Page Errors

Melissa82 · 12-09-2011, 02:15 PM

I went around and looked at some of the top WF contributors signature links and tested them for errors. Wow! I was so surprised to see that some of the people whose opinion I respect can make such simple mistakes with their html.

Google makes it very clear that page errors affect a sites rankings. So for the sake of your own site fix them.

I used this online page checker to do the tests:

OnlineWebCheck.com - CSE HTML Validator FREE Website Check

Andrew S · 12-09-2011, 02:31 PM

For lolz put google.com in this website checker.

I think your time is better spent building rather than fixing frivolous errors

Fraggler · 12-09-2011, 02:35 PM

You're clutching at straws if you think a HTML standards test failure means people are clueless. It does not affect a page's rank - if you forget to put an alt tag in or use <br> instead of <br/>.

Melissa82 · 12-09-2011, 02:55 PM

Validating your site is not clutching at straws. Take a few minutes, fix the errors and take pride in your work.

Mike Anthony · 12-09-2011, 03:25 PM

Don't know if I am a top contributor but I'll let you in on a secret. I would never put a site I am trying to rank in my WF signature. Any site I expose to WF is strictly for customers from WF not for search rankings. I do almost no SEO on them. If I offer the same services away from WF they are on a completely different domain.

Most SEOs probably already know why that is but if you don't - its a great way to expose all your resources. For example think I am going to use any links from my private network to boost a page or even domain showing on WF?

Ha!. That would be a great way to expose it. So yeah if you try to reverse engineer any site in my signature you are not going to learn a thing about anything. Hats off to all you who use forum signatures for ranking but I don't.

Pal7 · 12-09-2011, 03:30 PM

They say it does matter in rankings, because in essense it officially does. But how much it affects rankings is less than 0.5% my opinion. Unless ofcourse your head tag is in the bottom of the page etc, then it really shouldn't be a factor to consider.

Also if you want to validate your pages, use the W3 validator and forget about the OnlineWebCheck.

yukon · 12-09-2011, 03:34 PM

Fraggler is right, those validation tools are way to sensitive.

When I search the keywords car insurance on Google, the #1 ranked page is:

Quote:

www.progressive.com

Check that exact url in OPs validation tool & you'll get 25 errors for the #1 raked page in the SERPs.

Don't get me wrong OP, I'm all for taking pride in the source code, still I don't think Google is 1/2 as picky about markup errors as those validation tools are.

NEseO · 12-09-2011, 03:35 PM

Agreeing with mike here. I would never point to any site I am trying to rank for in a sig. Mine always have a total of 0 backlinks, hell I don't even know if they are indexed...and don't really care too much

Melissa82 · 12-09-2011, 03:51 PM

Well, it's nice to hear all of your thoughts but I figure why chance it.

As soon as you add your files to your server why wouldn't you want to validate your site? The tools are there and they are free. At worst it's five minutes wasted.

neil_patmore · 12-09-2011, 03:53 PM

Why would anyone want to validate HTML or CSS with any tool other than the W3C Validator?? I must be missing something?? The W3C Markup Validation Service

Also, this tactic is increasingly being used with offline web designers targeting companies with old websites that don't validate, using lines similar to 'your site will never rank because it doesn't validate. You need a new site with validated code if you want to rank in Google.'

It's BS.

Mike Anthony · 12-09-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melissa82

Validating your site is not clutching at straws. Take a few minutes, fix the errors and take pride in your work.

I bet you haven't seen how Troy runs his service and his offerings. I have and he has no lack of pride in his work. You are way out of line suggesting tht people do not take pride in their work based on a typical code purist approach.

Look up the 800 number for Adobe and call them

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.adobe.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

then call wikipedia (Do they have any problem ranking in Google)

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.wikipedia.org/ - W3C Markup Validator

and them Amazon

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.amazon.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

600+ errors

A hint from guy that still does web development here and there. its a whole lot easier to validate a site when you haven't done anything much with it. Don't believe me? You should. when I go to YOUR site and try and get more information I get a page that gives me these errors

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.hostthename.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

So they don't take pride in their work either?

Mike Anthony · 12-09-2011, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melissa82

As soon as you add your files to your server why wouldn't you want to validate your site? The tools are there and they are free. At worst it's five minutes wasted.

Noooo Melissa. Now I understand why you were so caustic to Troy. Its not that simple all the time..

When you try and build a site with interaction and CGi its not that easy all the time and its not five minutes. It can take you hours to track down a script that is giving you bad markup. Straight HTML then yeah you are right but plenty sites are working with far more than that now.

Pal7 · 12-09-2011, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I bet you haven't seen how Troy runs his service and his offerings. I have and he has no lack of pride in his work. You are way out of line suggesting tht people do not take pride in their work based on a typical code purist approach.

Look up the 800 number for Adobe and call them

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.adobe.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

then call wikipedia (Do they have any problem ranking in Google)

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.wikipedia.org/ - W3C Markup Validator

and them Amazon

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.amazon.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

600+ errors

A hint from guy that still does web development here and there. its a whole lot easier to validate a site when you haven't done anything much with it. Don't believe me? You should. when I go to YOUR site and try and get more information I get a page that gives me these errors

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.hostthename.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

So they don't take pride in their work either?

I agree with this. Be practical, learn from real examples forget the textbook text where its not relevant.

Mike Anthony · 12-09-2011, 04:24 PM

Public apology in order

Apologies to Melissa I came down on you a bit hard there when you made that comment about Troy and pride. Didn't mean to bash you over the head with the facts. Your subsequent post was not as strident as your comment there seemed to be so I think I may have misread it as being a little more critical than you intended it to be. Sorry.

Melissa82 · 12-09-2011, 05:33 PM

Thanks Mike but no need to apologize. As usual you taught me something. This time about the fact that parts of complex sites can be difficult to validate but still rank well. I did see some errors that were glaringly obvious and easy to fix. I'll hold my ground on fixing those errors but thanks for the bigger picture

Mike Anthony · 12-11-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melissa82

This time about the fact that parts of complex sites can be difficult to validate

Extreme Pain in the neck sometimes. Client wants this particular functionality and then you find it for his site install it and it has a weird way of leaving tags open. Then you have to go hunt down the file that is spitting out the code and fix it without breaking the script and then when you correct it IE doesn't like your correction and throws alignment off.

Ugh. Many times just not worth the man hours which is why you see so many sites that don't validate. The effect it has on SEO is way overrated not that it has none at all

David Sneen · 12-11-2011, 11:36 PM

Andrew, I hope you are playing devil's advocate.

My previous designer was a nice guy, and very knowledgeable about SEO -- both on site and social media. He gave me many valuable suggestions and was reasonably priced and reasonably quick. But, he was a terrible speller.

Although he had my site, www.earnmorespendmoregroup.com operating well, his spelling deficiencies affected the coding. When I had an analysis done, there were 11 errors. I never got my site beyond p 9 for -- earn more. It is 6 months later, and I have continued working on my blog. Those errors are corrected, and I made page one. My blog is ranked #3 and #7 on two of the top 3 search engines for -- earn more.

Do details matter?

12-09-2011, 02:31 PM	#2
Andrew S HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 288 Thanks: 7 Thanked 44 Times in 29 Posts Social Networking Contact Info	re: Page Errors For lolz put google.com in this website checker. I think your time is better spent building rather than fixing frivolous errors
	$5 PR5 Links / 13 Network Article Marketing Epic Link Services by MarketersCenter.com: $5 - $149

12-09-2011, 02:35 PM	#3
Fraggler Troy Steele War Room Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 1,763 Thanks: 723 Thanked 499 Times in 319 Posts Social Networking	re: Page Errors You're clutching at straws if you think a HTML standards test failure means people are clueless. It does not affect a page's rank - if you forget to put an alt tag in or use <br> instead of <br/>.
	High Quality - Big Impact - Niche Specific - Low Footprint Backlinks - 15 OBL This is as Close to Natural Backlinking as You're Ever Likely to See Niches Available: General Health - Finance & Investment - Shopping & Consumer Goods

12-09-2011, 02:55 PM	#4
Melissa82 HyperActive Warrior Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 288 Thanks: 55 Thanked 52 Times in 42 Posts	re: Page Errors Validating your site is not clutching at straws. Take a few minutes, fix the errors and take pride in your work.

12-09-2011, 03:25 PM	#5
Mike Anthony SEO D'Artagnan War Room Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,980 Thanks: 476 Thanked 1,090 Times in 701 Posts	re: Page Errors Don't know if I am a top contributor but I'll let you in on a secret. I would never put a site I am trying to rank in my WF signature. Any site I expose to WF is strictly for customers from WF not for search rankings. I do almost no SEO on them. If I offer the same services away from WF they are on a completely different domain. Most SEOs probably already know why that is but if you don't - its a great way to expose all your resources. For example think I am going to use any links from my private network to boost a page or even domain showing on WF? Ha!. That would be a great way to expose it. So yeah if you try to reverse engineer any site in my signature you are not going to learn a thing about anything. Hats off to all you who use forum signatures for ranking but I don't.
	The World's only Full ongoing, no limit, no question unanswered Mentorship on Building powerful SEO Networks reopened by popular demand for a short time.

