list of errors and think they have been sold a poorly made website.
We quote for all website design work on the basis of making a website that validates. If a client comes back to us and asks us to do it for less then spending the time to make sure the website validates is one of the first thing to get dropped but that then puts the decision in the hands of the client.
So wish I could make it to London but, really, I have a foot disability that is getting operated on this month
It’ll be nice, one day, to go to an expo (or whatever) and be with my fellow Brits after 15 years in the US.
Remind me to check that Lee Oddball isn’t there…
David
I try not to. If you sugar coat this stuff, it doesn’t get taken seriously. Heck, even when you’re serious about it, many still don’t get IT.
Yes you could but, that is rarely the case. With validation comes the knowledge of markup, it is a given and a natural progression after you start traversing through all the errors. I’ve been traversing them now for almost 10 years. I’ve become extremely intimate with the markup that I work with daily.
Absolutely! It’s also the foundation for a lot of other things (long-term) if done properly.
No it doesn’t. But, it does mean that you’ll have to run your site through the validator(s) to confirm that you are accessible. Not only do you have the W3 Validators, you have the Accessbility versions too. Those are all based on the foundation that you speak of above.
If you are able to accommodate those three users then no, you usually don’t have to worry because your site will most likely be valid by default. At certain levels of accessibility, you’re forced into validation. It’s natural to write valid code at certain levels, it becomes habit. Do it right the first time.
You know, all these analogies ya’ll are throwing in the mix surely contradict everything that comes prior.
Kudos! We think alike. When I was running the validation routines on the News Websites and came across the Guardian with 2,300+ Errors and 1,400 Warnings I thought to myself “I wouldn’t touch that site for less than $250k”. If I were the other News Website Developers, I’d be pointing fingers right now trying to save my job because every single one of them failed. In fact, some of them are prime pickin’s for lawsuits, they just haven’t been visited by the right people yet. Same goes for the rest of you who failed in certain areas.
I’m going to step out there and say that it does matter to Google and all the other crawlers. Which guidelines to you think the Developers of those crawlers utilized when programming? There’s only one set of guidelines that I know of, they come from the W3 and have been there since the early 90s and are updated regularly. The reason many think Google don’t care is because they’ve been flying by the seat of their pants with tag soup for years. While in the background, technology has improved leaps and bounds from an indexing perspective and allows Webmasters to develop crap markup.
I believe Google and the others use a HTML Tidy routine during indexing. That’s the only way they can traverse the mish mash of markup they encounter. Ever run Tidy on a site that has errors? Try it, you might be amazed at the results. When you perform a W3 Validation, there’s a checkbox to “Clean up Markup with HTML Tidy”, check that and revalidate. Now, scroll down to the Tidy results. If what you see is what the bot should see, you’re probably “okay” for the most part. Oh, you’ll really dig that Tidy routine after using it. I was able to take my understanding of crawling to a different level by understanding how Tidy works. Not to mention building our own crawler and browser (mimicked) over the past 4+ years.
http://www.URIValet.com/
Inline styling is perfectly valid. I utilize it and validate to an XHMTL 1.0 Strict DOCTYPE.
I just did a quick check and you have only 3 Errors and 2 Warnings. The Errors are easily fixed. Congratulations on taking the next step in HTML. As long as people realize that the HTML5 DOCTYPE is still in experimental stages (according to the W3) and to have Warnings is usually fine. Errors are not acceptable. Fix them.
HTML Tidy is a great tool to use in this instance. If your code is really borken, the Tidy routine will give you some strong clues. As it cleans your code, I believe it goes through a similar routine that bots do. You can see just how much error recovery there is. Take the Guardian website and run HTML Tidy on it.
I’m sure something can be worked out. I know Shaun has competitive rates in this area, maybe you could hire him for a consultation? And, don’t presume anything until you’ve done it. Download the free version of JAWS and suffer! I had JAWS on my system for quite some time. I surfed many websites over the years. SEO websites are some of the worst for JAWS users. Why? Because the bonehead SEOs like to stuff attributes with keywords, use replicating title attributes, etc. To a blind user surfing with JAWS, the user experience is less than satisfactory. Luckily I can turn off certain features on the fly if a website is over-optimized.
Well, there you have it. If that is your test and it looks fine, then you must be 100% correct in your assumptions.
If you don’t understand the hidden costs associated with poor coding practices, you won’t realize the ROI of using valid code.
