Jump to content

[SOLVED] W3 logo on site


jaymc

Recommended Posts

My website now passes W3C validator which I have done to try and help SEO

 

Im just wondering. the logo they allow you to put on your website to show its valid, does google take notice of it?

 

In other words, if google see's that I have taken the time to make the code valid to standards will it give me more of an advantage with google in terms of SEO?

 

valid-xhtml10

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, anyone can put this image on their site, so no search engine can rely on this as indicator that the site has valid markup.

Second, as far as I remember W3C recommends putting this image on your own server.

 

It's simple: if your markup is valid, the crawler will have no problems with parsing your page. If it's not, it might not be indexed correctly (or at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google wouldn't use the image as an indicator. Remember - any one can post that image on their server. They can illegally copy it or rip it off W3's website.

 

Google is such a strong search engine, that it can check whether your html code is valid or not. Google uses millions of smal factors such as these to determine your overal page rank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having valid code has no effect in relation to SEO, there however is some obvious coding related guidelines you must follow to insure the best possible indexing.

 

It is claimed by some that using XHTML will improve your placement in the Serps, but that is not the case. Proper use of HTML is just as effective, and that's while you have no benefits from using XHTML, unless you combine it with other xml based languages.

 

It is actually more difficult to use xhtml, since you also need to make sure your server is serving it with the correct mime-type. It is not recommended to serve it as text/html for older browsers, since this introduces a number of other problems.

 

 

Code validity is currently only a consideration to a certain level when optimizing, meaning that you could potentially leave our closing tags for paragraphs, use brs instead of beginning a new paragraph, use b, i, and font tags. It wouldn't matter, that doesn't mean that its a good idea though.

 

You don't need to think very long about it, before you could determine it would be unfair to older sites, with invalid coding. Backwards compatibility has always been a high priority, and will likely continue to be for many years. It is however recommended that new sites/documents follow the standards to the extend practically possible.

 

It usually comes down to few coding related subjects, such as correct usage of headlines, internal link structure, incomming links, and outgoing links. The search engines dosn't care if you use HTML or XHTML, if you pay more atention, then it wouldn't take long to notice that XHTML is just HTML in XML. Seen from the search engines point of view, clean XHTML sites may as well be normal HTML sites with extra slash'es thrown in, it becomes even more of a mess if they are served as text/html.

 

I don't think it would be practical, or there would be any point whatsoever, for search engines to check for code validity. They simply pharse the sites and documents they encounter, and pick up the bits they where programmed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me throw this in as well.

 

The logo you mention also usually links to the w3c validator, effectively giving them a free backlink, which likely increases their PageRank. Now consider why they got a PageRank of 9/10 on google. Likely because to many unknowingly or knowingly webmasters chose to provide them with free backlinks, the links are likely to be relevant as well, since those including the logo are likely to have relevant keywords on their page.

 

I would be sure to throw in a rel="nofollow" on the link, if i where to include it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather think that they got their pagerank, by being actually most popular HTML validator around (not to mention being the organisation that sets up internet standards and a site that had page rank hardcoded to 10 when it was first introduced).

Links from low ranked pages actually pull down pagerank of target page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather think that they got their pagerank, by being actually most popular HTML validator around (not to mention being the organisation that sets up internet standards and a site that had page rank hardcoded to 10 when it was first introduced).

Links from low ranked pages actually pull down pagerank of target page.

 

That is incorrect, then we would have to many sites with no PageRank left whatsoever. And it would be far to easily subject to abuse. Normally backlinks wont hurt your site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is more than a year old. Please don't revive it unless you have something important to add.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.