W3C Validation for SEO – Myth and Reality

A topic that has been discussed extensively by some people in the SEO community is the notion that having a W3C compliant web site is either critical to SEO or it’s not.  Most recently, Edward Lewis and I debated back and forth on Twitter, with Edward holding firm to his long-standing position that compliance is necessary and me taking the stand that 100% compliance is not necessarily a factor in ranking. This latest back and forth was prompted by a tweet I posted while listening to Matt Cutts being interviewed by WebProNews during SMX West.  In that tweet, I summed up what Matt had said regarding SEO and having a site that passes code validation.   My tweet stated : W3C compliance is NOT an SEO factor to Google #MattCuttsQuote #SMX Edward then followed up to our Twitter conversation on this by writing a very lengthy and quite detailed article backing up his position on the matter.  I’ll leave it up to you to take the time to read that article yourselves.   And here, I would like to speak to my own position and the logic behind it. How Much Compliance Is Important? If the goal is to ensure that a client site has the best possible chance at it’s highest organic rankings, then we need to acknowledge that even just factoring in Google, there are about 200 indicators to consider.  Now, I don’t know about you, but here’s the reality.  With 200 factors to consider, I also have just as much of a responsibility to my clients to focus on those factors that I believe will yield the most results for the investment of time and resources. Because of this, I do not check client web sites for 100% W3C compliance as part of my audits.  Even though having a site 100% compliant with W3C standards is a best practice concept, I am not a web developer.  And I have not been hired to ensure that W3C compliance is being met in every way possible. So if a page has an opening paragraph tag without it’s subsequent closing tag, I don’t ultimately care as much to document such findings. Sure, it might only take me a few minutes to run compliance tests.  But as Edward is so capable of doing, documenting a site’s shortcomings at that level could, potentially, just as easily take hours – if you’re going to include details on how to resolve those specific problems.  Multiply that by cross-browser testing work.  Because we all know perfectly well that not one single web browser truly complies 100% with W3C compliance either. So just because a site is 100% compliant doesn’t even mean it’s going to be properly displayed across web browsers.  And that means compliance isn’t so straight forward either. Maximized Return On Recommendations There are so many other fish to fry, that I need to use my time wisely.  Telling clients that their site is not properly validating due to some P tag problem might earn me a pat on the back for being thorough.  Yet if they fix that issue, I do not believe it’s going to have enough of a positive impact on their SEO as compared to them focusing on any one of the dozens of other action items I usually come up with that are direct SEO issues. Competitive Reality Here’s where the two camps differ.  In one camp, if a site is not 100% compliant, it’s not a truly optimized site.  In the other camp, if a site, when held up to the competitive landscape, is just as fast, and has just enough compliance aspects to get by, then an SEO focus is better spent on quality content depth, site architecture from a content topic relationship perspective, internal and external link depth and relationships. Limited Budgetary Resources How many clients do you have where the budget for web initiatives is unlimited? Maybe I don’t work with the right clients, because none of my clients has EVER fit that bill.  Instead, they’ve got specific budgetary parameters from within which they can work.  And if a 5,000 page site has to have its entire dynamically generated URL structure rebuilt from the ground up in order to address just the Page Title to URL relationship for SEO, I guarantee you that this task is infinitely more critical, being specific to SEO, than ensuring there’s a proper closing to a paragraph tag. No Disrespect Now this isn’t about disrespect to people who believe that strict W3C compliance is important.  Let’s face it – while most of us in the SEO industry know that we can make use of image alternate attributes, personally, I make sure I’m very careful in clarifying to clients that making use of them is first and foremost an issue of providing content to visually impaired people that helps them understand the purpose of an image they may not see.  With that caveat in place, I then go on to communicate how this is an opportunity for SEO because the search engines interpret images on a page to be one indicator as to the purpose of that page. So if I have to choose between instructing my clients to work on the alternate attributes of their site’s photos or alternately, making sure paragraph tags are closed, given those aforementioned budgetary limits, I’m always going to go with the one that’s going to help the search engines learn more about the page’s focus or purpose.  