Forum Moderators: open
However my main page (and many others) comprise of header.html, footer.html and menu.html etc
All of these html templates combine to make the pages
Anyway, I have the option to add page titles and keywords to each of these seperate html components on the page..
Is this classed as cheating by google? or does it depend if the description etc accurately describe the html templates function in addition to including a few keywords!
I dont want to risk blacklisting but would like to know if I am missing out by not doing it!
thanks
The only problem I can see is the risk of duplicate content issues if the 'shared' page content is too big, and the 'unique' content too small - but that's a content issue; the way your page is put together is of no interest to the SEs - they see the code you see in 'view code' - not your instructions to the server.
no you don't, those included files should be partial files, they shouldn't each have title elements etc
you should maybe try validating the final page
[validator.w3.org...]
Jim
>> have the option to add page titles and keywords to each of these seperate html components on the page
no you don't, those included files should be partial files, they shouldn't each have title elements etcyou should maybe try validating the final page
[validator.w3.org...]
Well, it all becomes clear now!
My site is based on a php script that has been customised heavily.
I have never seen this validation checker!
But I ran it just now and my page failed heavily! :) with 29 errors found!
Mostly minor ones
like "Line 32, Column 6: end tag for element "HEAD" which is not open."
If I go through the page and attempt to correct all of these errors until the page passes validation..
What (if any) benefits will I see?
Will the serps like it more? Better browser compatibility? or just 'best code' possible for that page using exisitng site backend?
And to the original question....I now understand why I cant use these parts in nested elements! It seems several are incorrectly nested so I now have to correct that.
Note: the site works fine on IE,Firefox,lynx etc etc but is ranking quite 'poorly'.
Somaybe this might help?!
I just ran my main competitors site (PR8) through this validator and it had 112 errors!
some looking much more serious than the ones listed for my site,
so it seems google doesnt mind their errors..asn they are always at the top! aargh :)
A page which validates is easier for a search engine to understand, and so having zero (or a small number of) errors greatly reduces the chances that a search engine will get confused by your mark-up and either mis-classify or 'give up' on your page.
Jim
Validation errors tend to 'cascade' so that one error at the top causes multiple errors in the following parts. As such, the reported number of errors does not indicate the true severity of the problem, and is not useful as a metric for comparing how 'good' two different pages are. The number is only really useful when it is zero, or a very small number of errors which you understand and accept based on an understanding of what they mean.
A page which validates is easier for a search engine to understand, and so having zero (or a small number of) errors greatly reduces the chances that a search engine will get confused by your mark-up and either mis-classify or 'give up' on your page.Jim
Thanks Jim
I've set to work on it as we speak.
It seems critical especially as I am forking out for Yahoo and other directory listings in the hope of gaining on the competition!
I might as well make sure the site is as good as it can be and see what we can get from there!
Maybe this is what google has done with some 'lost pages' that it doesnt show in the index when I type www.mysite.com but if I do mysite about us or similiar some of them show up, however theres still a few missing!
