W3C validation help needed

[Robdale]

I have just validated my site code in W3C HTML Validator and found 265 errors and 9 warnings. Does it affect our search ranking and how to fix these errors and warnings?
[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://teeky.org/ - W3C Markup Validator

 

[surreypcsupport]

I have just validated my site code in W3C HTML Validator and found 265 errors and 9 warnings. Does it affect our search ranking and how to fix these errors and warnings?
[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://teeky.org/ - W3C Markup Validator

The jury is out on whether or not the number of errors significantly effect SERPs but most optimisers agree it has some effect. Google webmaster guidelines mentions technical quality in the first paragraph.

You fix the errors by ensuring you follow html/xhtml standards depending on how you've defined the markup. Looking at your results there are lots of errors so you just need to work through from top to bottom, read what it says and correct the errors. You'll find when you fix one many others will be resolved at the same time.

 

[smeagain]

In general terms, it is down to the degree of error not the number of errors.

If an error or warning is relatively minor and does not inhibit a spider from extracting the Text Content from the page then there would be no penalisation.

Conversely serious errors such as missing some > closings would make the Code run into the Text and the Robotic Spider would struggle to seperate the Text from the Open Ended HTML code bits.

 

[surreypcsupport]

If an error or warning is relatively minor and does not inhibit a spider from extracting the Text Content from the page then there would be no penalisation.

Do you know that as fact? If so how?

 

[smeagain]

I mend more bad sites than I have build.
Over about 10 years or more, I have frequently fixed sites full of pages containing multiple Code errors yet achieving good position in the SERPs. I have also SEOd sites that contained serious errors such as missing > closings and just addressing these type of errors has immediately produced SERP gains.

Site improvement by SEO is what I have done for over 10 years and much of what I may say on this forum is not from specific experimentation that could be quoted as absolute proof, but observations of real sites and the problems, solutions and benefits of my work on them.

 

[camp185]

There is only one reason you need to have to validate. It helps fixes is problems in the future.

In regards to 265 errors. Don't worry too much about that. Fixing a missing "/" in one line of code could fix five other errors that follow it. Just start with the easy ones, and before you know it you will have under ten to do.

 

[smeagain]

I find the best way to end up with compliant code without a daunting task at the end, is to Validate on the go. I do this by previewing my design in Firefox with the plug-in "Html Validator" installed. This way, each time you add or change anything and the Preview in Browser, any coding issues are highlighted and can be fixed.

The other important thing to do is use the appropriate "Document Type Declaration" without which, cross browser compatibility and compliance are chancy to say the least.

 

[xhan]

I've found that as long as you code sensibly and validly as you go when it comes to validating you'll have no problems.

 

[surreypcsupport]

I mend more bad sites than I have build.
Over about 10 years or more, I have frequently fixed sites full of pages containing multiple Code errors yet achieving good position in the SERPs. I have also SEOd sites that contained serious errors such as missing > closings and just addressing these type of errors has immediately produced SERP gains.

Site improvement by SEO is what I have done for over 10 years and much of what I may say on this forum is not from specific experimentation that could be quoted as absolute proof, but observations of real sites and the problems, solutions and benefits of my work on them.

Thanks for the full reply. I'm inclined to agree with you that one or two minor warnings aren't going to affect SERPs. But for me it's seems so quick and easy to whizz through a page and fix the errors that you might as well finish the job.

And although a page's SERPs might be adversely affected if it is littered with errors I think the optimiser can still gain more by focusing on page titles and the like if they have not been looked at before.

I think if I were to list out all the factors you can change when optimising a website then W3C compliance would probably appear on the bottom half of the list.

 

[Robdale]

Thank you very much guys. I will work on it and camp185, thanks for showing me the exact thing i need to fix.

 

[smeagain]

Yeshttp://forums.ukwebmasterworld.com/members/surreypcsupport.html surreypcsupport, I produce compliant code by validating in FF as I go. Most non compliant code that I come across was produced by one WYSIWYG or another with blind faith and never so much as glance at the code produced by these tools.

 

[surreypcsupport]

Yes surreypcsupport, I produce compliant code by validating in FF as I go. Most non compliant code that I come across was produced by one WYSIWYG or another with blind faith and never so much as glance at the code produced by these tools.

That's true too. It's sad but true that there are a lot of so called web builders who can't read or write html.