12-09-2011, 03:30 PM	#6
Pal7 Warrior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 27 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	re: Page Errors They say it does matter in rankings, because in essense it officially does. But how much it affects rankings is less than 0.5% my opinion. Unless ofcourse your head tag is in the bottom of the page etc, then it really shouldn't be a factor to consider. Also if you want to validate your pages, use the W3 validator and forget about the OnlineWebCheck.

12-09-2011, 02:15 PM	#1
Melissa82 HyperActive Warrior Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 288 Thanks: 55 Thanked 52 Times in 42 Posts	Page Errors I went around and looked at some of the top WF contributors signature links and tested them for errors. Wow! I was so surprised to see that some of the people whose opinion I respect can make such simple mistakes with their html. Google makes it very clear that page errors affect a sites rankings. So for the sake of your own site fix them. I used this online page checker to do the tests: OnlineWebCheck.com - CSE HTML Validator FREE Website Check

12-09-2011, 03:35 PM	#8
NEseO HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 132 Thanks: 1 Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts	re: Page Errors Agreeing with mike here. I would never point to any site I am trying to rank for in a sig. Mine always have a total of 0 backlinks, hell I don't even know if they are indexed...and don't really care too much
	Cheap Homepage Backlinks PR1 - PR5 As Low as $6/Year!!!

12-09-2011, 03:51 PM	#9
Melissa82 HyperActive Warrior Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 288 Thanks: 55 Thanked 52 Times in 42 Posts	re: Page Errors Well, it's nice to hear all of your thoughts but I figure why chance it. As soon as you add your files to your server why wouldn't you want to validate your site? The tools are there and they are free. At worst it's five minutes wasted.

12-09-2011, 03:53 PM	#10
neil_patmore HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: UK Posts: 276 Thanks: 28 Thanked 61 Times in 34 Posts	re: Page Errors Why would anyone want to validate HTML or CSS with any tool other than the W3C Validator?? I must be missing something?? The W3C Markup Validation Service Also, this tactic is increasingly being used with offline web designers targeting companies with old websites that don't validate, using lines similar to 'your site will never rank because it doesn't validate. You need a new site with validated code if you want to rank in Google.' It's BS.

12-09-2011, 04:24 PM	#14
Mike Anthony SEO D'Artagnan War Room Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,980 Thanks: 476 Thanked 1,090 Times in 701 Posts	re: Page Errors Public apology in order Apologies to Melissa I came down on you a bit hard there when you made that comment about Troy and pride. Didn't mean to bash you over the head with the facts. Your subsequent post was not as strident as your comment there seemed to be so I think I may have misread it as being a little more critical than you intended it to be. Sorry.
	The World's only Full ongoing, no limit, no question unanswered Mentorship on Building powerful SEO Networks reopened by popular demand for a short time.

12-09-2011, 05:33 PM	#15
Melissa82 HyperActive Warrior Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 288 Thanks: 55 Thanked 52 Times in 42 Posts	re: Page Errors Thanks Mike but no need to apologize. As usual you taught me something. This time about the fact that parts of complex sites can be difficult to validate but still rank well. I did see some errors that were glaringly obvious and easy to fix. I'll hold my ground on fixing those errors but thanks for the bigger picture

12-11-2011, 11:36 PM	#17
David Sneen David Sneen War Room Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: White Bear Lake, MN Posts: 396 Blog Entries: 10 Thanks: 81 Thanked 61 Times in 55 Posts Social Networking	Re: Page Errors Andrew, I hope you are playing devil's advocate. My previous designer was a nice guy, and very knowledgeable about SEO -- both on site and social media. He gave me many valuable suggestions and was reasonably priced and reasonably quick. But, he was a terrible speller. Although he had my site, www.earnmorespendmoregroup.com operating well, his spelling deficiencies affected the coding. When I had an analysis done, there were 11 errors. I never got my site beyond p 9 for -- earn more. It is 6 months later, and I have continued working on my blog. Those errors are corrected, and I made page one. My blog is ranked #3 and #7 on two of the top 3 search engines for -- earn more. Do details matter?