Do you validate you websites?

[alfredopalconit]

i think its best to comply and get used to it. who knows, when this becomes a ranking factor, your sites already have an advantage because of what your decided to comply from the beginning.

[Thos003]

I don't validate my website... but neither does Google.

[DavidKauzlaric]

It's very important to my company that all websites for our clients validate. Why? Because we feel they pay for a service and we want to provide the highest quality service.

It's like building a house and not sticking to code. We'd rather stick to code and do it the "right" way, rather than just have something that "works".

It's also a sales tool! Because none of our competitors build sites that are compliant, our sales guys use this and it works well. We explain what W3C is, why it's important, and although it doesn't help rankings, we feel it's important because it's simply a matter of doing it the right way. They like that!

[petrakraft]

Hi David, thank you for your reply.

Would you mind sharing your arguments why you find it is important? I would be curious how many pros you find - I like your point of view.

[DavidKauzlaric]

Sure.

We do it because it's a great sales tool. Rarely do we ever find a competitor that builds W3C valid websites. In our sales pitch we talk about how our websites are W3C valid, it's adhering to a set of rules and guidelines and it's cleaner code generally which can increase load times.

We tell them they can display a W3C valid button on their site, most of them like that.

It's also a matter of doing things the right way... you can build a frame out of anything but there is a right way and a wrong way to build a door frame. We choose to do it all according to standards and best practices.

It's almost like a committment to excellence type of thing.

[Guest]

This post is deleted!

[NickPateman81]

I find the w3 validator to be more of an accolade than anything else. You're right about them not influencing rankings - there's so many practices that don't validate but actually lead to an unchanged or even improved UX.

IMO, getting w3 validation is like getting MozPoints, except MozPoints are worth something But that's not to say I'm knocking anyone who does follow validator guidelines - fair play to them!

[petrakraft]

New webmaster video from Matt Cutts about that topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XlKn6I9rSc

[Thos003]

Like I said.... Google doesn't validate their website... Of course, Danny answered this question for Matt, sooooo.... there is no official statement from Google on this one.

[SteveOllington]

We don't bother, I know we probably should but half of the sites we work on are CMS which just don't validate well anyway. Plus it takes time, which could be spent on more SEO

[gregalam]

It depends on the project. I find that it is sometimes plugins that make my code not validate. If the plugin is so useful and that site renders fine in all the major browsers, I stick with the what I have, even if it doesn't validate.

[Entrusteddev]

I always validate HTML with sites I'm working on, particularly if has been coded by a third party. My reasons for doing so are a careful balance between ensuring spiders can crawl the page without bumping hideous html errors and ensuring a website is accessible on as many devices/browsers.

If the webpage doesn't adhere to standards it could indicate issues with viewing the pages correctly in the myriad of browsers and devices out there. So theres a User Experience issue to consider.

[Guest]

This post is deleted!

[Matrix2]

I am with you on this. Good to check for any issues. Before focusing on SEO, functionality if my main concern.