balistreri - 3:55 am on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
"Depending on the site, I think I'd go for valid HTML. I have a client whose HTML was so bad that Google only found 19 of the 50k+ pages. After fixing the HTML the number of pages indexed went through the roof. The number of links soared too because Google could index the pages with links pointing to them and award proper credit. Link count went from 9 to 15,000 in two weeks and there are over 1.6 million links credited now. The site had been up for over a year when I started for them and hadn't accomplished anything. "
Your profile says your a senior member but
A. more sites that don't pass markup have superior organics than those that do
B. the number of pages being indexed and it correlating to "Fixing" them requires more clarity; unless site wide inter linking is what your talking about - which is SEPARATE from valid code.
C. Your emphasis on links indicates your original proposition should be deleted as LINK ENHANCEMENT is the only argument you've made.
I've studied the #*$! as well- in depth - in a number of verticals. Valid code from the start of 09 to today (maybe today), is no more the best strategy than using word press for crawling and Google alerts.
Are there other senior members that know something about SEO here besides Tedster?