Wc3 validation is it still that important
-
When looking to improve a sites ranking . I am working on a site that has script errors and needs fixing have you had any experience ?
-
are html errors more critical than css? for me css are more common
-
There was a 'ask Matt' google webmaster video on YouTube not too long ago where he talked about errors in markup - if I remember right he said it wasn't too important - but of course Ryan's comment is sound - so long as the errors don't break the site for users/crawlers.
-
They weren't critical as the page was able to load when scripting was turned completely off, but in the WC3 validator there were only a dozen errors so it shouldn't be too hard to fix them.
-
Ryan's on track.
Picture it this way - sure, millions of sites fail validation and yet still show up in search results. Except if there are enough errors, it could either prevent searchbots from successfully discovering all your content, or alternately, prevent search algorithms from properly evaluating content and topical relationships.
A newer concern is if there are too many errors that cause bots to slow down their crawl capacity, that will definitely impact a site's rankings if competitor sites have no such slowdowns.
-
what about the script errors here - http://www.radiatorcentre.com
anything to worry about.
-
If the scripting errors cause crawler and indexation problems, than they're problematic, but script errors like a lot of things have shades of gray. Some are really bad, some not as bad, and some benign.
WC3 validation is nice though as it's helping to insure the quality of the network in general.
-
is it still that important
I don't think it was ever important. Lots of sites still fail to validate and perform well on the web. Lots of pages on search engine sites don't validate.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is Wix still terrible for SEO?
In Australia, I hear it over and over again that Wix is literally the worst site builder you can use due to it's poor site build for SEO. Has anyone here got some tangible reasons for why this is? As I am constantly getting asked this by clients who are using Wix and want me to help with their SEO.
On-Page Optimization | | UndergrndMarketing0 -
Disavowed links, updated website etc - still no ranking improvements
Hi, Could anyone take a look at www.artificialgrass4u.co.uk - a few years ago it used to rank highly for 'artificial grass' ... then when Google rolled out its algorithms punishing websites with poor links it lost all it's rankings. We've disavowed almost all of the bad links, and have been adding new optimised content etc over the past few months but rankings still haven't improved. Is there anything I'm missing? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | icansee0 -
Is it still worth changing a url with half the pages target keyphrase in to the entire phrase still ?
Hi If a pages url has half the pages target keyphrase (i.e. 1 word instead of 2) is it still worth changing to include entire keyphrase (2 words) given need to then add 301 redirects etc after ? If it was a new page then I would definately include full keyphrase but the page is a few months old and has quite high page authority as is (i know a 301 should transfer most authority) but given this page and other sub pages would also need to be 301'd if this change occurs and the dev time/cost that would incurred/charged by the design/dev agency. Also thinking Google being cleverer now (the pages content will be about the target kw) so thinking G would work it out from rest of page content and partial match kw in url. In other words to best target keyphrase is it best to leave url as is or change url to include keyphrase ? For example if the pages target kw is 'swimming clubs' and the current url is www.franksleisurecentres.com/clubs changing it to www.franksleisurecentres.com/swimming-clubs :Thanks Dan
On-Page Optimization | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Does Google give weight or importance to scholarly articles such as those found in pubmed?
Does Google give weight or importance to scholarly articles such as those found in pubmed? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed Do you think it matters to Google if you format and word your contents so that they look like research articles?
On-Page Optimization | | monchconch0 -
How important is it to include the target keyword phrase in the page URL?
If I want to target a keyword phrase to a particular phrase, but do not want to change the URL of that page, will that negatively impact my rankings? I am also wondering if I can get around it by creating a new, short URL that 301 redirects to the original URL. Would that be as effective as including the keyword in the original URL?
On-Page Optimization | | susannajbost0 -
I have one page on my site... but still get duplicate name and content errors.
i have only the index.html page. my domain has a permanent 301 to the root. why am i getting duplicate problems? i only have one page the index .html???
On-Page Optimization | | one4u2see0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0 -
Whats important to receive a large amount of traffic quickly?
What would you suggest is the best route for providing a website with extra traffic quickly?
On-Page Optimization | | wazza19850