Are W3C Validators too strict? Do errors create SEO problems?
-
I ran a HTML markup validation tool (http://validator.w3.org) on a website. There were 140+ errors and 40+ warnings. IT says "W3C Validators are overly strict and would deny many modern constructs that browsers and search engines understand."
What a browser can understand and display to visitors is one thing, but what search engines can read has everything to do with the code.
I ask this: If the search engine crawler is reading thru the code and comes upon an error like this:
…ext/javascript" src="javaScript/mainNavMenuTime-ios.js"> </script>');}
The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style" element
in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements that overlap (which is not allowed).
One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can create
cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the parser to infer
the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the "body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error).and this...
<code class="input">…t("?");document.write('>');}</code>
The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements that overlap (which is not allowed).
One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the "body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error).
Does this mean that the crawlers don't know where the code ends and the body text begins; what it should be focusing on and not?
-
Google is a different case being run through the validator. I actually read an article on why google's site do not validate. The reason is that they send so much traffic, it actually saves them a good amount of money not closing tags that do not matter. Things like adding a self closing / to an img tag and the sorts.
While I do not think that validation is a ranking factor, I wouldn't totally dismiss it. It make code easier to maintain, and it has actually gotten me jobs before. Clients have actually ran my site through a validator before and hired me.
Plus funny little things work out too, someone tested my site on nibbler and it came back as one of the top 25 sites. I get a few hundred hits a day from it. I will take traffic any where I can get it.
-
I agree with Sheldon, and, just for perspective....try running http://www.google.com through the same w3c HTML validator. That should be an excellent illustration. A page with almost nothing on it, coded by the brilliant folks at Google still shows 23 errors and 4 warnings. I'd say not to obsess over this too much unless something is interfering with the rendering of the page or your page load speed.
Hope that helps!
Dana
-
Generally speaking, I would agree that validation is often too strict.
Google seems to handle this well, however. In fact, I seem to recall Matt C. once saying that the VAST majority of websites don't validate. I think he may have been talking strictly about HTML, though.
Validation isn't a ranking factor, of course, and most prevalent browsers will compensate for minor errors and render a page, regardless. So I really wouldn't be too concerned about validation just for validation's sake. As long as your pages render in most common browsers and neither page functionality nor user experience is adversely affected, I'd consider it a non-issue. As to whether a bot could be fooled into thinking the head had ended and the body had begun, I suppose it's possible, but I've never seen it happen, even with some absolutely horrible coding.
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
-
Soft 404 error
Hello friends
Technical SEO | | industriestaedt
This is my site
https://www.alihosseini.org/ In the search console I have a soft 404 error
How can I fix this error?
I use WordPress0 -
Critical crawler errors...4xx
Hey fam, I ran the Critical Crawler Issues and found 9 pages with critical crawler issues. I'm running a wordpress site and looked in the dashboard for Pages and Posts but the links aren't in the dashboard. Can you help fix? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | Myflgreen0 -
Indexation and visibility problem
Hi I am working on a website (usarrestsearch org) for 6 months. I wrote about 100 pages full of good content. for some reason I see only 75% of the pages indexed in GWT. and Im having problems with SERP positions not rising. I suspect that it might be connected to the structure of the site. will appreciate any help thanks
Technical SEO | | holdportals0 -
Are sitewide links bad for SEO?
I have 11 real estate sites and have had links from one to another for about 7 years but someone just suggested me to take them all out because I might get penalized or affected by penguin. My main site was affected on July of 2012 and organic visits have dropped 43%...I've been working on many aspects of my SEO but it's been difficult to come back. Any suggestions are very welcome, thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | mbulox0 -
Is anyone having problems with sending emails
I have been having problems for a number of weeks now, where if i send a couple of emails out then all of a sudden i am blocked and have to ask my hosting company for a new ip address. my site is in joomla and my email address is through my site. the messages i am getting when sending emails is as follows, and this stays like this until i get a new ip address A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-184886
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: 550-5.7.1 [184.154.89.211 1] Our system has detected an unusual rate of
550-5.7.1 unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect our
550-5.7.1 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been blocked.
550-5.7.1 Please visit http://www.google.com/mail/help/bulk_mail.html to review
550 5.7.1 our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines. r2si12781844igh.70 - gsmtp any help would be great0 -
Pageflip SEO friendly?
Client of mine utilizes pageflip for their product brochures and would love to have this content be crawl-able by search engines. Is there a way to make them SEO friendly so I may utilize this content?
Technical SEO | | richn330 -
Seo and ssl error (Error code: sec_error_revoked_certificate)
Hi. An error occurred during a connection to esta-register.org. Peer's Certificate has been revoked. (Error code: sec_error_revoked_certificate) ** i want to know this error can be effected on seo or not?** esta
Technical SEO | | vahidafshari450 -
Caching Problem !
Hi Webmasters, I have been getting a problem and that is caching problem. I have a SEO blog glanceseo.com and now i am facing caching problem. It takes something 2 months for caching. I want to solve it, please suggest me something... Thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | shubhamtiwari0