Grab Cheap Air Deals is the Blog that provide the latest and lastest info about the cheap air deals and the cheap tickets for your travel plan, Just Mar
4th
Author: Jayce Nugent |
Files under Hot News
Michael Thingmand from Denmark asks: “Why doesn’t google.com validate (according to W3C)?” Thisvideo is part of a “Grab Bag” series in which Matt Cutts, head of Google’s webspam team, answers questions from webmasters. We’re not currently taking new video questions, so your best bet for getting an answer about webmaster-related search issues is to head to our help forum: www.google.com
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:32
The very point of the W3C is to make web content available to all users, regardless of platform or disability. By not validating and by not preferring sites that do, Google is culpable. Google, don’t be evil! Net neutrality matters – so does code neutrality! Open standards are the most important, proprietary code will just make the job harder in the future….
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Sorry Matt, this is an evasive reply. The fact that the majority of pages on the web don’t validate has no bearing on whether yours do. Valid code does not take up any, or much, more size than non-valid. Valid code does not create compatibility issues.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
With all respect Matt, I think something needs clarification here. Since when LSM (Layered Semantic Markup) and valid web sites have browser compatibility issues?
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
“cop out” was referring to his claim that it’s “important to realize that the vast majority of pages on the web don’t validate”
Regarding byte count, if they were really worried about that they’d put all the css/js/image stuff in separate files that could be fetched once, then cached and reused over and over, instead of delivering them inline with each and every request.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Then you have other serious problems. I test all additions to my site across different platforms and browsers and browser versions (and sub-versions) and never had analytics code fail that badly…
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Well when you’re serving up millions of people, just the structural code can make a very large difference. One reason why they minify their output code. If you save 15 kb of structure code from being transferred, over 1 million hits that could save up to 14 gigs of transferred data! Considering they get millionS of hits i’d gather they’re save quite a bit through their efforts, far from a cop out.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
better idear how about thay check the sponsered link more often it used to have a link to a pedophil site
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
google will probably change its mind before long, because logic says that w3c-validation is an indicator of accessibility, and accessibility is in the interest of web users, so there should naturally be a preference for valid pages, even if only slight, it’s certainly one to add to the 200-long list.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
If you check any of the big companies…many have 150+ errors. Perhaps it means that W3C is just a big joke on us that follow it to the bone.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Boo! Excuses, excuses. Google needs to be a leader in standards and accessibility, like Yahoo! is doing. Not make excuses on how they can save money (bandwidth) and other B.S.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Thank you!
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Wow… I’m kinda surprised at how casually this issue was addressed. Is it really that hard for Google to see the benefits of a standards based internet? I wonder if they would see things differently if they would have been the ones to set the standard for HTML?
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
I wonder why the Google channel doesn’t allow comments on any of their videos or channel. How do you know what the people like or dislike, or want from Google if Google doesn’t recieve responses?
I guess we’re supposed to walk up to their front desk
.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Basically the google spokes loser said that they don’t validate because 20 extra characters might cost their company a .03% increase in operating fees for delivering their website. Then he started blaming everyone else for google being lazy and then had the audacity to state that they will only do it, if someone else can do it for them for free.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Well, Validation is best thing for a web developer mostly. And sometimes, it is useful to believe that the webpage will be looking good in all OS and browsers and gadgets.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Agreed!! That code actually CRASHED my site for IE users. And when that happened, it was IE7, IE8 hadnt popped up yet.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Agreed, in that it is annoying when Google code for third party things like Analytics mess up your validation.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Well it would be nice if you made the apps validate at least. Either way it’s a pisspoor excuse if you ask me.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
blah blah blah blaw
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
This realy sux. I understand that idiots are treated the same as professionals….
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Don’t you think that giving a little boost to pages that do validate would encourage people to make proper code? It wouldn’t take much of a boost.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
Vast majority is referred to Blogger blogs which returns tons of validation errors.
If Google does not care about validation then nobody should care.
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
who do you think google will hire for PR? Sylvester Stalonne?
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
brilliant as usual….
Mar 4, 2010 at 03:51:33
W3C validation is not the web developers Holy Grail. Validation does not guarantee a site will look the same from platform to platform, from browser to browser. Validation does not assure that markup is efficiently written or adheres to a given entitys assessment of best practices. What it means is that the developer has coded a functional document and used no markup in addition to that specified by the guidelines.