Wait! You took the time to become a Webmaster and/or SEO right? How did you learn about writing code? Or, how did you learn about what the code was doing that your WYSIWYG was generating?
Did you say WordPress? Hahaha! The bane of most Webmasters and SEOs. I’ve seen more problems with WP installs than anything else out there. Not to mention all the hacks that occur on a daily basis. Ya, that’s a great platform to base your business on. 90%+ of the WP websites I’ve reviwed fail for basic issues. Are you one of those Plugin SEO types?
Did you also say Thesis? I’ve not seen a valid install of Thesis yet. I’m not impressed from a markup standpoint. And, it’s most likely the user who has borked something, not the Thesis markup itself. I don’t know and can’t really give an honest opinion other than what I’ve see being used by various SEOs and such. They ALL failed.
Let’s set the record straight. You’re on the list with SeoPros.com right now which validates. Previously it was SeoPros.org that was on the list.
http://Twuna.com/V/SeoPros-org
You have 100 errors on the above .org site with 30 of those for missing alt attributes. You were quick to let me know that was an old site and to please use the SeoPros.com one which of course validates.
Heh! Shall I put the SeoPros.org website back on the list and remove the .com version?
Laziness? Make me sit here and figure out what FB and NOHFB stood for. You geeks and your lack of using language properly. Markup too.
I’m going to guess that one of your clients read my article? Ran their site through the validator and found hundreds of errors? Then called you and asked why there were 30+ missing alt attributes and who knows what else?
You would be correct. Without a DOCTYPE (and shortened ones), you force the browser into Quirks mode. It has to guess now.
I’m a pimp now? OOH-RAH! Grab my beltloop Terry, let’s go for a walk. Don’t you dare let go either.
It says that the UAs are pretty advanced to be able to determine the rendering of the document based on guessing routines. They’ve come a long way since the last time you touched code Terry. Time to blow the dust off sir.
Ah-ha, I hit a nerve. Whether or not HTML 4 was out at that time doesn’t matter. The differences between HTML 2.0, 3.2 and 4.0 wouldn’t have made that much of a impact on the number of errors generated in many instances. And, since you didn’t have a DOCTYPE, the validator is set by default to detect automatically, the same thing a browser would do.
BTW, since you say the site was built before HTML 4.0, I just revalidated using HTML 2.0 which puts us back to almost the beginning of time.
http://Twuna.com/V/SeoPros-20
369 Errors and 2 Warnings. Shall I use that result instead? Put the .org back on the chart and validate against the HTML 2.0 DOCTYPE? If validation is not important, then it shouldn’t matter which site I list on the chart. If the site is currently live, it’s a candidate for review.
Terry?! You’d be one of the last people I would expect to downplay the importance of validation. I’ve seen another side of you in this topic. In fact, I kind of lost a little bit of respect for ya in the whole process. Particularly with that last statement.
You wasted a few hours of time? Wow! I hope none of your clients are reading this. I’d be a bit concerned if that is how my developer were thinking about the foundation of my website(s). In fact, I’d be thinking about a new provider.
“Validation is still whacked?” There comes a time when one might want to consider retiring from something that one no longer has an interest in.
^ Another one who hasn’t taken the time to read the technical documents. We can’t have a conversation on The Importance of Website Validation and SEO if you first don’t get the basics. That means we’re going to end up in heated debates for the next who knows how long.
I’m automating that whole process of monitoring validation. We’re going to serve that data dynamically in a real time format. Go Green and take advantage of the benefits. Stay Red and take the associated risks and fallout. Plain and simple. I think the time has come for SEOs and Developers to start looking at things at micro levels, especially when it comes to machine readable grammar.
Having read this and many other similar articles, it is clear to me now that an SEO is nothing more than a failed website designer. Their coding skills are poor, they can’t program properly, they have the design ability of a peanut, and they have precisely zero creativity.
So, who cares what they think? I don’t.
Thanks Andrew nobody’s quite ever insulted me that way on my blog before even though my site passed the basic sniff test and I built and designed everything you see here and promoted it….
Failed website designer my arse!
Most of us got into search because it was more interesting than lashing websites together and much less hassle.
I started my first website in 97 and when I gained a few clients realised it was a pita so got more into whatever I was doing that was getting my “other” business top on Alta Vista etc
Bollards
I hope you came prepared to do battle young man. Would this be you?
http://Andrew-Brundle.com/
I want to make sure before I opine and spank your arse. You won’t be able to sit for a week.
