Published: Mar 12, 2010 - 07:43 am
Story Found By: springboardseo 798 Days ago
Category: SEO
9 Comments
9 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Interlinking related stories:
http://sphinn.com/story/144077
http://sphinn.com/story/144038
http://sphinn.com/story/143886
Actually, the part in this article that discourages tables also fits in the light of "not relevant to SEO under every circumstance". Just as "integrating presentation within code" is also not necessarily an SEO negative. Every site is unique. Every site's competitive landscape is unique. And only when the bigger unique picture is viewed can one determine whether a site should be recoded to eliminate tables or on-page presentation.
I agree 100%.
Pretty well-written article.
--> left visible at the bottom of the page as a sidenote.
Agree!!
Yes W3c guidelines are good to keep your design structure upto standars, BUT for SEO, I don't find any direct significance of these standards.
"500 Server Error"
Tad, works from here.
Give you a break? You'll want a space + break to end empty elements for validating. I don't think a syntax checking service is such a bad thing to advise. I think people that tout it as too much for SEO are kidding themselves. There's your break. I don't think telling people validating is not at all important is wise either. Strike a balance. Some people should be shown results of bad markup to convince them to make badly needed corrections. The engines have already written for bad markup. That's true. It's less important today than yesterday. Some bad markup really can't be foreseen by engineers. Don't let a daft designer wreck a good business plan with bad markup, especially when SEO is part of a design overhaul or startup launch. Bad markup is bad markup. It's bad.
AirDisa I agree, bad markup is bad. But touting valid markup as a priority for SEO is also bad, because it's misleading. Especially when it's salesmen - that know nothing about markup, standards, accessibility or semantics - that are advocating W3C validation.
The point of my piece was to make it clear that while validating pages have their place in the big scheme of what's important for SEO, it's often the case that a page validates, but the markup is horrendous - and terrible, SEO-wise.
I'm not sure you read the entire article.
Just the same, thanks for your input - and the break.