Page Errors

by 16 replies
20
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
#search engine optimization #contributors #making #mistakes #top
  • For lolz put google.com in this website checker.

    I think your time is better spent building rather than fixing frivolous 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/>.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • Validating your site is not clutching at straws. Take a few minutes, fix the errors and take pride in your work.
    • [2] replies
    • 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.
      • [ 2 ] Thanks

    • 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?
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • 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.
  • Banned
    Fraggler is right, those validation tools are way to sensitive.

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

    Check that exact url in OPs validation tool & you'll get 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • 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
    • [1] reply
    • 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
  • 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?
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 20

    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.