Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Google is still ranking my main index page #1 for the keyword phrase in the title. Looks like Google is more flexible than I first though...
Anybody see something similar?
Do you think that title tag text should rank better because you included it in the body?
I would hope that it dinged at least a point off the page score for trying too hard.
IMO there's nothing more stereotyped than a page that validates. If a SE has to choose between a page that validates and a page that is original, they'll choose the latter 10 out of 10 times, unless the latter shows up upside down, or something.
[edited by: Martin40 at 4:58 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2006]
They don't penalise faulty HTML, but if your error causes the parser to skip a section of your content or not follow a link to some other part of your site then you have penalised yourself.
Okay, but as long we don't start putting titles outside of headers, I don't see what error could produce your doomsday scenario.
[google.com...]
Look how many people failed to properly code their title tag, and end up with a duff title and/or snippet in the results. Yes, more than 10 million pages.
The most common error is in coding the closing </title> tag as either <title> (missing the / character) or as /title> (missing the < character).
With it coded properly those pages would probably rank a lot higher for whatever they intended to target than they do now. Twenty seconds spent at [validator.w3.org...] would have completely avoided the problem.
They don't penalise faulty HTML, but if your error causes the parser to skip a section of your content or not follow a link to some other part of your site then you have penalised yourself.
I have some pages on one of my sites that were built with a HTML editor from one of those free web hosts in the late 90s. It put FONT tags INSIDE THE A HREF! i.e., <A HREF="http://example. com/page1.html><FONT f ace="Arial"><FONT s ize="blah blah blah">Page 1</FONT></FONT></A>
I've often wondered if that's hurting me, it didn't use to matter but who knows now. I'm fixing them as quickly as possible, but it's a lot of work.
(Spaces added to HTML to not cause problems here at WebmasterWorld)
[edited by: AndyA at 5:16 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2006]
Use CSS.
It will make the HTML code on your page much lighter.
Make sure that all your content is enclosed in blocks: headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, or forms.
Make the HTML code describe what type of content you have.
Try this for starters:
[google.com...]Look how many people failed to properly code their title tag, and end up with a duff title and/or snippet in the results. Yes, more than 10 million pages.
The most common error is in coding the closing </title> tag as either <title> (missing the / character) or as /title> (missing the < character).
With it coded properly those pages would probably rank a lot higher for whatever they intended to target than they do now. Twenty seconds spent at [validator.w3.org...] would have completely avoided the problem.
Those examples are on par with your title outside of your header. If you made such mistakes you'd better not code your own html.
I'm referring to the fact that w3.org won't validate any CSS page that does something out of the box. It shows up correctly in all browsers but w3.org won't validate it. In such a case validation is a hinder, not a help.
By the way, thanks Brett ;-)
[edited by: Martin40 at 5:40 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2006]
I would like to take a look at that.
[edited by: Martin40 at 6:29 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2006]
Even so, the validator doesn't do "HTML inside Javascript" wherever you place it.
I'll bet that you will need to break a tag apart to stop the validator seeing it, like: '</t' + 'ag>'
Huh? Why can't you write the link to the <head> where it should be?
I'm not going to write funny tags just for a validation that is an exercise in pedantry.
Are you thinking creating these types of erros can help rankings in any particular engine?
Just because it's OK in SE's and browsers at the minute doesn't mean it won't be when something stricter gets its hands on it? IE had the biggest forgiveness rate of all when it came to HTML structure and we're still educating people that what they see is not always what they're getting.
I'm not at all sure it's best practice to encourage that kind of thinking to continue, perhaps Google and others won't correct the error forgiveness rate in the future, but perhaps they will - after all if a site doesn't display correctly why should it be indexed, what's the point in a visitor finding it if they can't read it because it's broken?
re>> javascript writing to the body
write a variable ID to the body element and have the one CSS do the work via specificity, that's its job anyway.
Im a little unclear as to the purpose of the experiment?
Are you thinking creating these types of erros can help rankings in any particular engine?
Personally, I'm amazed to see big corporate sites being optimized for 800*600, so that 85% of surfers see a miniature webpage. But do they validate? Oh yeah....
to rely on error recovery routines is IMO asking for trouble, While it is not always necessary to have a perfectly valid site, a sites document structure is its foundation. If that foundation is unstable you should expect that it could fall down in some circumstances.
I've never seen it fall down in any browser and I have <noscript> tags for the SEs. I know that some webmasters won't use javascript because they think it will harm their ranking. Then I wouldn't advise using Adsense either.
The question is: who are we writing html for? For the user or for the validator? The user likes to see an optimized page in his/her screen size.
But I belong to, what Microsoft developers refer to with a healthy sense of disdain, the visually oriented.
What is the future of html? More strictness and a regression to HTML3? Or more technical possibilities to enable a more mature experience on the net for the user? I'm not married to my solution of the screen size problem and would welcome one that validates.
after all if a site doesn't display correctly why should it be indexed, what's the point in a visitor finding it if they can't read it because it's broken
re>> javascript writing to the body
write a variable ID to the body element and have the one CSS do the work via specificity, that's its job anyway.
The suggestion was for the body element itself, as in: <body id="$1">
Next a set of CSS rules would be created for each value that $1 could have.
Sounds like Google's error recovery routines have forgiven you.
While the discussion has evolved somewhat, I wanted to go back to what Ted mentioned before. The Error Recovery Routines. This often makes "tests" invalid and incorrect assumptions made on Google's algo.
I don't see the need for doing a test like this, as it will prove to be worthless as it is without merit.
Cheers,
CaboWabo
BTW Ted, your session on One Page Wonders made the set worth going to.
No there is no need for stuff "scattered everywhere".
The suggestion was for the body element itself, as in: <body id="$1">Next a set of CSS rules would be created for each value that $1 could have.
[edited by: Martin40 at 9:55 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2006]
[edited by: Martin40 at 11:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2006]
