|
| |
|
|
thatguy
Posts: 125
Joined: 6/17/2003
Status: offline
 |
Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 9:49:20
Is there any reason to think that pages that meet the W3 standards would rate any higher in a search engine than if that same page did not have it?
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 10:03:49
perhaps - the standards compliant page should be easy for the se to "read" and if the non compliant page is "way off" - that might make it harder to read - assuming the content is =
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Reflect
Posts: 4765
From: USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 10:27:58
Other than syntax that a bot might not be able to follow, no. Even then it will only help the bot spider, it will not influence ranking.
It's just a thing that a lot of people will strive for so they know their site will render the same in most browsers. For me it is piece of mind.
Take care,
Brian
_____________________________
| |
|
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2992
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 16:34:00
....but what if pages were ranked according to W3C validation and Accessibility only? Wouldn't that make a lot of big corporations wake up? Wouldn't it cause designers who don't care about compliance or accessibility to strive for these knowing it was the most important thing in a page rannking?
Wouldn't it reward those businesses and designers who care about what they're doing where it counts most?
It's probably been mentioned before but what would be the success / failure of a search engine which operated in this way? Would it take off like Firefox?
Nicole
_____________________________
". . . and God created man in his image." errr, shouldn't that be "and man created God in his image'?
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 16:42:13
quote:
Would it take off like Firefox only if the main focus of searchers was to find compliant sites - and most could care less; why should they?
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2992
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 16:46:54
Why did Firefox create their browser?
Was it purely out of hatred for IE or was it because they wanted to actually do the right thing?
Nicole
_____________________________
". . . and God created man in his image." errr, shouldn't that be "and man created God in his image'?
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 17:17:51
Firefox was created, I believe, as a browser that would support standards and render sites optimized for compliant code. However, a Search engine succeeds by giving people the results they seek - pages with content that match their search - and surfers want that content ranked by relevance - not by the standards of the code which most could care less about.
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2992
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 17:31:52
I understand that Dan, but if there were an order to it like:
1. XHTML strict compliance
2. XHTML transitional compliance
3. HTML strict compliance........
4. Top Level Accessibility
5. Second Level accessibility
6. Third Level Accessibility..........
7. The usual way of ranking pages (which nobody seems to know for sure)......
Then if someone was searching for "Travel to Australia", the search engine would list results as normal, but if the Tourism Australia website was only HTML Transitional and only complied with Third Level Accessibility, it may be beaten by a sole trader web designer who created a site about travel in Australia that complied to XHTML transitional and Top Level Accessibility.
Try telling me that Tourism Australia wouldn't want to know why and why, as a result their income started to drop? Wouldn't they then tell their web designer to comply with these things and if they couldn't wouldn't they go to a designer who could?
Nicole
_____________________________
". . . and God created man in his image." errr, shouldn't that be "and man created God in his image'?
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 17:45:55
quote:
Try telling me that Tourism Australia wouldn't want to know why and why, as a result their income started to drop? Wouldn't they then tell their web designer to comply with these things and if they couldn't wouldn't they go to a designer who could? yes - that is indeed true - however, my point is that long before it has an impact upon Tourism Australia, I (the surfer) am going to say "why am I using this nitwit search engine that brings results based upon some coding standard that I dont undersstand and brings me obscure sites? I am seking content - give me msn search - it doesnt care about standards and neither does my IE browser!!!"
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2992
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: Stupid Question - 6/27/2005 18:22:07
I agree with you Dan, and I don't know enough about SEO to go much further.
Perhaps there could be though, a search engine like this exclusively for web designers to see which sites are complying and which aren't. Perhaps it could be part of the W3C or WAI websites? Perhaps it could also be used by those people who do need to view accessible sites only, perhaps it could solve a lot of frustration issues for them?
Anyway, I've hijacked this thread too much and I should be getting back to work.
Nicole
_____________________________
". . . and God created man in his image." errr, shouldn't that be "and man created God in his image'?
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 