Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:10:35 GMT, Big Bill
wrote:

>How about this?

You just had to bring it up again!

>For an engine to know which serps to return a site in, it has to know
>what it's about.
>It can do this either through reading what's in the on-page optimised
>content of the site, or going by the text in the inbound links.

Actually the reality it's both currently.

>If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
>accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content, so they
>have to place more emphasis on the content of links.

There is no evidence that this is true.

>If a site validates well, therefore, they can figure out accurately
>what a site's about without the need for so many inbound links.
>So, if you validate a site, you won't need to get so many inbound
>links for it to be successful.

That was a big jump. Again there is no evidence this is true.

>This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
>sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
>engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
>of the ibl's.

If validation per se had an impact it would be reflected in the SERPs,
there would be more validated sites than statistically expected.

>I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
>relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>
>I'll get right on it...

Let us know how you get on 🙂

>BB

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

Big Bill wrote:
> If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
> accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content

ah yes, that must be where they need that https stuff then?

🙂

David

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

SEO Dave wrote:

> If validation per se had an impact it would be reflected in the SERPs,
> there would be more validated sites than statistically expected.

What is the statistically expectation?

If x% of the sites for a given SERP don't validate, and 100% - x% do
validate, this still doesn't mean that this will be reflected in the SERPs,
since it's just one of the many weighting factors.

So even if there is a correlation between validation and importance it's
extremely hard (IMO) to prove this by just looking at SERPs.

Even making one page invalid, writing down it's rank, make it valid,
writing down it's rank, making it invalid again, etc takes quite some
experimentation to see if it's does make a difference or not.

If just validating your site meant you would go up per definition, it would
be abused.

And of course, the value of x% is not the same for each and every SERP.

If the future is XML (and it already is for RSS etc.), validation is not
something you can ignore. Per specs: invalid XML should be dropped
entirely. Validation will teach people to stop using visual mark up, and
move on to structural mark up, e.g. towards XML. XML is very powerful, and
has advantages Google will and can use in the near future.

The "validation, who cares" is like "who needs a computer, 5 is enough for
the whole world". Once valid, now a joke.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:15:03 GMT, SEO Dave
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:10:35 GMT, Big Bill
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>How about this?
>
>You just had to bring it up again!
>
>>For an engine to know which serps to return a site in, it has to know
>>what it's about.
>>It can do this either through reading what's in the on-page optimised
>>content of the site, or going by the text in the inbound links.
>
>Actually the reality it's both currently.
>
>>If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
>>accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content, so they
>>have to place more emphasis on the content of links.
>
>There is no evidence that this is true.[/color]

Where would there be?
[color=green]
>>If a site validates well, therefore, they can figure out accurately
>>what a site's about without the need for so many inbound links.
>>So, if you validate a site, you won't need to get so many inbound
>>links for it to be successful.
>
>That was a big jump. Again there is no evidence this is true.[/color]

Where would it be?
[color=green]
>>This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
>>sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
>>engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
>>of the ibl's.
>
>If validation per se had an impact it would be reflected in the SERPs,
>there would be more validated sites than statistically expected.[/color]

Not if everyone soaks up that philosophy without questioning it like I
do.
[color=green]
>>I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
>>relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>>
>>I'll get right on it...
>
>Let us know how you get on :-)[/color]

well, you know how bashful I am...

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:51:01 +0200, davidof
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:[color=green]
>> If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
>> accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content
>
>ah yes, that must be where they need that https stuff then?
>
>:-)
>
>David[/color]

What are you bleedin' on about?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On 4 Jun 2005 18:59:39 GMT, John Bokma wrote:

>SEO Dave wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If validation per se had an impact it would be reflected in the SERPs,
>> there would be more validated sites than statistically expected.
>
>What is the statistically expectation?
>
>If the future is XML (and it already is for RSS etc.), validation is not
>something you can ignore.[/color]

Spot the boys in the group who have studied XML. Oh look, John, that's
us!

>Per specs: invalid XML should be dropped
>entirely. Validation will teach people to stop using visual mark up, and
>move on to structural mark up, e.g. towards XML. XML is very powerful, and
>has advantages Google will and can use in the near future.

They are in this sitemap thing.

>The "validation, who cares" is like "who needs a computer, 5 is enough for
>the whole world". Once valid, now a joke.

