What Google Says about HTML and CSS Valid...

So sit back and read for yourselves! I emailed google, the King of SE, the Guys who say, "Content is King"

To Google!
Google's Reply
I purposely included ADWORDS to make sure it effected BOTH, needless to say sorry mike, but please, no longer rant and rave about it being not... it's straight from the horses mouth so to speak!

It is good to hear this from "The Horses Mouth"... it is yet another reason to push towards valid code.

Thanks for posting

I notice in their reply that they mention clean code, but not valid...

__________________
WelshStew
Lead Administrator
tierney rides tboard - uk site | xtreme wales - extreme clothing
If you think I've helped, click the "Thanks"
webforumz - facebook | LinkedIn

Well I would put clean code as valid code... If you forgot to close a few tags, I wouldnt class that as clean.

However I have replied to ask why google.com isnt clean or valid code... I betcha I dont get a response from that haha!

Well, personally, I would say you can have "clean code" as in semantically laid out HTML and omitting unneccessary files etc - just what you need on each page.

And then you have "valid code", which is where your code validates against the W3C validation checks.

As Alex pointed out in another thread, the BBC doesn't have valid code, but I would consider it clean.

This is what I thought you meant when you split them out in your original question.
Yeah, It will be very interesting to see what they say.

Keep us posted.

__________________
WelshStew
Lead Administrator
tierney rides tboard - uk site | xtreme wales - extreme clothing
If you think I've helped, click the "Thanks"
webforumz - facebook | LinkedIn

Please, visit www.bbc.co.uk and click view source...

There is a white gap at the top of the page a mile long... and I would say the codes not bad, but its not clean either..

No Character Encoding Found! for a start, and then "there is no attribute "MARGINWIDTH"." why using that in HTML when they have CSS?

Forgive me if im wrong, but that's depreciated values...

Whats the point in putting widths, fonts etc in HTML when you have multiple CSS Files? None! I would class that as dirty code! Agree or not, its my opinion.

Oh yes the new "Beta" site has far less errors, but still bad coding, CSS in HTML and massive gaps of white!

Would you please mind your language, there is simply no need for it.

Maybe I chose a bad example, I was thinking off the top of my head. But seeing as the entire BBC site is looked after by a team of 5 people, it's pretty impressive.
well I can see it

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

I think it may be the small t on Content-Type that is causing the validation issue

Again when I do a visual check of the code it doesn't seem to be there. I know what the validation check says (that it is assigned to the body tag) but when I look at the code, it just isn't there.
Yes it is, and mine is that it is a clean coded site, in light of the size and complexity of the enitire site. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

But I am still interested to see if google thinks there is a difference, and if valid code actually means anything to the algorithum...

__________________
WelshStew
Lead Administrator
tierney rides tboard - uk site | xtreme wales - extreme clothing
If you think I've helped, click the "Thanks"
webforumz - facebook | LinkedIn

So you got Google to confirm an extremely vague statement -- so vague as to be useless. You are using an entirely different definition of "clean code" from the one that Google is using.

Of course "clean" code is important, if by "clean" you mean "not so badly messed up as to make crawling/link-finding impossible".

But you can't justify your more ambitious conclusion, that "clean" code in the broader sense -- aesthetically pure, minimalist code -- is advantageous.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I remain unconvinced. Besides, you're the one who rants and raves; I'm the one who asks for cold-blooded evidence and arguments.

That reply from Google that does nothing to confirm your claim. You're going to have to do better than that.

Good point Mike, clarification on what Google considers "Clean Code" would be useful to this discussion.

__________________
WelshStew
Lead Administrator
tierney rides tboard - uk site | xtreme wales - extreme clothing
If you think I've helped, click the "Thanks"
webforumz - facebook | LinkedIn

Interesting, Please can you post a link, I can't seem to find it

__________________
WelshStew
Lead Administrator
tierney rides tboard - uk site | xtreme wales - extreme clothing
If you think I've helped, click the "Thanks"
webforumz - facebook | LinkedIn

Its the top of the forum..

Basic Search Engine Optimisation Advice :: Readme

Direct quote and this is an old post, nothing new:

Bloody ell I love rob some times!

I actually feel like this is the most concrete answer from Google that I have ever heard on this subject. I do feel that it is giving us proof that clean html/css is good for rankings. I would say this is proof enough for me to continue to produce clean code.

Clean code = Valid code

but i am not sure if its

Valid code = Clean Code

__________________
The Net is Dying | Fan Rage | We are Battlefield heroes - BFH Forum

Vanilla Source - Vanilla Help, and mods

The best post ever! Thanks a lot for sharing!

Clean code = Valid Code.

Valid Code does not mean Clean Code.

You can take my word for that.

"=" = "equals"

"=" not = "is"

Valid does not equal Clean.

If you have a link like so: <a href="">Link</a> The Validator will be quite happy.

(Or so I am told)

__________________

This is a standard that should be followed by a website. if site is W3C compliant, it doesn't mean that a w3c compliant will be on the top of the ranking...