“Would this be you”
It’s a shame that, if it is the same guy, he never bothered to gen up on usability. His site may look nice, but it made my eyes bleed.
That site is hideous. My friend has an eight year old that does better.
OK Matey?
Okay, let’s be nice. (Heh, pot calling the kettle black. < Me.)
I actually like the site design. It's behind the scenes that disturbed me. I didn't go any further than line 13 when I ran into this…
If there is one thing that causes the hair on my neck to rise, it’s that damn revisit-after metadata. I’ve written about it for years and people still freakin’ use it. Google even states in their Code Stats that it is useless.
Whenever I see that one piece of metadata, you are marked. You’re welcome to remove it NOW but you are definitely scarred for life.
This image ALWAYS comes to mind when I see that revisit-after. In fact, I think I made this one when I first started calling people out for using that bogus piece of meta! That was in 1999/2000? Ya, I think it was that long ago.
http://Twuna.com/No-Clue
OT, do you know that Webmasters in certain countries actually follow my Official META Tags Guidelines? Snicker.
http://Twuna.com/SEO/Tips/META
I liked the guitar analogy – I guess it all comes down to the companies/individuals idealogy on how the code sites.
I prefer validation, myself, and also try to make it accessibile as my knowledge can make it … Yes, it does add to the timescale but that’s my decision on how I feel sites should be coded.
Andrew, my advice is stuff a cushion down the back of your trousers it’ll take the sting outta Edward’s spanking
“I actually like the site design.”
It’s nice to *look* at. It’s a nightmare to actually *read* anything.
Poor contrast tiny text that’s crammed together, and some transparent boxes with text that overlays other text.
I love the pointless WP bashing. The only reason designers (in general) hate WP, is because its doing them out of jobs. Previously people with limited knowledge were forced to pay a designer for a crappy 5 page site. Now they’re wising up and installing WP, a theme and doing it themselves and spending the money elsewhere.
“Did you say WordPress? Hahaha! The bane of most Webmasters and SEOs. I’ve seen more problems with WP installs than anything else out there. Not to mention all the hacks that occur on a daily basis. Ya, that’s a great platform to base your business on. 90%+ of the WP websites I’ve reviwed fail for basic issues. Are you one of those Plugin SEO types?”
I’d love to hear your reasoning behind this. Pointless WP bashing if I had to guess. The simple fact is, WP works, and it works well.
Many of my sites, I created them in WP and then saved them from that as static sites – giving me complete control over every aspect of the site/seo, outwith WP/Plugins. My most profitable sites are still running on WP right now.
I wouldn’t call myself a “plugin seo” since anyone with even half a clue would understand 80%+ of seo happens offpage anyway. Plugin wise I don’t use much – just something to allow me to vary page titles, thats about it on the WP sites.
WP is cool = love it etc.
David
i don’t think wordpress is the problem at all. it’s how it’s put together that counts
i do love wordpress.
“Having read this and many other similar articles, it is clear to me now that an SEO is nothing more than a failed website designer. Their coding skills are poor, they can’t program properly, they have the design ability of a peanut, and they have precisely zero creativity.
So, who cares what they think? I don’t.”
Absolutely brilliant
You say you don’t care, but then you go out of your way to comment about it on an seo blog – sure looks like you care to me!
SEO is a way better skill to have than being able to design websites. Its far more profitable too. Design doesn’t really scale very well – You can only design so many sites in a month, and you can only sell them once.
If you rank a bunch of sites this month, they continue to make money for months/years to come. I bet a good designer would struggle to make £50k a year, and a bad seo with some money to invest would be clearing 6 figures easily.
SEO takes WAY more creativity than designing. Saying they have the “design ability of a peanut” is completely pointless – they are seo’s, not designers. Thats like me complaining my accountant has no plumbing skills.
I’ll elaborate a little more on the creativity point I made as someone is undoubtedly going to challenge it anyway.
One design job is no different from the next one, regardless of the topic. If you can design a nice timber merchant website, you can do a free mp3 one and you can do a viagra one – nothing changes.
With seo, if you get a difficult niche then if you don’t have excellent creativity you are 100% certain to fail. It takes a massive amount of work, planning and skill to run an seo campaign for a website that just doesn’t deserve to have good backlinks, or is in a niche that nobody would willingly link to (hair loss, impotency…etc)