Why is Google's HTML so bad?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Mark, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Mark

    Mark Guest

    Check out this page:

    http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/

    No doctype, table layout, presentation attributes, font tags...

    If somebody posted this page here for a critique it would be ripped to
    shreds.

    Run it through the W3C validator:

    ---8<---
    No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with HTML 4.01 Transitional.
    Failed validation, 120 Errors
    --->8---

    HTML has to be pretty bad to fail validation against HTML 4.01
    Transitional, and with no less than 120 errors.

    Is this also a clue that Google doesn't really care about the quality of
    HTML when ranking pages?
    Mark, Nov 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 30 Nov, 16:34, Mark <> wrote:

    > Is this also a clue that Google doesn't really care about the quality of
    > HTML when ranking pages?


    No, because Google has grown to the size of being a Big Dumb
    Corporate. People who grok HTML scraping don't get to influence its
    generation on their own pages. Take a look at groups.google !

    My own hobbby-horse with Google is the bad and resource-leaky
    JavaScript in their client-side tools.
    Andy Dingley, Nov 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Nov 30, 10:34 am, Mark <> wrote:
    > Check out this page:
    >
    > http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/
    >
    > No doctype, table layout, presentation attributes, font tags...
    >
    > If somebody posted this page here for a critique it would be ripped to
    > shreds.
    >
    > Run it through the W3C validator:
    >
    > ---8<---
    > No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with HTML 4.01 Transitional.
    > Failed validation, 120 Errors
    > --->8---
    >
    > HTML has to be pretty bad to fail validation against HTML 4.01
    > Transitional, and with no less than 120 errors.
    >
    > Is this also a clue that Google doesn't really care about the quality of
    > HTML when ranking pages?


    You are using the UK Google site. The page structure and code on the
    US Google site is somewhat different. However, validate
    http://groups.google.com/grphp?tab=wg . It has 558 validation errors.
    The home page for Microsoft has over 30 validation errors. The home
    pages for Firefox and Opera validate. Many sites of large corporations
    have been up many years and have just been patched from time to time.
    As a result they are a tag soup of many versions of html and sometimes
    xhtml and will validate as nothing. They tend to get fixed only to
    correct a problem produced by an upgrade of some browser, and the fix
    is often the minimum that will get rid of the problem - not a complete
    rewrite of the site in valid code. One could neary say, the larger the
    corporation and the older their web site, the more validation errors
    it has. I suspect that because the code on many sites is extremely
    long and would require much time to update, the powers-that-be in the
    corporation see no need to spend a lot of money to update the site to
    modern code and take the attitude that the site should just be kept
    working with the minimum cost for writing code.
    cwdjrxyz, Nov 30, 2007
    #3
  4. Mark wrote:

    > Check out this page:
    >
    > http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/
    >
    > No doctype, table layout, presentation attributes, font tags...
    >
    > If somebody posted this page here for a critique it would be ripped to
    > shreds.
    >
    > Run it through the W3C validator:
    >
    > ---8<---
    > No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with HTML 4.01 Transitional.
    > Failed validation, 120 Errors
    > --->8---
    >
    > HTML has to be pretty bad to fail validation against HTML 4.01
    > Transitional, and with no less than 120 errors.
    >
    > Is this also a clue that Google doesn't really care about the quality of
    > HTML when ranking pages?


    Google doesn't care about anything except profit, Mark.

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 30, 2007
    #4
  5. On Nov 30, 1:10 pm, Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
    > Mark wrote:
    > > Check out this page:

    >
    > >http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/

    >
    > > No doctype, table layout, presentation attributes, font tags...

    >
    > > If somebody posted this page here for a critique it would be ripped to
    > > shreds.

    >
    > > Run it through the W3C validator:

    >
    > > ---8<---
    > > No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with HTML 4.01 Transitional.
    > > Failed validation, 120 Errors
    > > --->8---

    >
    > > HTML has to be pretty bad to fail validation against HTML 4.01
    > > Transitional, and with no less than 120 errors.

    >
    > > Is this also a clue that Google doesn't really care about the quality of
    > > HTML when ranking pages?

    >
    > Google doesn't care about anything except profit, Mark.
    >
    > --
    > Blinky
    > Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project -http://improve-usenet.org- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    A business should be concerned about profit. Anyway, your statement
    isn't true. They have recently become a major player in the green
    energy business and their corporate philosophy towards their own
    people is excellent.
    Helpful person, Nov 30, 2007
    #5
  6. Mark

    asdf Guest

    [snip]
    >
    > A business should be concerned about profit. Anyway, your statement
    > isn't true. They have recently become a major player in the green
    > energy business and their corporate philosophy towards their own
    > people is excellent.


    Sounds like good, profit enhancing business practices to me ;)
    asdf, Nov 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Mark

    John Clayton Guest

    "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Many sites of large corporations
    > have been up many years and have just been patched from time to time.
    > As a result they are a tag soup of many versions of html and sometimes
    > xhtml and will validate as nothing. They tend to get fixed only to
    > correct a problem produced by an upgrade of some browser, and the fix
    > is often the minimum that will get rid of the problem - not a complete
    > rewrite of the site in valid code. One could neary say, the larger the
    > corporation and the older their web site, the more validation errors
    > it has. I suspect that because the code on many sites is extremely
    > long and would require much time to update, the powers-that-be in the
    > corporation see no need to spend a lot of money to update the site to
    > modern code and take the attitude that the site should just be kept
    > working with the minimum cost for writing code.



    Never mind big companies, same pretty well applies to our tiny,
    insignificant company.
    we try (tried) to write compliantly, then altered things about (often) over
    several years and ended up with the "tag soup" described above.
    To be honest, when you're trying to do all the other stuff in a business as
    well, working out staff wages, chasing debtors, making things, persuing
    work, learning to spell :) Compliance with legislation, elven safety,
    languages.
    Well we try to write good html but, given the choice of the pub on the way
    home or studying the latest css.....what would most people do?
    But thanks for all the good stuff (and humour) I enjoy on here!

    John
    www.ossettmouldings.com
    - for info. only, please don't critique - certainly not brutally
    John Clayton, Dec 7, 2007
    #7
  8. Mark

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:10:40
    GMT John Clayton scribed:

    > Never mind big companies, same pretty well applies to our tiny,
    > insignificant company.
    > we try (tried) to write compliantly, then altered things about (often)
    > over several years and ended up with the "tag soup" described above.
    > To be honest, when you're trying to do all the other stuff in a
    > business as well, working out staff wages, chasing debtors, making
    > things, persuing work, learning to spell :) Compliance with
    > legislation, elven safety, languages.
    > Well we try to write good html but, given the choice of the pub on the
    > way home or studying the latest css.....what would most people do?


    Dunno, but the correct answer is easy. Simply take the w3c specs to the
    pub with you. They look better after a few brews, anyway, and you can
    always "accidentally" leave them there.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Dec 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Mark

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Dec 10, 7:45 pm, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:10:40
    > GMT John Clayton scribed:
    >
    > > Never mind big companies, same pretty well applies to our tiny,
    > > insignificant company.
    > > we try (tried) to write compliantly, then altered things about (often)
    > > over several years and ended up with the "tag soup" described above.
    > > To be honest, when you're trying to do all the other stuff in a
    > > business as well, working out staff wages, chasing debtors, making
    > > things, persuing work, learning to spell :) Compliance with
    > > legislation, elven safety, languages.
    > > Well we try to write good html but, given the choice of the pub on the
    > > way home or studying the latest css.....what would most people do?

    >
    > Dunno, but the correct answer is easy. Simply take the w3c specs to the
    > pub with you. They look better after a few brews, anyway, and you can
    > always "accidentally" leave them there.
    >

    I at times have a few drinks when working on websites, then I discover
    that stuff does not line up correctly and manage to fix the site
    before it goes live.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Dec 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Mark

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:44 GMT
    Chaddy2222 scribed:

    >> > Well we try to write good html but, given the choice of the pub on the
    >> > way home or studying the latest css.....what would most people do?

    >>
    >> Dunno, but the correct answer is easy. Simply take the w3c specs to the
    >> pub with you. They look better after a few brews, anyway, and you can
    >> always "accidentally" leave them there.
    >>

    > I at times have a few drinks when working on websites, then I discover
    > that stuff does not line up correctly and manage to fix the site
    > before it goes live.


    Heck, I'll go ya one better than that. If the site don't "line up" right,
    I call the customer immediately and convince him that he has to look at it
    a certain way for it to work...

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Dec 10, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    849
  2. Eric Anderson

    Bad Transform or Bad Engine?

    Eric Anderson, Oct 4, 2005, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    363
    Peter Flynn
    Oct 5, 2005
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    855
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,744
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  5. rantingrick
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,165
    Peter Pearson
    Jul 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page