I suspect that a lot of people fear that validation is a hurdle
they'll be unable to overcome. What if all Dave's gazillions of
artificially-created pages had to validate to be of any value?
Oh dear...actually, Dave would manage, so would most people, they're
just worried they won't so they try to avoid it. But it has to come.
Studying XML was the hardest thing intellectually I have done as an
adult because it was just totally outside my entire background. But it
introduced me to concepts that have stood me in good stead over the
years so I suppose in that sense it was money well spent.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:30:24 +0200, Big Bill wrote:
[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
>>> accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content[/color][/color]
[color=green]
>> ah yes, that must be where they need that https stuff then?[/color]
[color=green]
>> 🙂[/color]
[color=green]
>> David[/color]

> What are you bleedin' on about?

google https Luigi 😉

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:30:24 GMT, Big Bill
wrote:
[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
>>>accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content, so they
>>>have to place more emphasis on the content of links.
>>
>>There is no evidence that this is true.[/color]
>
>Where would there be?
>[color=darkred]
>>>If a site validates well, therefore, they can figure out accurately
>>>what a site's about without the need for so many inbound links.
>>>So, if you validate a site, you won't need to get so many inbound
>>>links for it to be successful.
>>
>>That was a big jump. Again there is no evidence this is true.[/color]
>
>Where would it be?[/color]

You are supposed to be an SEO, do some SEO research like I did with
the computers SERP (remember). I found no evidence validation
mattered. Why don't you do the same analysis with other SERPs and
publish your findings, if you find a significant number of validated
sites for many SERPs you've got some evidence to work with, rather
than speculation as to what you'd like it to be like.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:09:16 +0200, Borek
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:30:24 +0200, Big Bill wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> If the site doesn't validate, the engines can't be so sure of the
>>>> accuracy of what they can determine from the onpage content[/color]
>[color=darkred]
>>> ah yes, that must be where they need that https stuff then?[/color]
>[color=darkred]
>>> 🙂[/color]
>[color=darkred]
>>> David[/color]
>
>> What are you bleedin' on about?
>
>google https Luigi 😉
>
>Best,
>Borek[/color]

Ah. :-):-):-)

That's your background laughter, by the way.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

Big Bill wrote:

> On 4 Jun 2005 23:50:37 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Of course if everybody makes invalid XML, Google has to be less strict,
>
> It won't ever be that way. Google needed to use invalid html to get
> started because if it had limited itself to valid html there would
> have been no index. Everyone in seo should stamp this on the inside of
> their eyelids so it's the first thing they see every morning
> "Yesterday's was a different internet"
> Google would be mad to switch over to XML or even valid html in one go
> but as these sites become more available it becomes only sensible to
> favour them in the rankings. Providing, of course, they're
> well-optimised and on-topic relevant.[/color]

Yup, I can see that happen. Maybe not this year, but who knows next.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:30:24 GMT, Big Bill
wrote:

>I suspect that a lot of people fear that validation is a hurdle
>they'll be unable to overcome. What if all Dave's gazillions of
>artificially-created pages had to validate to be of any value?

Bill you really shouldn't make wide sweeping assumptions, the vast
majority of my spiderable pages do validate. Even the ones that are
using Amazon's XML feed validate except when Amazon sends table based
content (can't do anything about that though). Feel free to check for
yourself.

What's with the artificially-created c**p Bill? They are real pages,
with real content that are indexed by search engines that visitors see
and order products from. They are no different to any other dynamic
site using a database of products. So how are they artificial exactly?

>Oh dear...actually, Dave would manage, so would most people, they're
>just worried they won't so they try to avoid it. But it has to come.
>Studying XML was the hardest thing intellectually I have done as an
>adult because it was just totally outside my entire background. But it
>introduced me to concepts that have stood me in good stead over the
>years so I suppose in that sense it was money well spent.

Interesting how you are studying XML and I'm using it to make my
"artificially-created pages" that validate.

You really should get your facts straight first.

Bill can you validate PHP based sites?
What about PHP based sites using an XML data feed?

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

SEO Dave wrote:

> Bill can you validate PHP based sites?

I can

> What about PHP based sites using an XML data feed?

I can

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:14:04 GMT, Big Bill
wrote:

>It won't ever be that way. Google needed to use invalid html to get
>started because if it had limited itself to valid html there would
>have been no index. Everyone in seo should stamp this on the inside of
>their eyelids so it's the first thing they see every morning
>"Yesterday's was a different internet"
>Google would be mad to switch over to XML or even valid html in one go
>but as these sites become more available it becomes only sensible to
>favour them in the rankings. Providing, of course, they're
>well-optimised and on-topic relevant.

You know Bill I can't pick fault with the above :-))

The only thing is today we don't appear to be at the stage where
validation is important. If it ever is I'll be standing on your
shoulders shouting how I told you all so :-))

The argument that if a page validates it's more likely to be created
with quality in mind is compelling. I could see the search engines
incorporating validation in their algos in the future.

My point all along has been there is no evidence it matters now, so a
few validator errors is highly unlikely to cause a ranking problem.

Note most (and that means at least 99%+) of my pages validate.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:25:22 +0200, SEO Dave
wrote:

> Bill can you validate PHP based sites?

Doable. Start with my site 😉

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions