Timeline for W3C Compliance v SEO
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2011 at 22:30 | comment | added | John Conde♦ | It is a dupe indeed. Nice catch. | |
| Oct 27, 2011 at 21:24 | comment | added | Osvaldo | I've removed it. | |
| Oct 27, 2011 at 21:22 | comment | added | Su' | @JohnConde Is HTML validation necessary for ranking? from mid-March 2011 still basically says no. Osvaldo, unless you can back up the validation comment better, I'd remove it. (Though I do still think the question should be closed as a dupe.) | |
| Oct 27, 2011 at 21:17 | history | edited | Osvaldo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Edited as I couldn't find reputable source for the previous clame
|
| Oct 27, 2011 at 21:14 | comment | added | Osvaldo | I can't find the original article (I've searched for it), but it was an article about new quality indicators. That included that a site would rank better if it would met a number of (new) quality indicators. For example I remember a reputable author/editor, less spelling mistakes, speed, and cleaner html code. I'll edit my answer. "penalize" is a strong word and what I've read is that it would be one of many many quality indicators. | |
| Oct 27, 2011 at 20:22 | comment | added | John Conde♦ | Can you post a link for that bit about Google penalizing sites for excessive HTML errors? I'd like to give that a read. | |
| Oct 27, 2011 at 20:14 | history | answered | Osvaldo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |