Validation: Measuring and Tracking Code Quality

[pageoneresults]

Validation: Measuring and Tracking Code Quality
[googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com...]

Why does validation matter? There are different perspectives on validation—at Google there are different approaches and priorities too—but the Webmaster Team considers validation a baseline quality attribute. It doesn’t guarantee accessibility, performance, or maintainability, but it reduces the number of possible issues that could arise and in many cases indicates appropriate use of technology.

Where's all the validation naysayers? Bring it on!

[tedster]

You are the rebel-rouser, aren't you P1R?

I still maintain that 100% valid mark-up is a best practice - but that it doesn't make a bit of difference in ranking unless the validation errors make the page difficult to parse. However, since we don't know what kinds of errors Google cannot handle well, why take a chance?

[walkman]

@pageoneresults
Do most major sites pass validation? Look in Google cache, click on text only and if it's looks good, it's good enough.

This is another thing now: Your site lost all the traffic because that tag doesn't validate. I can't wait for these arguments :)

[netmeg]

I'm not saying validation is going to help you in the SERPs today or with your current Panda issues or anything like that.

All I'm saying is that Google is saying it's a quality signal for them (which it is), which they are trying to adhere to themselves, and if, in a year, or two, or three, they come out and say it's a quality signal for everyone else too, how much easier will my life be if I've built it (or most of it) in from the start?

That's MY take on it.

[pageoneresults]

You are the rebel-rouser, aren't you P1R?

This one deserves my undivided attention! :)

Do most major sites pass validation?

Not yet.

Look in Google cache, click on text only and if it's looks good, it's good enough.

Okay, go ahead and keep believing that at your own peril.

This is another thing now: Your site lost all the traffic because that tag doesn't validate.

Nah, I don't think that will happen. There are few people who can pinpoint which specific errors may cause a loss in traffic.

I like Google's scoring logic! If the site has 10 or more errors, it scores a 0.

Please, let's keep the Panda out of this, thanks! Almost every frackin Google topic I read here lately contains references to Panda, stop already! ;)

[walkman]

pageoneresults, no one is denying that ideally it should be 100% valid and that eventually Google might give it some weight.

meanwhile, as someone in the comments pointed out that very page had over 200 errors, [validator.w3.org...] so we should ignore whatever advice is on that page, since it's from a low quality page /site :)

_{Please, let's keep the Panda out of this, thanks! Almost every frackin Google topic I read here lately contains references to Panda, stop already! wink}

_{Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda ;)}

[Shaddows]

Hah! I read that this morning and thought of you P1R!

I'm with Ted though. Validating code means your page can be parsed. Non-validating codes means it may not.

Apart from that, ranking points come from the parsed data, with no bonus points for validation.

If validation became a (significant) ranking factor in it's own right, the SERPs would be very different. Very different indeed.

[indyank]

meanwhile, as someone in the comments pointed out that very page had over 200 errors, [validator.w3.org...] so we should ignore whatever advice is on that page, since it's from a low quality page /site

classic :) truly representative of how google makes advices these days..

set you own house in order (be it youtube, blogger or whatever...) before jumping on others.

P1R was waiting for this day to come back and make a thread ;)

[tedster]

Here's another reason to pay attention to valid mark-up. Google analyzes pages by simulating the visual page display. That's how they decide, for example, whether a link is in the footer or sidebar area rather than content.

If your mark-up is buggy, the visual simulation may be off - and that could devalue content that you were counting on as being more highly valued.