Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??
-
28-11-2009 1:11am#1
Comments
-
Ok, a lot of talk about this lately in the Internet Marketing / SEO forum here.
Let's put this to bed once and for all here. W3 compliant code is NOT a ranking factor.
Straight from the horses mouth (sorry Matt):
While W3 compliant code is easier to maintain and (almost) futureproof, it's NOT a ranking factor.
The confusion lies in Google's ability to crawl a page/site. A W3 compliant site facilitates that but it's not necessary. The messiest code in the world can still be crawlable.
On a final note, Google have suggested that page load time WILL be a ranking factor in 2010. Having clean code that caches well and minimizes requests will help, but again, compliant code only facilitates that.
I hope that your opinion that "will never change" agrees, because it is a fact.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
HandWS LTD wrote: »Link8r, i said he was wrong on what he mentioned about testing it. He agreed.
Allow me to summarise it: RedFly, RedCardinal and myself have all said we don't agree and you're saying we're wrong - thats what that is in reference to.HandWS LTD wrote: »Whats with the names? I mentioned his surname. That is bringing the topic elsewhere. I am not producing any links here but will in a new blog at a later date. Its not speculation
:eek: what names? I just pointed out that his first name was "Dave" - in English don't you normally refer to someone by their firstname and not their surname?
(If you don't have a sense of humour, please stop reading). I'm sorry for pointing out something - I wasn't aware that this was unacceptable in a forum and I apologise.
[QUOTE=HandWS LTD;63250731Now my point in asking the question from the thread is to see the opinion of the irish professionals on boards.ie that have designed/developed websites. Lets say its a little survey to see what the irish market is like in this area.[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen anyone agree with you - so you're on you're own there? :pac:
Just thinking out loud - you should probably try the same poll on IWF. On second thoughts, I don't really think there is a need for this poll but you would possibly find more SEO thinkers on IWF maybe.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
RoadKillTs wrote: »I think the OP is a bit obsessed with the W3C guidelines
It doesn't make a bit of difference imo.
I would not call it obsession. As a web solutions company....by having your website valid shows how professional you are. This is a requirement and should be the case for any web company. Being valid has its advantages.
We provide error free websites. Would you like to buy a brand new car thats not error free? I thought not....so anybody looking for a brand new website would not want to recieve it with 20%, 10% or even 5% of errors. Its like they are not getting what they paid for.0 -
-
-
-
-
Clients are buying presentation & marketing. If a site came up as unreadable or gave off alerts - that would count as not professional.
Agreed.Handing in your CV (which is basic and formal in terms of presentation) and having a coffee mark on it is not the same as having validation mistakes - its widely agreed here that professionals don't care - they don't see a problem, neither do the search engines. The only person who does care seems to be you...
I'm not on my own !! I'm the only one putting the arguements here. Others prob won't so they won't get into arguments. They'll agree or disagree with the post.Secondly, cars ship with errors - there are build errors in every car. Its not as crucial as buying the car and the engine doesn't work - that would be like having a site that doesn't run. But cars have flaws, like no car's wheels will point exaclty 100% in alignment, the engines aren't perfect - they will wear, its a built-in flaw. The computers are there in the engine management system to balance out the way the engine is burning petrol.
Your right in your example....cars ship with errors..... CV's don't. When something like the coffee happens.........they fix it or replace it with a new one....error free. Websites are the same.....easily fix it. They shouldn't be shipped with errors by a web company.....thats make you unprofessional. I would not like to buy a brand new xmas toy that was faulty. Thats unprofessional.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
to @HandWS
These are just purely observations, nothing personal but a few things about your site that may perk you interest in terms of giving up on W3C validation and going for what counts:
(I'm not a designer btw)
Firstly, TraceySolicitors - who ever did this - good work, I've come across it before - good work on these sites, I'm impressed!
1. Your site's PR =2/10 (I know toolbarPR = FUD sometimes, it's not about SERP's but 2/10 isn't difficult to achieve). Your SEO page is 0/10 - just an observation
2. I actually found it hard to find your site, even when I put in "hosting and websites" - turns out you have to use web solutions. Wasn't impressed
3. Your site is easily the worst design of all the sites posted by people here - and many of them are very old and I know, we are all so busy working hard on our client that we can't look at our own but really - if you showed me that site I wouldn't care if it was written in Valid W3C or Klingon.
Horrible colours, graphics, branding - really unimpressed.
4. Your page titles are just so all over the shop - while they're not overly long, they're definitely not well planned out - basic SEO fail
Really, W3C compliance isn't helping you!
Ha ha.....'my learned friend', your cheap :pac:. Love to know how you analysis your clients seo page score. Mine 0....tut tut tut. You already know who designed that site TraceySolicitors. As for you being very impressed with it. Load time is fantastic...eh?? Plus a CMS was used.....a simple quick solution....and many more problems. You know quite alot
.
Try Bing and tell me.....my SEO poor. It still needs work of course, when i have time. But the most nb keywords. For one "Web Hosting", where are we. I'll tell you #1. You probably won't see it...sorry. Google takes time for new websites that want the biggest keywords.....did you NOT know that. Funny
Want me to check yours?? i'll give you loads of things that wrong.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
HandWS LTD wrote: »Ha ha.....'my learned friend', your cheap :pac:. Love to know how you analysis your clients seo page score. Mine 0....tut tut tut. You already know who designed that site TraceySolicitors. As for you being very impressed with it. Load time is fantastic...eh?? Plus a CMS was used.....a simple quick solution....and many more problems. You know quite alot.
Try Bing and tell me.....my SEO poor. It still needs work of course, when i have time. But the most nb keywords. For one "Web Hosting", where are we. I'll tell you #1. You probably won't see it...sorry. Google takes time for new websites that want the biggest keywords.....did you NOT know that. Funny
Want me to check yours?? i'll give you loads of things that wrong.
for someone who thinks W3C = professional, fault free delivery:
"your cheap" or "you are cheap" / "you're cheap"
Charming! So much for not making this personal.
"know how you analysis your clients seo page score". Analyse maybe? Just guessing here. I merely pointed out that your web page about SEO was rated as 0/10. Thats the Google PageRank, not my rank. Like I said, an observation...I didn't analyse your page.
I don't know who did that site - there were two people mentioning it - I just liked their strategy. I've never met them. Again, just an observation
Whats wrong with a CMS? How is that a quick, simple solution?
I went to Bing and I didn't see you, sorry:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=web+hosting&go=&form=QBRE&filt=all&qs=n
But I dont see anything funny, I take quite an analytical view of it tbh.0 -
While your the only one arguing.
Google PageRank......:pac:. and load time has nothing to do with seo?? Seriously.....good luck if thats what you use/think all the time.
You say the website is good even tho you didn't check itTraceySolicitors - who ever did this - good work, I've come across it before - good work on these sites, I'm impressed!. Or did you??
Here's your link, and move to #2:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=web+hosting&go=&form=QBRE&filt=rf&qs=n
You've made alot of threads personal, you'll see it when you read what you say. However, as trickyd said "grow up". I second that.0 -
HandWS LTD wrote: »While your the only one arguing.
Google PageRank......:pac:. and load time has nothing to do with seo?? Seriously.....good luck if thats what you use/think all the time.
You say the website is good even tho you didn't check it. Or did you??
Here's your link, and move to #2:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=web+hosting&go=&form=QBRE&filt=rf&qs=n
You've made alot of threads personal, you'll see it when you read what you say. However, as trickyd said "grow up". I second that.
ok. Google provides, on average of the 250 domains we manage, about 86.6% of traffic. Load time, unless it's "excessive", doesn't count, IMHO. And again, no evidence to support you either.
BTW - you're the one arguing, there isn't a single post agreeing with you. Ahem.
Traceys - I know the company, I know the web presence. I looked at it about 8 months ago. I haven't checked since. But I remember it was good.
Pages from Ireland? thats too easy - I rank either way.
Grow up - that was meant for you btw - I see English isn't your first language (again, just an observation) - hope that helps0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ok......this thread has been running away from its questions.I'm a big boy so I don't mind you questioning my ability, experience or work we've been involved in. No need to send me private messages to justify your reasons for commenting on work we've done. Especially when it's only a half arsed apology...
I'm disappointed (for them) that one of our key clients is being used as an example, but on the otherhand it is a perfect example of how a site does not need to validate in order to be hugely successful in the SERPs.HandWS LTD wrote:Sorry for bring this up. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055753670&page=2
I said something about a website you worked on. I didn't want to but had no choice. Do you want me to delete the comment? I will, without any problem.
They're the reason why i sent you a PM. If i deleted the comment without you saying "Yes", what will be next? An attack from someone. Clearly, the PM was the wrong thing to do.You've clearly shown your ignorance in this thread. From the start of this thread, you've stated that nothing will change your opinion. This pig-headedness is coming through yet again. Rather than accept someone's example of clearly how wrong you are, you have to go on an attack, instead of gracefully accepting it.
I will not stand for anyone attacking my company with LIES that has clearly nothing to do with this threads question. Also, their answers were related to google alone and so on.
Good webmasters understand the importance of load time. Visitors to a website appreciates it when pages load fast. People with slow internet connections will leave straight away because their browser FREEZE'S for a good amount of time until its loaded fully when accessing that site. It's losing traffic and potential customers for your client. You always have to consider visitors with slow internet connections.In relation to your points...
1. Load Times
Not sure what you connection is like, but for me (1mb line), loads within 4 seconds. I'm happy with that since we are trying to do a lot on that page.
Plus, I've have to agree with Link8r - it's the last thing that I would be looking at when reviewing a site for SEO.
I'm not against them but they do have their disadvantages. My point was that the CMS's coding is not unique, always comes with errors, loadtimes need to be brought down with them, some of them do not index properly on search engines, they requires more memory (also more CPU power and software maintenance), your webspace increase's alot more which causing you to pay more for web hosting, they require upgrades, and finally it is a quick solution to design a website....rather than designing one from scratch which is unique. Yes, you can easily change them yourself.2. CMS
LOL - what are you trying to tell us now that a CMS has a negative effect on your changes of decent rankings too??
You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about here, especially when you say "quick simple solution". You have no idea what's going on in the background - totally naive comment.3. Your Bing Ranking
I didn't bother checking it - but this is clearly one of the reasons why Bing has failed to capture the imagination of web searchers and gain any ground on Google's dominance. It's SERPs are just so poor.
Their SERP's are not poor. You clearly do not understand how they work. They are new, unique and should be given the time. Yes, they jumped into the market too fast with some of the problems they've had lately. On plus side it gives new companies a chance to dominate the market while google takes time with competitive keywords. It's suprising, the amount of professional's that do not care about it even tho it generates more traffic. Is website traffic not important for any website?I really don't know why you bother posting on this forum if you want are going to be so closed minded and ignorant. Especially ignoring the comments from those that are clearly a lot more talented and experienced in this area than you.
Why not listen and learn from the experts that contributes here?
Some of Ireland's top SEOs have commented on this thread and you've blatantly dismissed every single one of them.
Not exactly a good tactic if you are hoping in some way to gain respect from your posts on this forum.
If you can't accept when you are wrong, don't bother starting threads like this or picking arguments with experts in the business longer than you.
Not one person here agrees with you... does that not say something to you? If nothing is sinking in, you're more ignorant than I thought.
closed minded, ignorant, and ignoring the comments?? Their answers were based on google alone, testing, your clients website, and another one knew exactly what he was doing. To your suprise, the pole is going exactly where i want it to go. Also, i'm not alone. The results will be shown at the end.....just giving others time to answer the pole.0 -
-
HandWS LTD wrote: »Ok......this thread has been running away from its questions.
They're the reason why i sent you a PM. If i deleted the comment without you saying "Yes", what will be next? An attack from someone. Clearly, the PM was the wrong thing to do.
I will not stand for anyone attacking my company with LIES that has clearly nothing to do with this threads question. Also, their answers were related to google alone and so on.
Good webmasters understand the importance of load time. Visitors to a website appreciates it when pages load fast. People with slow internet connections will leave straight away because their browser FREEZE'S for a good amount of time until its loaded fully when accessing that site. It's losing traffic and potential customers for your client. You always have to consider visitors with slow internet connections.
I'm not against them but they do have their disadvantages. My point was that the CMS's coding is not unique, always comes with errors, loadtimes need to be brought down with them, some of them do not index properly on search engines, they requires more memory (also more CPU power and software maintenance), your webspace increase's alot more which causing you to pay more for web hosting, they require upgrades, and finally it is a quick solution to design a website....rather than designing one from scratch which is unique. Yes, you can easily change them yourself.
closed minded, ignorant, and ignoring the comments?? Their answers were based on google alone, testing, your clients website, and another one knew exactly what he was doing. To your suprise, the pole is going exactly where i want it to go. Also, i'm not alone. The results will be shown at the end.....just giving others time to answer the pole.
The fact that you sell hosting is so apparently clear here - you're pre-occupied with loading times and code quality. The thread has pretty much stayed true to the question will W3C help (and a resounding no) - yet you keep pulling it in every possible way.
It will be 2010 in less than 4 weeks and you're arguing whether a CMS is a good idea? I've never heard such contrived tripe in all my years working on the web (12 years). So while some people are moving to Web 3.0 (as vague as that is) - you're suggesting we move back to Web 1.0? Fantastic...
Just reading this reply of yours about best sums up your view: you are not listening or thinking about the comments you are getting to the questions you asked!
Firstly, while the initial reply from RedFly was to do with Google, we've gone to look at Bing's blog and it didn't offer any other support for your argument
It's been a very generic discussion.
Before you call the Forum Police for "Thread Wandering" - you entitled this thread yourself "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??"
Then half way through you decided it was all about Bing! only and not about other search engines. Have you sat down and read back through what you've written?
And to keep going with the other mistakes and half baked theories you have: Bing! is a new name for a search engine that is actually older than Google. It's even accessible/shares the same web address as Live Search did.
"Good Webmasters agee with [insert your outrageous claims here]" - where are they? There are plenty who've read this and don't agree with you. Or do people have to agree with you to be considered good by you? I'm guessing so.
Honestly, TomEd has summed you up best. Please feel free to tell me how wrong I am now:0 -
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBACTS-tyg
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement