Quick n Easy $97 fixing website problems..

11 replies
Hi everyone,

I'm sure you know what a w3c validator is:

The W3C Markup Validation Service

For those who don't know it's a tool to check for any mark up ERRORS and WARNINGS on a website.

You could simply go thru a local directory and run the individual sites thru the validation service and send the scary feedback to the business owner in an email.

If the business owner is serious he should know the importance of having a well-functioning website and this will definitely be of interest to him.

There are further SEO implications I believe for sites that don't meet w3cs standard of validation.. although this is just speculation, you can still sell him on the fear of having a site which may decrease in rankings, lower his sales, what would that mean for him? 10k less a year? All because he had the opportunity of paying someone to fix it and he missed out.

You could easily send them a screenshot or an email with the details that breifly explains W3cs importance on his rankings and business, explain that it's not a hard thing to fix, but an important one.

You could easily get $97 into a paypal account with this, create landing page, put your buy now link underneath with a comment to include their URL.

There would be hundreds of sites like this in anyone's local area and solving these errors is very easy anyone could do this.. and is a great way to build your funnel up into something with more money like SEO or web site redesign to 'get it out of the way'.

Someone please try this and let me know how it goes, I'll be your guide.

Pantera
#$97 #easy #fixing #problems #quick #website
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    The facts are that the vast majority of web sites never validate so its unreasonable to think Google applies any sort of w3c filter that effects rankings.

    Why doesn't google.com validate? - YouTube
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7948905].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Brandon Tanner
      The W3C validator stats should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. While some of the "errors" and "warnings" it spits out have merit, a surprisingly large amount of them are completely meaningless from a practical standpoint.

      For example, I've seen sites that score pretty badly in the validator, yet still look and function perfectly across all major browsers (including mobile browsers). On the flip side, there are sites that score perfectly in the validator, yet look terrible in some browsers due to poor design techniques (ie absolutely-positioned div's overlapping, etc).

      I think a better use of your time would be to look for sites that either look bad in mobile browsers (which is probably still over 90% of them in most niches), or outdated sites that look bad in any browser. And then pitch the owners on the value of a modern, great-looking cross-browser site (like many of their competitors will already have).

      Trust me, business owners could care less whether or not their site "validates" to some standard they have never even heard of... they only care if they think their site is costing them business. And I think it would be much easier to convince them that their site is costing them business if you take the "ugly/outdated/non-mobile-friendly" angle, as opposed to the "doesn't validate" angle.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949315].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    I do think Google looks at things such as load times and a lot of that stuff comes back to the optimization of a website. You won't find many sites that validate at 100% but that's not to say it's a bad idea to try and strive for a well validated website. If not for Google then do it for your visitors. But I do think Google likes clean code as opposed to messy and poorly structured sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PanteraIM
    Hmmm..

    Interesting responses so far everyone.

    Stepping aside from the technical aspect of the validator, I still believe there's value as I said before on selling the fear of the loss of having poorly optimized code.

    I understand that business owners could care less about their code being validated, but if that could potentially lead to something much more serious I believe they would jump at the opportunity to avoid the perception of fear. This could perhaps be a service which leads into a redesign for their website?

    Appreciate your thoughts all the same.
    Signature

    you cant hold no groove if you ain't got no pocket.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
      Fear off loss of exactly what. If some one is selling them fear of loss of potential future rankings they are scamming them plain and simple.



      Originally Posted by PanteraIM View Post

      Hmmm..

      Interesting responses so far everyone.

      Stepping aside from the technical aspect of the validator, I still believe there's value as I said before on selling the fear of the loss of having poorly optimized code.

      I understand that business owners could care less about their code being validated, but if that could potentially lead to something much more serious I believe they would jump at the opportunity to avoid the perception of fear. This could perhaps be a service which leads into a redesign for their website?

      Appreciate your thoughts all the same.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949470].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kebertt
        Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

        Fear off loss of exactly what. If some one is selling them fear of loss of potential future rankings they are scamming them plain and simple.
        I wouldn't go that far... The OP's service would provide a benefit to anyone who uses it - whether it's to improve their rankings (should it do so) or to just fix the problematic code in their website.

        There are programs that audit websites for SEO - obviously the mentioned software isn't the best in terms of that. If you're going after improving SEO, why not sent them an SEO audit?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949613].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
          The OP specifically says one could still sell them on the fear that invalid code according to w3c standards coiuld have a negative effect on Google rankings if it's not fixed.

          That's pure speculation and Google has clearly stated they don't use w3c compliance as a ranking factor.




          Originally Posted by kebertt View Post

          I wouldn't go that far... The OP's service would provide a benefit to anyone who uses it - whether it's to improve their rankings (should it do so) or to just fix the problematic code in their website.

          There are programs that audit websites for SEO - obviously the mentioned software isn't the best in terms of that. If you're going after improving SEO, why not sent them an SEO audit?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949700].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TonyD
            UK Google search for loans. #1 ranking is moneysupermarket.com

            validator gives 85 Errors, 14 warning(s)

            doesn't seem G cares so much for w3c

            Thanks op but selling the fear as loss of rankings
            may not be the best way to market this.
            Signature

            On my way to $20K by Xmas NO JOKE, with this new launch that's already gone VIRAL. Message Me For Info

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7951145].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author epark732
              Google themselves don't validate 100%. Tells you a lot.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7951188].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author vndnbrgj
    I agree... I don't see the point. But, that's me.

    If anyone else wants more details there was a WSO on just this.
    http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...-72-hours.html

    Not an aff link
    Signature
    Life Begins At The End Of Your Comfort Zone
    - Neale Donald Wilson -
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7951650].message }}

Trending Topics