Why doesn’t google.com validate?
Exclusive video!
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
Why doesn’t google.com validate?
Exclusive video!
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
Subscribe to comments on this post
- OBJECTlVITY
July 23rd, 2010 - 11:23:: 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 !
- e2kkot
July 23rd, 2010 - 11:40why 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.
- websitedesign4
July 23rd, 2010 - 12:36The 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….
“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.
- jarrod1937
July 23rd, 2010 - 13:57Then 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…
- jarrod1937
July 23rd, 2010 - 14:53Well 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.
- 2008stargate
July 23rd, 2010 - 15:24better idear how about thay check the sponsered link more often it used to have a link to a pedophil site
- BirminghamDan
July 23rd, 2010 - 15:32google 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.
- xdragus
July 23rd, 2010 - 15:51If 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.
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.
- EpicDewd
July 23rd, 2010 - 16:50Thank you!
- ParisVegaMedia
July 23rd, 2010 - 17:10Wow… 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?
- XaviersSecretary
July 23rd, 2010 - 17:45I 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
. - CisMediaGuy
July 23rd, 2010 - 18:15Basically 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.
- vrajesh
July 23rd, 2010 - 18:51Well, 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.
- alundraandseptimus
July 23rd, 2010 - 19:24Agreed!! That code actually CRASHED my site for IE users. And when that happened, it was IE7, IE8 hadnt popped up yet.
- woodsandhillsplc
July 23rd, 2010 - 19:40Agreed, in that it is annoying when Google code for third party things like Analytics mess up your validation.
- alundraandseptimus
July 23rd, 2010 - 20:21Well it would be nice if you made the apps validate at least. Either way it’s a pisspoor excuse if you ask me.
- SpartanPikachu117
July 23rd, 2010 - 20:42blah blah blah blaw
- madmad5000
July 23rd, 2010 - 20:49This realy sux. I understand that idiots are treated the same as professionals….
- DragonMasterMarf
July 23rd, 2010 - 21:05Don’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.
- almightyvegeta87
July 23rd, 2010 - 21:30Vast majority is referred to Blogger blogs which returns tons of validation errors.
If Google does not care about validation then nobody should care.
- sayweb
July 23rd, 2010 - 21:48who do you think google will hire for PR? Sylvester Stalonne?
- sayweb
July 23rd, 2010 - 22:24brilliant as usual….
- rickvidallon
July 23rd, 2010 - 23:05W3C 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.
Leave a comment
No trackbacks yet.
The band “Duran Duran” got their name from an astronaut in the 1968 Jane Fonda movie “Barbarella.”
Copyright 2009 Jellofart - Advertise With Us Jellofart Home | About Jellofart | Contact (Annoy) Jellofart | Shop our Store | Our Privacy Policy
July 23rd, 2010 - 11:23
:: 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 !
July 23rd, 2010 - 11:40
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 12:36
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….
July 23rd, 2010 - 13:02
“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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 13:57
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…
July 23rd, 2010 - 14:53
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 15:24
better idear how about thay check the sponsered link more often it used to have a link to a pedophil site
July 23rd, 2010 - 15:32
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 15:51
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 16:34
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 16:50
Thank you!
July 23rd, 2010 - 17:10
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?
July 23rd, 2010 - 17:45
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
.
July 23rd, 2010 - 18:15
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 18:51
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 19:24
Agreed!! That code actually CRASHED my site for IE users. And when that happened, it was IE7, IE8 hadnt popped up yet.
July 23rd, 2010 - 19:40
Agreed, in that it is annoying when Google code for third party things like Analytics mess up your validation.
July 23rd, 2010 - 20:21
Well it would be nice if you made the apps validate at least. Either way it’s a pisspoor excuse if you ask me.
July 23rd, 2010 - 20:42
blah blah blah blaw
July 23rd, 2010 - 20:49
This realy sux. I understand that idiots are treated the same as professionals….
July 23rd, 2010 - 21:05
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.
July 23rd, 2010 - 21:30
Vast majority is referred to Blogger blogs which returns tons of validation errors.
If Google does not care about validation then nobody should care.
July 23rd, 2010 - 21:48
who do you think google will hire for PR? Sylvester Stalonne?
July 23rd, 2010 - 22:24
brilliant as usual….
July 23rd, 2010 - 23:05
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.