Some SEO Companies Don't Have A Website That's W3C Compliant!!!

This is the fact in my cases, SEO for my own sites.

 

W3c compliance is by far not the main factor in seo nor does it bother my site's layout. I just found 11 errors in my seo site, but they are so minor I would not bother to correct them. At least today )

 

Some really nice points are made there by Greg and SEM-advance but w3c validation is a plus if done and not an issue if ignored as long as site is crawled and working well in search engines. It of course adds the value to seo program and optimization but it doesn't harm the rankings either. Almost all of my websites enjoy W3c compliance but many of our clients' websites are performing well too without any issue (and they show errors if checked with W3c). IMO, for a credibility concern, it is always good to have your websites w3c validated.

Cheers!

 

yes, w3c site all every time error show and not proper check validation...

 

w3c is the required thing in seo but most of the seo companies ignore that and consider give less value and dont do it.

 

I've got 4 errors on the homepage and none on the forums, but just because code validates does not mean it's good. I can make disgusting bloated code validate, you should see some of the rubbish code HTML Tidy spits out as valid.

So your valid code may be 10 times worse than a page with a bunch of errors.

I had 286 errors when i ranked #4 for "SEO", would i of ranked #3 if the code was 100% Valid? I highly doubt it. In my opinion pages that render fast are more beneficial to SERP's than just W3C validation alone.

But yeah sure, always try and achieve good valid markup.

 

You go girl! Don't take any s--t!

For what it's worth, all of the sites that rank ahead of me for my main keywords have more errors in their sites.

 

I highly doubt what you're saying is true. It's possible for somebody to be 100% compliant without ever checking to see if there are any errors. That would have to be a very experienced coder who really knows their work. You just mentioned though that a website that's 100% compliant was probably optimized by an SEO expert which was the point of this thread. A "true" SEO expert would start at the "smallest" details and then move up.

 

When your programmers are less than good, you need some tool to tell management that there is a problem. One of the major issues with web site ranking is poor design or "clever" programmers that have screwed the design up.

This is why you must do a design review before you start a SEO campaign. Bad design = bad results.

 

I haven't seen too many sites which passes that w3c compliance test. The problem is, a designer can write a clean template/design but the moment you start making changes, the site will obviously fail.

I have coded/designed a big portion of my nBridges site (and I am not even a designer) and I know the site is going to fail in w3c test but I don't care because it don't make lot of difference.

But having bad design, bad code, css/javascript spread all over the page, broken tags, poor loading etc are anyway always bad, you don't need W3C to tell you this.

 

couldn't agree more. might actually be at the bottom.

its nice, but its unimportant in ranking.

 

Google itself isn't WC3 Compliant - http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=w...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

In may experience it's not a factor in rankings at all, as long as your pages are crawlable then Google will index them. Good coding doesn't always equate to WC3 compliance.

Amazon rank for a couple of keywords right?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.606

 

you all are dead wrong then
if you don't care about the errors on your page, then who knows what else you don't care about.
It's a simple fact, that if the bots can scan your site easier and quicker, then you will show up quicker.
Nothing anyone can say to disagree with this FACT will change my opinion on this.
Keep offering crappy SEO services with no concern about validation, and when your clients get pissed off, I'll help steer them in the right direction

 

I think you're getting WC3 compliance and how spiderable a page is mixed up. They're two different things.

 

Yes and no, i can make utterly horrible code that gets the tick from W3C. HTML Tidy for instance can bloat code to 40% larger in filesize with needless junk tags throwing the code to content ratio clean out the window, yet it validates.

W3C Validation doesn't automatically mean clean, minimal and well optimized markup.

 

Valid XHTML/CSS site => The visitors will like it because the site will be more accessible => Most of them will link to the site => The site will rank well .

Considering users web navigators and working on the site to make it more compatible is very important and boosts INDIRECTLY the site's ranking .

So... What are those "Say Oh" companies already ? Aren't they those search engine spammers or those "YOU WILL GET DIRECTLY 1.000.000 LINKS TO YOUR SITE !!!" ?

 

Visitors don't like Google as it' not WC3 compliant? Of course not, people don't care. As long as a site is well coded and easily navigated then visitors will be happy. If it's indexable then search engines will be happy. Neither of which mean a site is WC3 complaint.

 

in your dreams maybe.. besides, that would be extremely stupid thing to do- specially if it was project he/she got paid for.
w3.org has been known for not validating some of it's own pages, They even have a place where anyone can send feedback/bug reports.

 

Guys, remember, there is nothing such as a SEO Expert. All these people working a SEO experts do so from guesses only. Until the SE's publicize their algorithms, and the industry becomes regulated and standardized, there is no way that so called SEO expert wannabe's can actually stake their claim.

You are your own SEO Expert. Never trust a SEO company promising you top search rankings immediately, as it is impossible.

On topic, even if site validation is or is not an important part of search engine optimization, it can surely be used as a "measuring stick" to judge the credibility of the SEO personnel or company.

 

So what? Even Google site it self doesn't passed validation
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=w...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

62 Errors, 8 warning(s)