Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Why is Google's HTML so bad?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why is Google's HTML so bad?

 
 
Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
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?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
On 30 Nov, 16:34, Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
On Nov 30, 10:34 am, Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
On Nov 30, 1:10 pm, Blinky the Shark <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
asdf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
[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


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Clayton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2007

"cwdjrxyz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bone Ur
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2007
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chaddy2222
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2007
On Dec 10, 7:45 pm, Bone Ur <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bone Ur
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2007
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
firefox html, my downloaded html and firebug html different? Adam Akhtar Ruby 9 08-16-2008 07:55 PM
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM
Why Why Why You HAVE NO IDEA MCSE 31 04-24-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments