|
|
|
Written by Thomas Schmitz August 3, 2007 My Turn: W3C Web Standards & SEO> I constantly read SEO's disclaiming web standards> and its relative importance to SEO. Considering, I'll > toss in my 2 cents into the discussion... - Al Toman, LED Digest 2461 I must admit a selfish joy when I read articles about the relationship between SEO and W3C standards. Think of the maniacal laugh that a stereotypical child aged evil genius scientist might utter in his (or her if you must break from the stereotype) laboratory. I like watching business-masochists flailing themselves against figurative walls stuccoed with broken glass, especially when they do it so needlessly... Why? Because it is like comparing steel girders and glass (the not broken kind). Both are used in the construction of buildings, and buildings must be designed and constructed properly, but steel girders and glass have little to do with each other beyond the fact that if a steel girder is sticking through your window space it will be difficult to install the glass. Here are the relationships between W3C standards and SEO.
W3C validation, and similarly accessibility and usability, are all noble tools and causes. As an SEO consultant I recommend them often, not for their primary effects, but because they often lead to indirect improvements that make websites rank better.
Now, here is the important part. As an SEO consultant and as a marketing professional I do not constrain myself to third party validation. My directive is to accomplish everything I can to help clients succeed. If I can move a document from a number 7 ranking to number 3 by inserting two <title >Title Elements</title >, and if I do not have to fear a penalty or ban, then I am going to insert two title elements. If I find that not closing stand alone tags, like <br / >, will help the ranking cause, then I am going to include them as < br>. Lucky for me, search engine spiders are robust litter critters. They are designed to access and overcome a myriad of coding styles and mistakes. Google and the other companies are wise. They do not care about the standard. They care about what real people do in real situations. Why would I exclude myself or my clients from this generosity, especially if it can be harnessed to earn better rankings? So, while you are hanging perilously from your steel girder, I will sit comfortably in my window sill and enjoy a cool beverage. Thomas M. Schmitz SEO Analyst Social Media Marketing Consultant Portent Interactive  this post appeared in
LED Digest 2462Comments (1)
Chris Nielsen
said:
|
|||
| I agree that we as SEOs should do things that will help a client, if there is no harm. But the key here is both that there is no harm and that the client understands what is being done. The reason I would not put two title tags on a client's site are because 1)It could be discovered by a search engine and hurt the site, 2)It could be reported and hurt the site, and 3)It makes the client and/or me look like a spammer and can hurt my reputation, EVEN if it does help the client. And where exactly does one stop with this kind of thinking? Perhaps if two title tags are good, maybe three are better? I often report sites that have this kind of junk. My first reaction is that it's a coding error by a sloppy designer or SEO. But if there's a lot then I report it as spam. If the client is aware of the risk involved, then I don't see a problem, but otherwise I feel it's unprefessional at best. |
Write comment
