What Google Says about HTML and CSS Valid...

minutedesigns · January 17th, 2008, 05:03 AM

So sit back and read for yourselves! I emailed google, the King of SE, the Guys who say, "Content is King"

To Google!

Quote:

Hi there I was wondering if you could help me.

I've read that Clean and Valid HTML and CSS in my website would make my website rank better within google? Is this true or not? And also would it help my Adwords too?

Thanks Alot
Adam King

Google's Reply

Quote:

Hello Adam,

Thank you for your email. I understand that you want to know whether valid HTML and CSS help in better organic search and AdWords ad rankings.
Please note that clean HTML codes and CSS help improve rankings because they make it easier for our crawlers to find information. Sites' positions in our search results are determined based on a number of factors designed to provide end-users with helpful, accurate search results. These factors are explained in more detail at http://www.google.com/technology/index.html.

In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages. To learn more about inclusion and ranking in the Google index, please visit our online Help Center at http://www.google.com/support/webmasters. Here, you'll find answers to users' most frequently asked questions.

To know more about how you can improve your site's ranking, please visit http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34432&hl=en_US

If you have additional questions about your site, we encourage you to check out Google's webmaster tools. Our webmaster tools can provide you with comprehensive information about your site, including which search queries trigger your website listing in our search results, potential indexing problems, and errors our crawlers may have encountered trying to access your pages. Get started with Google's webmaster tools at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools?hl=en_US.

We welcome you to post any webmaster-related feedback or questions in our Webmaster Help Google Group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help. Here you'll find helpful conversations with both Googlers and experienced non-Googlers.

If you have additional questions, please visit our Help Center at https://adwords.google.com/support to find answers to many frequently asked questions. Or, try our Learning Center at http://www.google.com/adwords/learningcenter/ for self-paced lessons that cover the scope of AdWords.

We look forward to providing you with the most effective advertising available.

Sincerely,

Rupam
The Google AdWords Team

I purposely included ADWORDS to make sure it effected BOTH, needless to say sorry mike, but please, no longer rant and rave about it being not... it's straight from the horses mouth so to speak!

Rakuli · January 17th, 2008, 05:10 AM

It is good to hear this from "The Horses Mouth"... it is yet another reason to push towards valid code.

Thanks for posting

welshstew · January 17th, 2008, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by google

Please note that clean HTML codes and CSS help improve rankings

I notice in their reply that they mention clean code, but not valid...

minutedesigns · January 17th, 2008, 05:37 AM

Well I would put clean code as valid code... If you forgot to close a few tags, I wouldnt class that as clean.

However I have replied to ask why google.com isnt clean or valid code... I betcha I dont get a response from that haha!

welshstew · January 17th, 2008, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minutedesigns

Well I would put clean code as valid code... If you forgot to close a few tags, I wouldnt class that as clean.

Well, personally, I would say you can have "clean code" as in semantically laid out HTML and omitting unneccessary files etc - just what you need on each page.

And then you have "valid code", which is where your code validates against the W3C validation checks.

As Alex pointed out in another thread, the BBC doesn't have valid code, but I would consider it clean.

This is what I thought you meant when you split them out in your original question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by minutedesigns

However I have replied to ask why google.com isnt clean or valid code... I betcha I dont get a response from that haha!

Yeah, It will be very interesting to see what they say.

Keep us posted.

minutedesigns · January 17th, 2008, 05:57 AM

Please, visit www.bbc.co.uk and click view source...

There is a white gap at the top of the page a mile long... and I would say the codes not bad, but its not clean either..

No Character Encoding Found! for a start, and then "there is no attribute "MARGINWIDTH"." why using that in HTML when they have CSS?

Forgive me if im wrong, but that's depreciated values...

Whats the point in putting widths, fonts etc in HTML when you have multiple CSS Files? None! I would class that as dirty code! Agree or not, its my opinion.

minutedesigns · January 17th, 2008, 06:00 AM

Oh yes the new "Beta" site has far less errors, but still bad coding, CSS in HTML and massive gaps of white!

welshstew · January 17th, 2008, 06:41 AM

Would you please mind your language, there is simply no need for it.

