homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.243.23.129
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 ( [1] 2 > >     
AdSense for Search May Cause Pages to Not Validate
When Publishers Use Two Per Page
Lame_Wolf




msg:3829171
 1:26 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

You are allowed 2 adsense for search per page, yet if you do, your page no longer validates.

The offending piece of code is :
id="cse-search-box"

As we are not allowed to alter the code, what are we to do ?
I like/want my pages to validate.

 

swa66




msg:3829227
 3:09 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Use only 1 search ?
Ask for permission to change the code so it validates (they -used to- give that relatively easy)

Lame_Wolf




msg:3829231
 3:31 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Use only 1 search ?

I do, apart from my "search results" page where I have two. But if you are allowed two, then google should have tested it for such things.

Ask for permission to change the code so it validates (they -used to- give that relatively easy)

LOL, You're funny.
I contacted them about two months ago asking permission to alter the code for something similar. I first received the world famous automated email that tells you to check the (spammy) forums.

Then, after a few days I received a "How did we do?" email. Needless to say I didn't give them a good score.

Not heard back since. Fine customer service they turned out to be. Not.

OnlyToday




msg:3829259
 4:22 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Very few pages on the internet actually validate, especially the larger sites. google dot com returns 65 Errors, 8 warning(s) on the w3 validator. I guess they just don't take it very seriously. If Google doesn't care, why should you?

swa66




msg:3829280
 4:37 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Validation is your only weapon in a fight to get your site to render properly on all browsers out there.
Do you own all possible platforms/browsers out there (think PDAs, phones in use around the world, the different versions of the different game platforms, set top boxes around the world, fridges, and whatnot they'll eventually put a browser on.) ?

Lame_Wolf




msg:3829290
 4:56 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Very few pages on the internet actually validate, especially the larger sites. google dot com returns 65 Errors, 8 warning(s) on the w3 validator. I guess they just don't take it very seriously. If Google doesn't care, why should you?

Because I take pride in my work. Out of the 10000 page site, there are about 3 pages that do not validate. Two of them are google result pages.

Atomic




msg:3829304
 5:55 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm also guilty of making sure my pages validate.
If Google doesn't care, why should you?

Is that what you'd tell a client or someone interviewing you for a job?! Yikes.

BigDave




msg:3829341
 7:03 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Validation is your only weapon in a fight to get your site to render properly on all browsers out there.

Nope. Your only weapon is called testing. I've had pages that validate render differently on different browsers.

Running a validation program is only one sanity check. If something doesn't validate, I check it out, but I don't fix it if it ain't really broke. It's like getting warnings back from a compiler, it is simply telling you that something might be wrong.

Is that what you'd tell a client or someone interviewing you for a job?! Yikes.

Yeah, I would. I would also explain why they shouldn't care. Being willing to tell them such things, and being able to explain why, is the reason that I was usually the highest paid contract programmer at those companies.

Atomic




msg:3829360
 7:20 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

You'd tell a client or interviewer that you won't validate because Google doesn't? That's what I was commenting on. I dunno, I'd need a better reason than that. I could probably come up with some great reasons, too. "Because Google doesn't care" would not be one of them.

[edited by: Atomic at 7:25 am (utc) on Jan. 19, 2009]

robzilla




msg:3829440
 11:42 am on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

No, you could use Google as a good example of why it's not that vital to have your pages validate. I've had times when I had to go against validation just so I could get the page to display properly in some browsers, so I agree with BigDave that testing is more important than your pages acing a validation test.

OnlyToday




msg:3829506
 2:06 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

...Google as a good example of why it's not that vital to have your pages validate.

Yes, exactly. That's what I meant in my original comment. Not just Google but nearly every other successful web site does not validate. If there's a standard that almost no one pays any attention to you should take a close look at the standard and ask why. For most businesses validation is just another unneeded and unenforced tax. The validator is a good tool when tracking down problems in design but having the final result validate is not necessary.

No, I wouldn't say that to a client because the client might be ignorant of the reality and explaining reality to prospective clients is a fool's errand. That's one reason why I'd never design web sites for other people--or be in sales for that matter.

But if I were applying for a web-related job I definitely WOULD express such an opinion in a job interview because working for an employer who was ignorant enough to hold this against me would be an ill-fated venture, I'd be quitting or get fired somewhere down the line anyway.

[edited by: OnlyToday at 2:14 pm (utc) on Jan. 19, 2009]

signor_john




msg:3829554
 3:19 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

As we are not allowed to alter the code, what are we to do ?

Sounds like a pretty simple decision. Which is most important to you? Having two search boxes or having your code validate? The choice is yours.

buckworks




msg:3829627
 4:38 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

having the final result validate is not necessary

It would matter a great deal exactly WHY one's page did not pass validation.

Some validation errors cause no known harm except to annoy the purists, but it's possible for the wrong kind of error to cause major problems for some users, including to stop a spider in its tracks.

It is vital to understand the difference, and clean up accordingly.

koan




msg:3829641
 5:05 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

No, you could use Google as a good example of why it's not that vital to have your pages validate.

Just because something is not *vital* doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to do it. It's not vital to comment your code when programming but it's a good habit. A page that normally validates makes it a lot easier to spot problems or errors if it suddenly stops being validated. Google has bigger issues than validation, like trying to compress their html files as much as possible (they avoid quotes in attributes for this reason) since every byte cost them thousands. If it wasn't for some of these special needs, I'm sure they'd try to validate their pages too.

greatstart




msg:3829646
 5:07 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

I use an add-on for Firefox that's called HTML Tidy, and even this page shows the following errors:

3 errors / 26 warnings (4 hidden)

discarding unexpected </font>
missing </form>
missing </center>

and many others...

Atomic




msg:3829676
 5:42 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

you should take a close look at the standard and ask why.

Well, this I could accept. It's a lot better than the original "Because they do it."

vordmeister




msg:3829712
 6:31 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

If we are talking about validation now I'll add it's essential to me that my pages validate.

If I modify my pages and I've left out the body tags I'll want to know about it. The W3C validator is handy for that. If I had 176 errors already I might not notice the other one or two that might be something important.

The old custom search engine didn't validate either so already I have 2 errors. Those are annoying.

I don't care if Google validates, but if they release scripts for me to use I do care that those validate.

dibbern2




msg:3829926
 11:13 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

but nearly every other successful web site does not validate.

Balderdash.

Its impossible to pursue professional best practices in SEO without a healthy respect for validation. Without it, there's no starting point to solving search indexing issues.

fredw




msg:3829930
 11:23 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google News: 1324 Errors, 95 warning(s)
Amazon: 1618 Errors, 134 warning(s)
Yahoo: 34 Errors, 8 warning(s)
YouTube: 107 Errors, 18 warning(s)
IMDb: 189 Errors, 42 warning(s)

That's why I personally gave up trying to validate a long time ago.

koan




msg:3829938
 11:40 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

That's why I personally gave up trying to validate a long time ago.

It's not that hard to just learn to code HTML properly, after that, the validation error is the exception, not the rule, which helps you spot problems on your page.

I learned to accept that Google Search will produce errors on my page (along with some affiliate links and banner ads) and I don't mind, although if Google could do better, I'd be happy.

To say you won't try to have valid html code because the big boys aren't either, well that's like saying you won't try to lose weight because all the big shot CEOs also have extra pounds anyway. Do it for your own good, not to emulate the big companies.

dibbern2




msg:3829941
 11:42 pm on Jan 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

If I -or my clients- were Google, Yahoo, or Amazon I wouldn't sweat validation either.

OnlyToday




msg:3830082
 4:02 am on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Do it for your own good, not to emulate the big companies.

I am the best judge of what is for my own good, I'm confident that my validation errors are inconsequential. I do this for my own self-interest, not to satisfy the self-righteous.

Lame_Wolf




msg:3830109
 5:23 am on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Sounds like a pretty simple decision. Which is most important to you? Having two search boxes or having your code validate? The choice is yours.

A better solution would be for google to fix it, or allow us to alter it. *That* sounds like a pretty simple decision.

OnlyToday




msg:3830118
 5:46 am on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

A better solution would be for google to fix it, or allow us to alter it. *That* sounds like a pretty simple decision.

Yeah, that's simple. Let's go with that.

swa66




msg:3830124
 6:32 am on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Validation is your only weapon in a fight to get your site to render properly on all browsers out there.

Nope. Your only weapon is called testing. I've had pages that validate render differently on different browsers.

Running a validation program is only one sanity check. If something doesn't validate, I check it out, but I don't fix it if it ain't really broke. It's like getting warnings back from a compiler, it is simply telling you that something might be wrong.

So that means you feel you can test in all browsers ?
E.g. you have all models of all phones in active use around the world operating ?
I'm sure you can also test future browsers ;-)

I'm not just talking about the handful of browsers on computers (including the poor excuse for a browser called MSIE), *all* of them is a _lot_ harder.
E.g. if you're in the US or Europe or most of the rest of the world, try testing your site on a Japanese iMode phone... you don't get to buy them, and don't have a network to test them on.

So why can big names like Google do this differently ? Well first they have a global presence, far larger budgets and most importantly browser makers will test their contraptions against sites like Google's (not against our stuff)

Really testing is useful, but it's a small part if you want it to work always, validating code is also not going to become less important (xhtml content e.g. should not be rendered at all if not valid)

johnnie




msg:3830222
 11:16 am on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

More often than not I use validation to help me spot a problem if something goes awry. I always try to validate (XHTML and CSS) as much as possible, for the simple sake of giving browsers as little room possible for self-interpretation. While some browsers (IE6 and lower being notorious) still offer their own unwanted insights, proper coding at least helps you prevent more and larger cross-browser problems.

OnlyToday




msg:3830422
 3:58 pm on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

My approach is purely pragmatic. Users of the default browser and browser settings are also the most impulsive ad clickers. People who choose less popular systems, browsers, settings tend to avoid clicking ads. YMMV

I do not worry that a tiny percentage of my visitors may view a slightly less aestheticly pleasing layout.

That said, I spend the greatest portion of my scarce time working on making my actual content more valuable.

IOW, fussing with validation is a low ROI activity.

g1smd




msg:3830644
 8:28 pm on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Lots of Google code stops the page validating.

The Google CSE Custom Search Box also causes problems.

nealrodriguez




msg:3830654
 8:44 pm on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

the issue comes if you are working with a client with 50 sites, and you have to prioritize tasks like link building and creating more content; validation has to take a back seat because your objective is growing traffic for most of the sites with a limited time period in which to do it.

pageoneresults




msg:3830673
 9:07 pm on Jan 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Validation has to take a back seat.

No it doesn't. In fact, I'm not going to sit there and track which errors would be allowed because someone doesn't have 5-10 minutes to do some minor repairs. Nope, that won't happen. It ain't no a la carte proposition either. Do it, or sign a waiver that I am no longer responsible for anything that may occur from this point forward. :)

Google, how about just fixing the borken code and we can be done with it? Ya'll should know better than to use that ID name more than once, it is one of the first errors many will encounter and probably one of the easier ones to fix.

For now, you're best bet is to run one CSE until they fix it which I'm sure they will. Wait, I should say, I hope they will after reading this topic. All it takes is a topic to make WebmasterWorld Home Page and things start happening quickly. It has already started making its rounds through the community and Google surely doesn't want the negative press. ;)

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved