Do you validate you websites?

[petrakraft]

Do you consider the guidelines from http://validator.w3.org/ when setting up a new website?

As far as I know they don't influence rankings ... What is your opinion about that topix?

[Matrix2]

I am with you on this. Good to check for any issues. Before focusing on SEO, functionality if my main concern.

[Entrusteddev]

I always validate HTML with sites I'm working on, particularly if has been coded by a third party. My reasons for doing so are a careful balance between ensuring spiders can crawl the page without bumping hideous html errors and ensuring a website is accessible on as many devices/browsers.

If the webpage doesn't adhere to standards it could indicate issues with viewing the pages correctly in the myriad of browsers and devices out there. So theres a User Experience issue to consider.

[gregalam]

It depends on the project. I find that it is sometimes plugins that make my code not validate. If the plugin is so useful and that site renders fine in all the major browsers, I stick with the what I have, even if it doesn't validate.

[SteveOllington]

We don't bother, I know we probably should but half of the sites we work on are CMS which just don't validate well anyway. Plus it takes time, which could be spent on more SEO

[Thos003]

Like I said.... Google doesn't validate their website... Of course, Danny answered this question for Matt, sooooo.... there is no official statement from Google on this one.

[petrakraft]

New webmaster video from Matt Cutts about that topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XlKn6I9rSc

[NickPateman81]

I find the w3 validator to be more of an accolade than anything else. You're right about them not influencing rankings - there's so many practices that don't validate but actually lead to an unchanged or even improved UX.

IMO, getting w3 validation is like getting MozPoints, except MozPoints are worth something But that's not to say I'm knocking anyone who does follow validator guidelines - fair play to them!

[DavidKauzlaric]

Sure.

We do it because it's a great sales tool. Rarely do we ever find a competitor that builds W3C valid websites. In our sales pitch we talk about how our websites are W3C valid, it's adhering to a set of rules and guidelines and it's cleaner code generally which can increase load times.

We tell them they can display a W3C valid button on their site, most of them like that.

It's also a matter of doing things the right way... you can build a frame out of anything but there is a right way and a wrong way to build a door frame. We choose to do it all according to standards and best practices.

It's almost like a committment to excellence type of thing.

[petrakraft]

Hi David, thank you for your reply.

Would you mind sharing your arguments why you find it is important? I would be curious how many pros you find - I like your point of view.

[DavidKauzlaric]

It's very important to my company that all websites for our clients validate. Why? Because we feel they pay for a service and we want to provide the highest quality service.

It's like building a house and not sticking to code. We'd rather stick to code and do it the "right" way, rather than just have something that "works".

It's also a sales tool! Because none of our competitors build sites that are compliant, our sales guys use this and it works well. We explain what W3C is, why it's important, and although it doesn't help rankings, we feel it's important because it's simply a matter of doing it the right way. They like that!

[Thos003]

I don't validate my website... but neither does Google.

[Getz.pro]

I don't think it effects rankings, but perhaps the ability to be crawled. It is also good practice for the user when visiting the site. As with most SEOs today, we are not just responsible for getting to the page, but making sure they stay on the site and convert. : )

[Dan-Petrovic]

I have one guy in the company who is obsessed with it so no matter what I do he will go back and ensure we comply! I've seen at least one W3C nazi in each web company I have had a chance to work with

[ninjamarketer]

Even though w3c errors will not influence SEO directly there could be instances where some CSS issues could impact page speed resulting in slower spider crawls causing page speed ranking influence. We do tend to look at these reports once every quarter.

[gfiorelli1]

To use Google or any of its websites as an SEO example is by itself a mistake

[petrakraft]

lol - yes the resamblance is remarkable! That's the name of my boss :-).

It would be interesting if there were 2 exact same websites with just minor differences which causes some validation issues ... if the one without "faults" would rank better.

I think I even remember that Matt Cutts once said that this is not a ranking factor. Even if you put in google.com in the validator - you get several faults.

The "normal" person who looks at the webpage doesn't care either which faults are indicated in the background. So whom should I please with a w3c.org clean website? I suppose "just" to have a proper webpage....

[gfiorelli1]

Personally it is not my first worry.

But to run a validation check up doesn't cost a lot of time, so I usually do it. If it finds red marked problems, I solve them. But I don't get crazy with the many less important ones.

[gfiorelli1]

Hehehe... this old profiles database give weird result.

[goodnewscowboy]

Hansj, you look remarkably like Petra!

As a former designer wannabe, I would always shoot for validation if possible. But since concentrating more on SEO issues these days,  like you, I personally don't think it affects rankings.