Maybe I chose a bad example, I was thinking off the top of my head. But seeing as the entire BBC site is looked after by a team of 5 people, it's pretty impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by minutedesigns

No Character Encoding Found! for a start,

well I can see it

Code:

<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

I think it may be the small t on Content-Type that is causing the validation issue

Quote:

Originally Posted by minutedesigns

then "there is no attribute "MARGINWIDTH"." why using that in HTML when they have CSS

Again when I do a visual check of the code it doesn't seem to be there. I know what the validation check says (that it is assigned to the body tag) but when I look at the code, it just isn't there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by minutedesigns

Agree or not, its my opinion.

Yes it is, and mine is that it is a clean coded site, in light of the size and complexity of the enitire site. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

But I am still interested to see if google thinks there is a difference, and if valid code actually means anything to the algorithum...

MikeHopley · January 17th, 2008, 06:51 AM

Quote:

sorry mike, but please, no longer rant and rave

So you got Google to confirm an extremely vague statement -- so vague as to be useless.

You are using an entirely different definition of "clean code" from the one that Google is using.

Of course "clean" code is important, if by "clean" you mean "not so badly messed up as to make crawling/link-finding impossible".

But you can't justify your more ambitious conclusion, that "clean" code in the broader sense -- aesthetically pure, minimalist code -- is advantageous.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I remain unconvinced. Besides, you're the one who rants and raves; I'm the one who asks for cold-blooded evidence and arguments.

MikeHopley · January 17th, 2008, 06:58 AM

That reply from Google that does nothing to confirm your claim. You're going to have to do better than that.

welshstew · January 17th, 2008, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeHopley

Of course "clean" code is important, if by "clean" you mean "not so badly messed up as to make crawling/link-finding impossible".

But you can't justify your more ambitious conclusion, that "clean" code in the broader sense -- aesthetically pure, minimalist code -- is advantageous.

Good point Mike, clarification on what Google considers "Clean Code" would be useful to this discussion.

welshstew · January 17th, 2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minutedesigns

i just checked and robs put an article up supporting my statement,

Interesting, Please can you post a link, I can't seem to find it

minutedesigns · January 17th, 2008, 07:24 AM

Its the top of the forum..

http://www.webforumz.com/search-engi...ice-readme.htm

Direct quote and this is an old post, nothing new:

Quote:

Use XHTML and CSS
If your design is a compliant one (conforms to XHTML and CSS published guidelines) and you have used the technologies effectively, then you will have a very small footprint on the world. What I mean is that your pages will contain far less HTML than other sites not using this method. Your pages will use much less tables... in effect 'code bloat' will be reduced to a minimum.
In summary, using XHTML and CSS greatly improves readability of your code for search engine spiders and maintains a good content-to-code ratio without going beyond file-size and word-count limits.

Bloody ell I love rob some times!

Lchad · January 17th, 2008, 07:32 AM

I actually feel like this is the most concrete answer from Google that I have ever heard on this subject. I do feel that it is giving us proof that clean html/css is good for rankings. I would say this is proof enough for me to continue to produce clean code.

simonb · January 17th, 2008, 12:35 PM

Clean code = Valid code

but i am not sure if its

Valid code = Clean Code

Webnauts · February 17th, 2008, 12:02 AM

The best post ever! Thanks a lot for sharing!

Webnauts · February 17th, 2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonb

Clean code = Valid code

but i am not sure if its

Valid code = Clean Code

Clean code = Valid Code.

Valid Code does not mean Clean Code.

You can take my word for that.

MikeHopley · February 17th, 2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Clean code = Valid Code.

Valid Code does not mean Clean Code.

You can take my word for that.

"=" = "equals"

"=" not = "is"

Jack Franklin · February 17th, 2008, 06:19 PM

Valid does not equal Clean.

If you have a link like so: <a href="">Link</a> The Validator will be quite happy.

(Or so I am told)

Mitchelle Johnson · February 19th, 2008, 04:08 AM

This is a standard that should be followed by a website. if site is W3C compliant, it doesn't mean that a w3c compliant will be on the top of the ranking...