Whether a paragraph tag is closed or not does not help or hurt this either way. W3C Standards For SEO In addition to the image alternate attribute, there are several other HTML standard tags, that when properly used (in accordance with W3C guidelines for valid coding of web pages), are clearly SEO best practices as well. Whether it’s proper use of header tags, bolding, bullet point implementation, or any one of dozens upon dozens of elements to HTML, it’s clear that a site IS better off from an SEO perspective, when that site meets those standards. Heck, if a site is so botched up in the validation process, it’s even possible that Google won’t even be able to index it. The Elephant In The Room We Can’t Ignore Any discussion about validation and SEO must, by nature of this arena, include addressing the primary causality of 100% validation not being a “have to”.  One that Validation evangelists refuse to acknowledge as being a serious consideration. There are many millions of sites that already exist,  and millions more being deployed all the time, that are NOT 100% compliant. I’m not here to debate the cause of that or rail against anyone who might have caused it.  Heck.  My own sites fail to meet complete validation.  Because, as stated earlier, I am NOT a developer.  I use OFF THE SHELF solutions.  Programmed by other people.  Because that is what I felt was justifiable in costs to create my own sites. And that’s just reality. If any of the top search engines were to put more emphasis on w3C compliance than on those aspects that help the engine learn the purpose of a site or indicate importance of specific content, or help indicate 3rd party verification of a specific site’s authority, then the SERPs would be spitting out even more garbage than they do now.  Honestly. At The End Of The Day That’s what it really comes down to at the end of the day.  Because even if they DID say compliance is a factor, they could NEVER say it’s more important than those factors that are currently most important.  Because at the end of the day, if two sites are both fully compliant, that’s a one-time thing.  Either they are compliant, or they’re not.  But if two sites have different depth of content, the amount on one site or the other can change at any time.  And the relationships between pages can continually change. And the number of other sites that mention or link to either can change.  Frequently. And even if I tell my clients they have to get their sites to validate, in cases other than ones similar to those I describe here that are clearly specific to SEO, that validation is NOT going to move my client’s site up in the SERPs.  Because while they were busy revamping their P tags, sixty of their competitors were adding new content.  Or building quality inbound links. Yeah, But … Okay so I just said that ensuring a site validates for things that are not specific to current SEO isn’t necessary. Well, if that’s the case, then why is half the SEO industry freaking out over page speed? Clearly, on the surface, page speed has nothing to do with SEO. Except Google has given enough indication now that we are recommending page speed issues be addressed. Because Google has changed their tune. They say that a faster page load is providing a better user experience. Well surely then, if that’s the case, what’s to stop them from saying that 100% validation is also providing a better user experience? Simple. It’s that pesky P tag. Let me know when that changes. Alan Bleiweiss has been an Internet professional since 1995, managing client projects valued at upwards of $2,000,000.00.  Just a few of his most notable clients through the years have included PCH.com, WeightWatchers.com, and Starkist.com.  Follow him on Twitter @AlanBleiweiss , read his blog at Search Marketing Wisdom , and be sure to read his column here at SearchEngineJournal.com the 2nd and 4th Tuesday each month. Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal . W3C Validation for SEO – Myth and

Anatomy of a Hands-on SEO Audit – Part 2

