Does w3c compliance = search engine friendliness?

are you saying you CAN see or you CAN'T see any difference? you second statement confuses me.

 

TYPO DEVIN TYPO thats just a typo

 

i suppose so. but see the first sentence, it sounds like he was sayi.......

nevermind.

 

lol....ok SEO_Guru

 

interested in CAN or CAN'T, that's bring different meanings, btw, what do he mean actually??

 

I got 26 errors and some of them i can correct it myself, but inside the core components of the cms, i'd rather not to mess with the code, might make it worse ..

 

Were they errors or Warnings?
You need to worry at all if they were warnings

 

Could be a doc-type issue. Check the doc-types for which is the most appropriate to your platform and work back from there.

 

i'll try my best, posting to this thread later as soon as i get the result.

 

Well, your original assessment is probably the most accurate: correcting html errors on a CMS would be a head-ache. Could be in the template, could be in the code. Either way it can be a pain to reverse out all that stuff.

 

What CMS are you using?

 

IMO Joomla

 

heh.... I'm using blogger but migrating to Movable Type.

 

i had no idea that google and Msn would not validate....wow...

 

Nah, I thought he was asking about Rewlie

 

Hi Rewlie,

I found a free program called 'HTML-Kit' that can clean up HTML code and also make it w3c compliant - I don't know the URL offhand, but you can do a search and download it.

HTH,
Sam

 

[COLOR=Red][URL="http://www.download.com/3000-2048-4687625.html"]HTML KIT DOWNLOAD[/URL][/COLOR]

Code (markup):

 

"seems to follow"? Not to me. Google's goal is delivering search results. They don't care whether those results are W3C compliant or not. They only care about making the results relevant to the search terms.

Just where does Google say that?

And it proves the argument opposite to the one you're trying to promote: W3C validation is irrelevant to SE ranking, If in the future, the search results show more W3C compliant sites, that still will not show that W3C validation is relevant - only that more top sites are concerned about W3C validation.

If by "meta tags" you mean "keywords", since they are really not important at I guess you could say W3C validation is just as important. I'd say that a well constructed <title>...</title> is FAR more important and that even the meta description tag is more important.

No, again. Google wants to give their users relevant pages.

 

Your right, however the W3C compliance makes it easier for them to se what your page is about and therefor rank it higher in relavancy. A W3C page is cleaner with less crap in it. That makes the site more about what you want and less about making it look good. "Content is King" is one of the popular phrases around here. W3C makes it so that content is not wrapped in layers of code.

Well if you have paid attention to speeches made by Google and what Matt C is saying then you realize that this is true. Its not in the webmaster guidelines, you have to read between the lines.

I think you meant irelevant instead of relevent at the end so I am going with that. I think you misunderstood me. Right now the sites that have W3C are doing very well, all things considered like links, content and such. But not every category or search, in fact very few, have sites that are W3C valid. Heck I have seen that just by throwing doctype at the top Google likes a site better and it jumps. That in itself shows that G likes W3C validation.

I would agree with you the keywords are not important at all. In fact watching the V7n contest it looks like a Title is all you need. In fact the #1 listing in the contest, is fully W3C compliant. HMMM. Maybe compliance does help.

Relavency without readability means nothing. Google knows this. That is why they like W3C compliance. Of course you can make it to the top without a W3C site. But the longer you wait the less easy that is going to be.

 

It's not W3C per se that does that. It is valid code, which in itself does not require W3C compliance. I think there is an important distinction between "valid code" and "W3C validation or compliance" that most people misunderstand when discussing this issue.

Translation: Google doesn't say it at all. It's your opinion. And an opinion I don't share.

No I did not. Obviously you misunderstood me.

No it does not. Some W3C validated sites do very well. Some non-W3C validates sites do very well. To me the obvious conclusion is that there is no correlation between W3C validation and SE ranking.

Again, faulty logic. The reason that site is #1 is likely due to a good title and numerous backlinks with good anchor text. W3C has nothing to do with it.

W3C compliance has nothing to do with readability. Google knows this (although evidently you don't). That's why W3C compliance is not a factor in Google ranking.