Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

W3C Compliance and SEO

Rated 3.74 (Ratings: 1) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(0 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of beanstalk

Dave Davies

Member info | Full bio

User since: October 10, 2004

Last login: January 07, 2008

Articles written: 2

From reading the title many of you are probably wondering what W3C compliance has to do with SEO and some may be wondering what W3C compliance is at all. Let's begin by shedding some light on the latter.

What Is W3C Compliance?

The W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium and since 1994 the W3C has provided the guidelines by which websites and web pages should be structured and created. The rules they outline are based on the best practices and while websites don't have to comply to be viewed correctly in Internet Explorer and other popular browsers that cater to incorrect design practices, there are a number of compelling reasons to ensure that you or your designer ensure that the W3C guidelines are followed and that your site is brought into compliance.

In an interview with Frederick Townes of W3 EDGE Web Design he mentioned a number of less SEO-related though very compelling arguments for W3C-complaince. Some non-SEO reasons to take on this important step in the lifecycle of your site are:

  • Compliance help ensure accessibility for the disabled.
  • Compliance helps ensure that your website is accessible from a number of devices; from different browsers to the growing number of surfers using PDAs and cellular phones.
  • Compliance will also help ensure that regardless of the browser, resolution, device, etc. that your website will look and function in the same or at least a very similar fashion.

At this point you may be saying, Well that's all well-and-good but what does this have to do with SEO? Good question.

We at Beanstalk have seen many examples of sites performing better after we had brought them, or even just their homepage, into compliance with W3C standards. While discussing this with Frederick he explained it very well with:

Proper use of standards and bleeding edge best practices makes sure that not only is the copy marked up in a semantic fashion which search engines can interpret and weigh without confusion, it also skews the content-to-code ratio in the direction where it needs to be while forcing all of the information in the page to be made accessible, thus favoring the content. We've seen several occasions where the rebuilding of a site with standards, semantics and our proprietary white hat techniques improves the performance of pages site-wide in the SERPs.

Essentially what he is stating is a fairly logical conclusion, reduce the amount of code on your page and the content (you know, the place where your keywords are) takes a higher priority. Additionally compliance will, by necessity, make your site easily spidered and additionally allow you greater control over which portions of your content are given more weight by the search engines.

Examples

The Beanstalk website and the W3 EDGE site themselves serve as good examples of sites that performed better after complying with W3C standards. With no other changes than those required to bring our site into compliance the Beanstalk site saw instant increases. The biggest jumps were on Yahoo! with lesser though still significant increases being noticed on both Google and MSN.

So How Do I Bring My Site In Compliance With W3C Standards?

To be sure, this is easier said than done. Obviously the ideal solution is to have your site designed in compliance to begin with. If you already have a website you have one of two options:

  1. Hire a designer familiar with W3C standards and have your site redone, or
  2. Prepare yourself for a big learning curve and a bit of frustration (though well worth both).

Resources

Assuming that you've decided to do the work yourself there are a number of great resources out there. By far the best that I've found in my travels is the Web Developer extension for FireFox. You'll have to install the FireFox browser first and then install the extension. Among other great tools for SEO this extension provides a one-click check for compliance and provides a list of where your errors are, what's causing them and links to solutions right from the W3C. The extension provides testing for HTML, XHTML, CSS and Accessibility compliance.

Other resources you'll definitely want to check into are:

Where Do I Get Started?

The first place to start would be to download FireFox (count this as reason #47 to do so as it's a great browser) and install the Web Developer extension. This will give you easy access to testing tools.

The next step is to bookmark the resources above.

Once you've done these you'd do well to run the tests on your own site while at the same time keeping up an example site that already complies so you can look at their code if need be.

To give you a less frustrating start I would recommend beginning with your CSS validation. Generally CSS validation is easier and faster than the other forms. In my humble opinion it's always best to start with something you'll be able to accomplish quickly to reinforce that you can in fact do it.

After CSS you'll need to move on to HTML or XHTML validation. Be prepared to set aside a couple hours if you're a novice with a standard site. More if you have a large site of course.

