Français
  • Why doesn't google.com validate?


    Added on Wednesday 16 September 2009 12:37:31
    by GoogleWebmasterHelp
    65628 Views
    4.3 / 5
    12345
    76 rates
    Send this video to your friends
    Get embed code of video

    Michael Thingmand from Denmark asks:

    "Why doesn't google.com validate (according to W3C)?"

    This video 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: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters?hl=en



    facebook
    Comment(s)
  • Write your comment here...
  • hellmind

    They should validate. Google say you must do the page in way and close our eyes and pray to rank, cuz they will do the right think. But if we look what they do with their pages,then we should exploit every gap we got to rank no matter what. So the definition of black hat would be, what google's can't detect.
    Monday 12 December 2011 06:48:20
  • dollieluc

    awesome work =)) good job keep it up congrats
    Tuesday 15 November 2011 00:41:39
  • whothehellisthat

    I've always thought that validation is unimportant. What's important is the user's experience. No user looks at your code and says 'hmm... that bit there isn't valid. I'm not going to use this site'. For the most part, this goes for accessibility validation, too. Sure, some of it like title attributes, alt tags on images, etc., are a good idea, but there's a lot of annoying unnecessary stuff in there, too.
    Thursday 05 May 2011 14:07:21
  • AspenFlower17

    dont read this because it acttually works.you will get kissed onthe nearest possible friday by the love of your live. tommorow will be the best day of your life.however if you dont post this comment to at least three videos you will die within to days.now youve started reading this so dont stop . this is so scary.put this on at least five videos in 143 minutes when your done press F6 and your lovers name will apeer on the screen in big letters.this is so scary cause it actually work
    Saturday 30 April 2011 01:48:09
  • tomeu0071

    Automatic SEO Robot to DOMINATE all TOP 5 pages of GOOGLE for your websites and refferal Urls, includes Automatic search engine submissions, tons of backlinks on daily basis, tons of facebook fans we can get on daily basis with this, Tons of traffic you will get on daily basis, BY Automatic way this with SEO Robot, to get listed and Ranked in all top 5 pages of Google ...and Make huge Money from home Let me know Over skype and yahoo messanger Id for both is kankddlj
    Thursday 20 January 2011 16:01:10
  • TimmmmCam

    Fair enough I suppose, but it doesn't even have a closing html tag! That's just ugly.
    Monday 20 December 2010 18:25:52
  • dewsqavfckmu

    Kind Russian girls for marriage gettop5.info
    Friday 26 November 2010 23:59:10
  • nuboy529

    I don't think they validate when you park at corpoate headquaters either... jerks.
    Sunday 07 November 2010 11:14:31
  • alundraandseptimus

    @jarrod1937 It's MAJOR late in reply but no, I didnt have other problems. I tested it across all a bunch of OS's and browsers and the ONLY one with an issue was IE. I didnt know why so I just removed it. I couldnt be bothered dealing with it. The page was white in the beginning then it would crash before loading. On some peoples computers it would just crash out without even starting. I hadnt changed anything on my site at all, just added that. It was fine before it :).
    Thursday 21 October 2010 12:36:30
  • angadnadk

    Why fix what ain't broken? The aim of standardizing markup is to have no implementation-based differences. If Google can do a good job at that, then there isn't any need for it to comply to a third party's standards, no matter how popular that third party be.
    Thursday 02 September 2010 05:05:48
  • Karackal

    @rickvidallon "Validation does not guarantee a site will look the same from platform to platform, from browser to browser. " This isn't a bug, it's a feature! HTML is intended to define the markup and then every browser on every device does its best at rendering it according to its capabilities, screen size, etc.. Designers want their babies to look the same pixel by pixel everywhere but that just isn't how it is meant to be. Designers not getting this cause a lot of pain for their users :-(
    Thursday 26 August 2010 03:14:14
  • 501airborneasycompam

    geek reatade 
    Tuesday 27 July 2010 12:16:58
  • OBJECTlVITY

    :: these idiots :: are now FORCING us to sign in, in order to change THAT STUPID mandatory background on google page ! They want us to sign in perhaps to trace OUR search ! who is SEARCHING WHAT. I do not see any other reason why they want to FORCE us to sign in in order to SEARCH !
    Thursday 10 June 2010 00:31:42
  • e2kkot

    why would it validate? There are like 100 000 sites which actually validate. There is no SEO value in W3C compliance, so nobody cares about it.
    Saturday 01 May 2010 12:53:21
  • websitedesign4

    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....
    Tuesday 02 February 2010 13:15:40
  • gosko

    "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.
    Thursday 28 January 2010 16:35:22
  • jarrod1937

    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...
    Thursday 28 January 2010 16:04:45
  • jarrod1937

    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.
    Thursday 28 January 2010 15:59:20
  • 2008stargate

    better idear how about thay check the sponsered link more often it used to have a link to a pedophil site
    Thursday 05 November 2009 17:32:10
  • BirminghamDan

    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.
    Saturday 24 October 2009 16:36:46
  • xdragus

    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.
    Monday 19 October 2009 16:03:12
  • ceusa

    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.
    Monday 19 October 2009 14:16:13
  • EpicDewd

    Thank you!
    Sunday 18 October 2009 00:37:11
  • ParisVegaMedia

    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?
    Sunday 11 October 2009 23:25:03
ADVERTISEMENT
Supplements
Social Network
Tag cloud
Go to top
Copyright © 2010 Prise1