- From: Dan Dreifort <uncoolcentral@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:20:53 -0700
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, www-validator@w3.org
On 3/22/2016 10:18 AM, David Dorward wrote: > On 22 Mar 2016, at 16:36, Dan Dreifort wrote: > >> Quick search shows a test writhing the last month >> https://www.google.com/search?q=seo+valid+code&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari > > The top hit when I visit that URL is from 6 months ago describing a test from 2007. > > Google search URLs are not very useful as references since they (a) change and (b) are personalised to the individual making the request. > I've been doing SEO for more than a decade and while my own experiments aren't well documented, they indicated a benefit for validation. Given, those experiments were years ago, and used extremely error-laden pages vs. valid code. Another logic trail: If: invalid code can result in a poor UX and perhaps poorer performance and both of those can hurt SEO then valid code benefits SEO. Page speed matters: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-in-web-search-ranking.html Usability matters https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/6196932?hl=en (that's just one example from the horse's mouth.) ...I'm not sure how much more I'm willing to lobby for this though. I understand if presented evidence doesn't cut it. -DD
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 23:21:24 UTC