Once you have your CSS and HTML/XHTML validated its time to comply with Accessibility standards. What you will be doing is cleaning up a ton of your code and moving a lot into CSS, which means you'll be further adding to your style sheet. If you're not comfortable with CSS you'll want to revisit the resources above. CSS is not a big mystery though it can be challenging in the beginning. As a pleasant by-product you are sure to find a number of interesting effects and formats that are possible with CSS that you didn't even know were so easily added to your site.

But What Do I Get From All This?

Once you're done you'll be left with a compliant site that not only will be available on a much larger number of browsers (increasingly important as browsers such as FireFox gain more and users) but you'll have a site with far less code that will rank higher on the search engines because of it.

To be sure, W3C validation is not the "magic bullet" to top rankings. In the current SEO world there is no one thing that is. However as more and more website are born and the competition for top positioning gets more fierce it's important to take every advantage you can to not only get to the first page but to hold your position against those who want to take it from you as you took it from someone else.

Dave Davies is the owner of Beanstalk Search Engine Positioning. He has been optimizing and ranking websites for over three years and has a solid history of success. Dave is available to answer any questions that you may have about your website and how to get it into the top positions on the major search engines.

Standards Junky Agrees!

Submitted by espmartin on December 13, 2005 - 00:30.

And all the Web Standards Junkies out there give an emphatic, "YES"! Funny how it takes the idea of gaining valuable traffic to a site b/c of coding with W3C valid markup to bring education to the web design community. To sum of what Dave said, IMO, "SEO = accessibility+standards" Best Regards, Martin E. Web Design Standards | Search Engine Optimization Tips

login or register to post comments

Not directly SEO

Submitted by cianuro on November 29, 2006 - 14:22.

Since the redesign of Search Engine Marketing Ireland we have noticed a massive leap in backlinks and traffic as a result of the standards compliance. There are literally hundreds of "Standards Galleries" out there that showcase your site. Many of them have a very dedicated following, but also a lot of return visitors and "Inspirational" link backs. ("Sites that inspired this design" etc.) Compliance also does not mean that the content is being served correctly. Neil Crosby did a great write up on this here: http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes Finally, it is important to note here that being standards compliant does NOT directly effect SEO, but does so in an indirect manner. I have gone into detail about this on my Search Engine Optimisation Blog. While semantic markup will insure a search engine can index your site, a site that is not standards compliant and not semantic can be indexed just as easily. Dave Davis

login or register to post comments

Just one thing about

Submitted by factor on March 5, 2007 - 01:13.

Just one thing about accessibility validation, it's not like HTML and CSS validation. Although there are lots of accessibility validators out there, online and downloadable tools you will find that these automatic validation tools can assess only 1/3 of the checkpoints, the rest should be done manually. Among other things you should make sure that your page can be read without a stylesheet and images, that can be navigated without using a mouse, proper use of headings, that the image alt texts are appropriate... What I want to point out is that even if an automated accessibility validation checker tool report no problems it does not mean that a site is accessible.

login or register to post comments

HTML and CSS validation are

Submitted by Heironymous on March 31, 2007 - 02:44.

HTML and CSS validation are an important part of optimizing your site for the search engines. There is a lot of speculation as to whether Google gives a boost to sites that validate. The logic is that sites that take care with their code most likely also have higher quality content. Nobody really knows how much of a boost (if any) it might give a site. --Andrew Washington DC Photography

login or register to post comments

Planning for the future

Submitted by porksta on April 3, 2007 - 08:58.

At this stage i am a website designer, and all the websites i create i make sure that they are all w3c compliant. My experience in search engine optimisation has shown me that this is probably not "very" helpful for SEO.
This video, "Optimise for search engines or users?" by Matt Cutts , who works for the quality group in Google specializing in search engine optimization issues, he mentions "normal people write codes with errors", and that "40% of html pages have syntax errors". Based on this he mentions that w3c validation isnt in the algorithm, "probably for good reason", and that w3c validation doesn't matter "much" to search engines. I still like to make sure my sites are compliant as future planning incase its added to the algo at a later date.
Adam

login or register to post comments

I try to push my developer

Submitted by EngrTun on April 10, 2007 - 03:10.

I try to push my developer to make the pages w3 validated, but being an SEO I am pretty sure it no way affects search engine ranking. porksta's reference to Matt Cutts video is a good one.

login or register to post comments

It's overrated

Submitted by tonypod on April 14, 2007 - 23:55.

Trying to make your pages w3 compliant is way too overrated. I have good sites that rank well with search engines and they would never pass w3 validation. The trick is to keep the html simple and build backlinks. Also, watch your pagerank. I use smartpagerank.com, but you could use any pr tracker.

In other words, don't make coding more difficult than it has to be!

login or register to post comments

It's the spirit that counts ;-)

Submitted by raphael on May 8, 2007 - 05:54.

@tonypod, EngrTun: I think the point here is, if you have bloated code with little internal structure, redundant parts, links with no text content, etc., your sites will make a lower impact on the search engines (I've got some anecdotal data to back this up).

You're right, it's not so much actual standards-compliance that makes a difference, but the general spirit of sharpening your code to make it fit its purpose (getting information across) in the way it's meant to work.

So validation doesn't help, but what you do to achieve validation definitely will.

login or register to post comments

Exactly

Submitted by Tjeerd Kramer on May 8, 2007 - 10:26.

So validation doesn't help, but what you do to achieve validation definitely will.
Very well put. That's exactly how I think this should be intepreted. All things equal, lightweight pages score better in the SERPS.

login or register to post comments

Adam Lasnik on validation

Submitted by Marcel Feenstra on May 8, 2007 - 12:51.

I recently read an interview with Adam Lasnik (SEO Strategist at Google) in which he says:

[T]here are many great reasons to have your site validate, and to do validation checking. It can help your site, and could be more accessible to a lot of different people and browsers. But, here is the core problem why we cannot use this in our scoring algorithms currently: There are a ton of very high quality sites, pages and sites from universities, from research institutions, from very well respected ecommerce stores, of which I won't name any, that have really crufty sites, and sites that won't validate. On some of these you can view the source and cry. And, because this is quality content, we really can't use that as an effective signal in search quality. So, you can quote me a saying, I would be thrilled, it would make my day if people would decruft their sites, but it's not going to directly affect their Google ranking.

(I.e., basically the same information as given by Matt Cutts in the video that porksta refers to.)

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth: there is no direct influence on a site's rankings --or is there?!

Of course, if a site is structured so badly that the search engines can't determine where content starts or ends (think: missing tags and quotation marks), a site is likely to rank less well.

And while I personally think that the code-to-content ratio of a page plays a marginal role at best, I do believe that the "relative position of the real content" can make a difference: The closer to the start of the code, the better IMO. And that, of course, is something that is more easily achieved with modern, standards-compliant CSS/XHTML than with a table-based design...

For now, I try to ensure that my sites are W3C compliant, if only for the benefit of the visitors; but also, as porksta says, because it may become a factor in the future!

login or register to post comments

W3C HTML Validation is a Best Practice

Submitted by designsimply on June 2, 2007 - 14:08.

Even if you argue that W3C compliant code does not have a direct impact on search engine rankings, I think Matt and Adam would have to agree that clean, compliant code is easier for search bots to crawl. I'm sure no one at Google would complain if that 40% statistic about sites having html syntax errors plummeted. And, the argument that clean code displays better across a variety of devices means that you'll have a better chance of increasing readership if you have web standards code--after all, that's the whole point of getting higher rankings anyway: more readership = more clicks. Another great firefox add-on you may want to check out is the HTML Validator. It displays the number of errors and warnings for an html page in the form of an icon in the status bar when browsing. Details about errors and warnings are display when looking at the html source of the page.

login or register to post comments

Common hurdles in moving to xhtml, css

Submitted by interfacebs on September 7, 2007 - 19:30.

Most webdesigners find it fairly daunting to move from table based designs to xhtml compliant pure css (table-less) layouts. If you stick to it and reference the many resources available online it takes less than a month to get fairly comfortable. The problem is the inertia to let go of convenience and seek perfection. SEO benefits or not there is no reason not to move to xhtml compliance. Here is a link to an article that talks about some frequently encountered xhtml css problems.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.