With SMX West this week, I was going to hold off on the 2nd part of my hands-on SEO Audit series.  Then I remembered that heck – I’m not going to be there so I bet enough other people in our industry won’t either that it will be a great way to give all the non-attendees a leg-up on the competition, as they all run around the conference hoping to grab actionable information.  icon smile Anatomy of a Hands on SEO Audit – Part 2 If you haven’t read part 1 in this series, I encourage you to go read that first since it sets the foundation for what follows here.  Go ahead – I’ll wait. Okay did you actually think I was going to wait for you to read that before I continued writing?  I sure hope not.  Because if you did, you seriously need to work on your gullibility.  If you’re too gullible, you’re going to get toasted in this industry.  icon smile Anatomy of a Hands on SEO Audit – Part 2 Also while you’re at it, another other great resource I highly recommend when it comes time to writing up an SEO audit is Glen Gabe’s  “ SEO Techinical Audits “. Don’t Give Away The Farm In this part of the series, I’d like to focus more on some of the things that should and shouldn’t go into an SEO audit.  This seems to be one of  the biggest areas of confusion for consultants just starting out.  And as I mentioned in part 1: a site Audit isn’t supposed to be an advanced course in SEO.  It’s to point out problems and recommend methods of solution. If a client is curious to know how I came to my recommendation, we’ll discuss that during the phone or in-person review of the audit, but only in broad terms.  Because I expect my clients to trust that I know what I’m talking about, not teach them my business.  That’s not why they’re hiring me.   Aaron Wall came out with an article today entitled “ How to Construct Great Proposals “.  In that, he offers his own take on why we shouldn’t be giving away the farm. Yeah. Go read that.  I’ll just wait.  Again.  Because I care. The fact is, I used to give away the farm.  We’re talking about detailing every single step of work – providing spreadsheets with page names, suggested page Titles, Meta content, URL seeding, and even suggested copy. And that was professional self-sabotage.  Both because it took a lot longer to produce my audit/action plans, and because it set me up to have the client think they didn’t need me for anything.  Which is just crazy.  Right? Now, I couldn’t do that on a large scale site, but then I used to only think I should work on small sites anyhow.  Which in itself was self-sabotage. Not because I think there’s anything wrong with small business sites.  It’s just that it turns out that when I focus on big clients, it’s much more likely that they’ll have the budget needed for truly comprehensive SEO.  And in turn, that they’ll be much more likely to appreciate the work and respect my knowledge. Limit What You Give Away As I began focusing on clients that had the mind-set that SEO is a front-line critical aspect of most any marketing effort, I began paring down the document, and only including EXAMPLES of my findings and subsequent recommendation. Sure, they’re real-world examples – taken right from that client’s site.  Which gives validation to what I’m saying is both a current challenge AND an industry best practices resolution.  And, too, even with only a few examples of each specific issue, I cover so many aspects of SEO that it really ends up being a soup-to-nuts comprehensive document in how thorough it is.   And the overall depth of it far outweighs, in long-term value, what most of my competitors provide. Don’t Give Away What You’re Giving Away Now if you remember, even in this type of scenario, I do NOT give away even this much information for free.  I charge for my audits.  By charging for audits, you immediately inform the prospective client that you’re serious.  A true professional.  That if they want access to your knowledge, they’re going to need to prove THEY’RE serious about this. How much you charge is going to be up to you.  It needs to be commensurate with your experience, as well as your own belief in what you do and why you do it.  If you think you don’t deserve to get $1,000 or $5,000 for a site audit, you won’t ever get that.  Or if you do, it’s going to turn out to be a night-mare of a client relationship.  Because you’ll feel guilty.  And think you have to give away the farm in some other way to compensate. Example Data Whether you choose to use spreadsheets, or PowerPoint presentations, or a high-gloss full color bound book isn’t ever as important as the quality of the information you provide within the document.  So be sure to focus more on the quality of the content.  Just like you’re doing for the actual SEO for your client sites.  Right?  Right! Competitive Landscape One of the most challenging aspects of getting new clients to understand how serious the work is to come, is to get them to wake up to the competitive landscape.   All too often, they think “hey – if I just spend this money, POOF, I’ll be on the first page of Google.” No, we’re not even going to get into the noise about how many companies out there use pure hype to make it sound so simple.  Because if we do, this will become a rant.  And then I’ll have to move it to my own blog.  Because THAT rant will get ugly.  Fast. Instead, I’m going to just talk about the need that exists for sometimes jarring clients into reality. This is why I like to use a Competitive Analysis chart. In this one chart above, I really lay it out on the line.  