W3C My site has 157 Errors, 146 warning(s) Is it an issue?

[AshShep1]

Is having this number of W3C errors & warnings an issue and will be impacting my site's performance?

When the site was built 6 months ago my developers told me that it "was nothing to worry about", but I have read that any errors aren't good, let alone the huge number my site has?

Your advice please

Thanks

Ash

[vmialik]

Hi Ash,

Most would say the validator is at times too strict or in some ways moving slower to the changing technology.  A good example is doing a validation for facebook.com still yields 45 errors, and 4 warnings.

Now 156 errors may be significant, depending on the errors. But assuming your developers did a good job, those might be things that may or may not be significant. For example nytimes.com has 500+ errors. Does that mean their site is slow or broken, not necessarily. It is interesting that you are asking about this 6 months since this issue was brought up and not right then and there

The first check I would run, is actual performance check on your site here is are good options for you: http://www.webpagetest.org/

You can test various browsers, internet connections, and locations, to see if the results are reasonable for your situation. Also posting your error codes here would help and one of us can help you and actually tell you if your errors are a big deal or not!

Hope this helps!

[AshShep1]

Hi Vadim here is the URL for the W3C results

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.over50choices.co.uk%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

On the other URL checker you gave me the site scored 3 F's & 3 A's but i am not sure whether that is good or bad.

I queried these issues with my developer when they launched the site but was told not to worry about it, but as my knowledge has grown I am not sure whether i should be worrying about it or not!?

I have posted other questions on Moz recently about why i can see x2 menus when looking at google cache of site & why you can only see  the site in text and not the full version?

Plus using SEOTools crawler tool it shows me all the HTML coding aswell as body text when i do a keyword search?

Hopefully the W3C results will help you or someone shed some light on whether i am ok of not?

Thanks

Ash

[vmialik]

"On the other URL checker you gave me the site scored 3 F's & 3 A's but i am not sure whether that is good or bad."

I use that test mainly to test the load times 1st and reload times, here are your results:

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140208_3Y_B5M/

This was run for 1.5DSL connection from London, UK. 18sec and 10sec is def on the slower side, and caching could definitely help. As you want to aim for 2-5sec loads.

But roughly looking at the validation errors I didnt spot anything that would decrease your performance, in your case the performance is mostly likely not due to the validations. Again I just did a rough look through, so dont take my words for fact. Maybe others can chime in if they see something out of the ordinary with the errors.

[chanel27]

My website that is ranking well has errors too:

Result: 59 Errors, 4 warning(s)

So far the site is still ranking well so i am not very worried.
But i know my friend who engaged in an India SEO company to solve his problem.