Website Coding

tryan326 said:
Ease up partner. I'm not defending anything. Load time has nothing to do with W3C. Google itself is not even W3C Compliant along with many other name brand sites that have top positioning. And having a site that is W3C complaint doesn't mean that you have a site that loads faster.

If you do a search on Matt Cutts you'll find video blogs posted by him in 2009 talking about this very issue.

I say tomato...you say tomatoe. We have the right to varying opinions. This is a discussion board.

Even your mydragonfgures site isn't W3C Complaint
Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Strict!

Result:219 Errors, 17 warning(s) Address:
Click to expand...

Here let me help you with the Real issues (New Site - New Standard Code) bunched up bulky long HTML 1.0 creates slow loading times compared to sites that use the new standard clean code.

Fast Loading times are a critical point of website ranking, Which by the way is the ultimate Goal. Not just because it looks pretty to the Agent, its the underneath stuff they dont see that can affect them without knowing.

Second Point - Dont use 2-3 Tier Servers. I understand sites will rank without being compliant, I think I know a thing or two on that subject.

That might be due to its wrote in RTML. I thought you were a webmaster?

I dont think you even want to get started on pointing out sites. The people on this forum are fully aware of the issues. :SLEEP:
 
Last edited:
Dave I was thinking of using Joomla to build my site. Now that I am looking at SEO (don't know anything about it).Would it be better to build a site with HTML 4?
 
JustinUpright said:
Dave I was thinking of using Joomla to build my site. Now that I am looking at SEO (don't know anything about it).Would it be better to build a site with HTML 4?
Click to expand...

Joomla is simply a Content Management System (CMS) that you create the website in. The code will be in HTML.

Any website can be optimized as long as you can access the internal coding.
 
tryan326 said:
Joomla is simply a Content Management System (CMS) that you create the website in. The code will be in HTML.

Any website can be optimized as long as you can access the internal coding.
Click to expand...




First Joomla would be fine, due to its code is modern XHTML coding.

Plain old HTML is outdated and I would not have a website built in this old code. First that style of code went out in the late 1990's. You will see that alot of Self-Taught webmasters use this coding.

I would never pay to have a new site built with old style HTML,(Any version) you wont get what your paying for.

When you buy a New Computer, do you buy 1990's technology?
8 Track or CD? Sony Walkman or MP3 Player? They all still play music!!!
Better yet, How about a Rotary Phone, still makes the call!!!

Be aware that webmasters that use old HTML will tell you it makes no difference.

The problem is they dont understand how much of a difference for proper indexing and spidering, and 99% of Webmasters dont understand true Search Engine Optimization.

Yes it looks the same and displays to your prospects the same, but the Search Engines dont see it the same.

Goes much deeper than (any website can be optimized if you can access the internal coding).:no:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> Outdated Code

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"> Modern Code
 
Last edited:
Please be aware of people who try to act as a subject matter expert of everything.

Majority of this is false, incorrect and misleading information. Someone who has never built a website cannot not be a SME on the subject.

And yes, any website can be fully optimized if you can access the internal coding because this means you have complete control over the markup whether as is or altered.

FYI...for those of you who don't know XHTML 1.0 is HTML 4.0 written as an XML application. (Google XML or XHTML if you want more of the boring details.)

MYTH #1: HTML 4.0 is old code. This is FALSE.


HTML has not been deprecated and is not being phased out. In fact, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recently renewed the HTML working group, which is working to develop HTML 5. The developers of Firefox, Opera, and Safari have pushed very hard for the development of HTML 5 and have largely ignored the development of XHTML 2. The Safari development team has even opted to not take part in the XHTML 2 development process. The CTO of Opera said in an interview, "I don't think XHTML is a realistic option for the masses. HTML5 is it."


MYTH #2: XHTML is better and "new code". This is also FALSE.

In fact, XHTML 1.x is not "future-compatible". XHTML 2, currently in the drafting stages, is not backwards-compatible with XHTML 1.x. XHTML 2 will have lots of major changes to the way documents are written and structured, and even if you already have your site written in XHTML 1.1, a complete site rewrite will usually be necessary in order to convert it to proper XHTML 2.


HTML 4.01 is actually more future-compatible. A valid HTML 4.01 document written to modern support levels will be valid HTML 5, and HTML 5 is where the majority of attention is from browser developers and the W3C.

XHTML does not have good browser support. In typical setups, most browsers simply pretend that your XHTML pages are regular HTML. Some major browsers like Firefox, Opera, and Safari may attempt to handle the page as proper XHTML if and only if you include a special header telling it to do so. But even when you do, Internet Explorer and a number of other user agents will have problems with it and won't display the page at all. Even when handled as XHTML, the supporting browsers have a number of additional bugs.

Food for thought:
  1. If XHTML is comprised of HTML then wouldn't XHTML be "old" code?
  2. How many websites with this supposed "old code" rank higher than yours?
Search engines care about relevancy NOT code. But with that being said they need to be able to read your code to find your content to determine what terms or phrases your website should be relevant for.


3 Basics of Clean Code:
  1. JavaScript should be in its own file and called to on the actual web page.
  2. If you are hosting video (this does not include any imbedded YouTube videos), it should be in a separate file and called to on the actual web page. This also applies to flash.
  3. Most formatting should be put in a cascading style sheet (CSS).
All of which makes your webpage smaller.


Bottom Line: Less code on the page = Smaller page size = Faster Download Time = Easier not Better Indexing. That's it!


The information in this post is NOT opinion. They are facts. You can verify this entire post for validity by Googling its key points.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Directly from Google

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using valid xHTML and CSS can allow more people to view your content. I'm noticing cell phone browsers in my analytics reports more and more as time goes on.

Smart phones are going to get smarter and more and more people will surf the web on their phones as time goes on.
 
Alston said:
Using valid xHTML and CSS can allow more people to view your content. I'm noticing cell phone browsers in my analytics reports more and more as time goes on.

Smart phones are going to get smarter and more and more people will surf the web on their phones as time goes on.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!! thats exactly why you dont want all the bloat, and old tables and tags and all that mess. Plus part of Googles Algorithm scoring system is "Loading Time". This is a Huge factor in Google Adwords, Major part of the Quality Score. Why would the Organic Listings be any different?

How does load time affect my landing page quality? (Straight from Google)

Beginning in April 2008, you'll be able to see a grade for your landing page's load time in your AdWords account. 'Load time' refers to the amount of time it takes for a user to view your landing page after clicking your ad. Several weeks after your load time grade becomes visible, it will begin to impact your landing page Quality therefore, your Quality Score.


Everything with Google now is all about Speed, and transmitting it to small hand held devices. Just watch the commercials and you will see how "America" now views the web on the Iphone!! and how all the commercials are promoting this. I just viewed a commercial from Yellow Pages, with a Young Man searching the Web on his IPhone.

Once again, If you paying for a "New Website" its your choice between a Sony Walkman or a MP3 Player.

The bottom line is, It does matter, and you should be aware of the things to check and look for when purchasing or building a "New" Website. "The Under the Hood Stuff" that gets ignored or brushed off does matter.

You dont have to "know how" to build a car engine or ever "built one yourself" to understand the importance of modern technology and the impact of quality performance.
Car and Driver can educate me to become the "Expert" before I head to the Dealership and listen to the "Sales Pitch"

Does the Architect of the Sears Tower, have to know how to pour concrete? or ever have to pour concrete himself? to really understand the importance of the structural limitations of the building?

Look at that coding of this forum!! A+
 
Last edited:
I can't say that I get a ton of business from people requesting health insurance quotes on their cell phones, but it is the money from the extra sales that you get to invest or spend.

You can never be 100% sure why you rank well or poorly for a given keyword. However, I've believed for a long time that using valid xHTML and CSS code has helped my sites in the rankings.

It's just my opinion but having a page coded with valid HTML code even if it is an older version of HTML, is probably better than a page with a lot of errors even if that page is coded with the latest version of xHTML. Of course it is better to have your site coded correctly with a new version.

Here is a code validator for those of you who want to see how well their pages meet the standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
I need 3 websites
2
Replies
12
Views
5K
Joemyager
Joemyager
S
Any Experience with HubSpot CMS (websites)?
Replies
0
Views
3K
scagnt83
S
Graham
  • Poll
Insurance website/social media content
Replies
9
Views
5K
DoorsOfGuf
DoorsOfGuf
C
How To Include Keywords For Financial Advisor Websites
2
Replies
11
Views
9K
marindependent
marindependent
LowRiskGuy
Value of Domain Name - Opinion?
5 6 7
Replies
62
Views
14K
LowRiskGuy
LowRiskGuy

Latest posts

Back
Top