Web Site Primer

HTML · Web Design · Color Charts · & More!

Optimization: Validation Debate

Originally Published: 2006-03-18
Shares breifly about the debate over HTML validation being part of SEO.

Necessary or not necessary, that appears to be the question in some people's mind when it comes to validating one's HTML and Search Engine Optimization.

Validation is not necessary

This camp's argumentation is breif and the main example referenced is the number of pages, or sites, "out there" which do not validate - namely those of large corporations. Essentially the consensus, of this group, is if the browser shows it ok then the spiders can handle it also.

This group does not wholly discount validation. They just don't fret over the minor errors.

Validation is necessary

This group does not claim that your ranking will jump 100 or more positions due to validation, just that your page, or site, may fare a bit better. Their main argumentation is that properly formed Web pages are less likely to create any difficulties for the search engine's spiders.

Going back, for a moment, to the argumentation of the other group about there are other sites out there that do not validate - like IBM. Fair enough, but IBM can get easily get links pointing their way. People will link to the main page or to certain products and then there are news or media articles that generally share a link. On the other hand, what are the odds that your site will have millions of other pages sharing a link your way without you seeking those links out?

My opinion

One should try to validate their pages - even if the browser renders it ok in your opinion. I understand some people's hesitancy about changing affiliate markup that is error-riddled. On the other hand, there is little reason not to clean-up the rest of the page.

If you are using out-dated markup, then bring it up-to-date as much as you can. Sure, it can be a little consuming but once you go through the pages, it is easier to maintain those pages also. Sometimes what shows up on teh browser, that may still work, could be the browser guessing on how to handle some of the problems in the page. This is not a gaurantee that search engine spiders will react similarly since they are mainly collecting the data (text).

Some HTML editors spew out extranneous markup. Others do not handle edits well. Then there are human-created flaws where you may have botched-up an extended (site wide) adjustment, and not caught all those errors, or something along that line of thought, while editing. A program will do what it is programmed to do and humans are human therefore capable of mistakes.

Lastly, search engines have hinted they like pages that do try to use well-formed markup. How much do they like them? Actually this will depend on the rest of your page's contents but recall that others have observed search engines like certain HTML touches. If the search engines have showed this aspect, through their algorithems, then, logically, they appear to take markup, and how it is used, into some consideration on their side.

On the other hand, if all you did this month was validate your site and some of those corrected pages moved from 30th position to 20th or 15th position, and that's all you did was work on getting those pages to validate, would you complain? I doubt it.


Related Articles:


straight to the top