W3C validation? Does it really matter? Not always!

[AriGold]

I will admit that I don't place much value on W3C validation as I prefer to test my sites in the major browsers myself for errors/problems since their heavy use of Flash, Javascript integration with PHP and MySql.

However, the concept of W3C validation is overrated as Most of the world's most popular websites don't pass W3C validation (as tested at validator.w3.org)

ebay.com - 487 Errors, 25 warning(s)

espn.go.com - 439 Errors, 300 warning(s)

cnn.com- 82 Errors, 12 warning(s)

guardian.co.uk - 69 Errors, 28 warning(s)

smh.com.au - 241 Errors, 312 warning(s)

besthostingforums.com - 66 Errors, 2 warning(s) <---- This forum

pandora.com - 70 Errors, 32 warning(s)

google.com - 70 Errors, 32 warning(s)

myspace.com - 41 Errors, 2 warning(s)

Neither Facebook.com or Twitter.com doesn't pass W3C validation


Only 1 (MSN.com) of the world's most popular websites pass W3C validation.

bing.com - failed W3C validation
wordpress.com - failed W3C validation
sina.com - failed W3C validation
Mozilla.com - failed W3C validation
QQ.com - failed W3C validation
Baidu.com - failed W3C validation
Blogspot.com - failed W3C validation
Microsoft.com - failed W3C validation
MSN.com - Passed
Wikipedia.org - failed W3C validation
Live.com - failed W3C validation
Yahoo.com - failed W3C validation
Google.com - failed W3C validation

However, it never hurts to clean up some code so i try and take a few minutes and fix some of the W3C nags. I like to call them 'nags' instead of errors, since W3C seems to put more emphasis on the issues they find when validating your code than do most modern browsers.

Luckily for us, most of the W3C error nags are complete BS anyway such as onSubmit being invalid in XHTML DOCS which requires all lowercase and is ignored in major browsers and functions just fine.

So, I don't think anyone should be losing sleep over not passing W3C validation as long as you take the time to test your site on the major browsers.

Additionally, there is no penalty not passing W3C validation in regards to search engine ranking and does not have a direct impact on Google rankings, especially since Google?s pages themselves do not validate.

My opinion is that if a website will run on Internet Explorer (IE7+) without errors then you're probably pretty safe being able to reach 99% of your website's users since everyone knows Internet Explorer is the biggest piece of shit on the planet.

I know I've opened a can of worms with this one. What are your thoughts?

AriGold Reviewed by AriGold on 5th Jun 2011. W3C validation? Does it really matter? Not always! I will admit that I don't place much value on W3C validation as I prefer to test my sites in the major browsers myself for errors/problems since their heavy use of Flash, Javascript integration with PHP and MySql. However, the concept of W3C validation is overrated as Most of the world's most popular websites don't pass W3C validation (as tested at validator.w3.org) ebay.com - 487 Errors, 25 warning(s) espn.go.com - 439 Errors, 300 warning(s) cnn.com- 82 Errors, 12 warning(s) Rating: 5

[eLight]

It's an interesting discussion. Everyone seems to state that validation matters, though at the end of the day there's not really a whole lot of evidence to back that up. At least from my personal experience.

I've seen sites with all round similar audiences, similar types of content and even similar styles though one may or may not validate better than the other it made no difference in terms of SEO.

In fact, a site I once worked on put a fair amount of effort into SEO, wasn't a great deal but the thought was still there. In the end, more focus was put onto user experience and even though the design itself never validated perfectly the end result was better. As is said in business it's easier to retain a customer than to obtain a customer.

I am not saying it's good to ignore validation, not at all. In fact I plan on validating KWWH one of these days. But the argument remains whether or not it's critical or even factored into SEO results or have an outcome on a sites popularity. I personally believe that if you can validate a page, validate it. You're not losing out on anything by doing so, except for perhaps the opportunity cost which could have been used on creating a new feature, etc. I guess the concept of "do it once, do it right" will always be there anyway.

Food for thought...

[v0lt]

The real question is, why not to validate your site?

[DoctorX]

It is hard to full validate a website.
But still better to improve what you can improve.