I agree that a degree of validation should be of some worth. Perhaps Google could
add "Validation" to one of the individual user criteria, such as "language."

This could then become a gauge of the extent to which users are or are not aware of
validation. It would bypass the conundrum of browsers that render but do not enforce
standards.

Another way to go is to create a "valid web" where validated web sites point to
one another. There are numerous examples of this technique which does ultimately increase
the sites' google ranking (because they are pointed to by other sites). AND it could
increase the awareness of the value that some people place on Validators.

Rick
Merrill


Lee Johnson wrote:

I am writing in regards to the correlation or lack thereof, concerning errors and warnings and how websites are ranked; especially on Google. I understand that there are much more problematic aspects with website ranking such as good content, proper linking techniques etc...  I have maintained my website in accordance w/ requirements and good practice to the best of my ability, ensuring all the while that it is perfectly XHTML 1.0 transitional, yet many other websites fail miserably in your validator and rank at the very top of the searches. My question is why should I bother to use your validator at all?

 

For your reference, my website is www.rustdepot.com  one of our competitors that I compared, www.safestrustremover has 100 errors and 7 warnings. Doesn’t this affect ranking at all? Their site is always ranked very high while mine is somewhere around 148th on Google.

 

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this matter.

Regards,

Lee Johnson
Northeast Representative, D-Rust-It
Owner: Rust Depot, www.rustdepot.com
Rust Warehouse www.rustwarehouse.com
E-mail:  lee.johnson@rustdepot..com
Phone: 607-425-1812

 


-- 
http://www.batco.tv - for PEG Ch 10 info and schedule