I make it crystal clear exactly where they stand when it comes to the competition.  Sugar-coating not included. Honestly Is Yada Yada Yada Note – in that chart my client’s got the first row. So that sets the tone.  From there, I don’t sort this in some biased manner, or only show competitors that have 8,000 more pages or 5,000 more back-links.  Because ultimately, I don’t have to. And later on in the notes section, I go on to mention that the statistics within the chart are only numeric values, not keyword ranking related.  And that’s really important. By first showing your client that their site clearly needs work just when held up against the competitive landscape in terms of content depth, link depth, social networking depth. and THEN, afterward, throwing a competitive landscape Keyword Ranking chart, you are throwing the one-two knock-out punch. Caveats Rule The Day Throughout every SEO audit/action plan I create, I pepper the information with caveats – warnings and disclaimers.  Because it’s important to help clarify what you’re presenting.  If I didn’t explain, for example, that the above chart is only a SAMPLING of competitor sites, or if I didn’t also mention in my disclaimer that this chart’s understanding can ONLY come from matching it up against the competitive keyword ranking data, it would leave the client open to assume too much. And that’s dangerous. By clarifying these realities, even if a client IGNORES them before hiring you, they exist as a point of reference to go back to if you ever need to do that.  You’re protecting yourself, your business, and your reputation. Generalize While Being Specific Note in the chart above how I provide specific counts for pages indexed?  I don’t need, in this proposal, to get into the specifics of “indexed in Google’s Public “Site:” method as compared to Google Webmaster Tools”.  And for the social networking comparison, I give an N for not present, a Y to say yes, they’ve got one but it’s not so great, G to represent that it’s pretty good, and VG to say it’s the hottest thing since sliced bread. Yet I don’t go into specifics to explain what my criteria are for each rating. It’s enough that I, myself, know what goes into that subjective rating system. But of course, if I include a disclaimer about the fact that “just because competitor X has a VG in Facebook, doesn’t mean that I’m recommending THIS client needs one”, that sets the stage for later in the proposal where I specifically cover social networking.  In it’s own section.  At the end of the document.  After all the ON-SITE stuff. Every Site Is Unique So Every Audit Needs To Be Unique Another reality is that I can’t sit here and provide you with a comprehensive laundry list of every single thing you should be covering in your audit.  Because every site is unique within every market.  And  every site owner’s got a pre-determined expectation as to what they are going to ask for.  And you’re going to need to ask a lot of questions up front to understand this.  Then you’ll need to tailor each audit accordingly. Maybe you don’t go into any depth covering the social networking.  Perhaps it’s because that specific client has an offering that has no business being promoted in social networking environments.  Like former CIA spies who now operate a competitive intelligence business.  (Yes, I’ve got such clients, thank you very much).  Or maybe you already know that the client’s budget is already bursting at the seams.  So you just briefly touch on social networking and say something like: While we believe social networking will need to be one more part of your comprehensive marketing efforts, this document does not detail any recommendations in that regard due to previous discussion with you and is therefore not included in our action-plan for this phase. By saying “this phase”, you set the stage for future work, should the opportunity present itself.  And that’s another important concept.  Consideration may need to be given to the fact that even clients who truly appreciate your worth, and respect your recommendations, need to operate within budgetary financial constraints. And that’s okay.  Because you can take the “multiple-phase” approach.  Which means you’ll have plenty of work for many years to come. And that’s always a good thing. So there you have it – an overview of what to include and what not to include in the typical audit.  Of course, I didn’t go into specifics as relates to keyword ranking or keyword evaluations.  Yet by now you should have gotten the idea.  – Give just enough to show you know what you’re talking about, specific to each client.  And that in turn will open the door for you to propose more comprehensive work. Alan Bleiweiss has been an Internet professional since 1995, managing client projects valued at upwards of $2,000,000.00.  Just a few of his most notable clients through the years have included PCH.com, WeightWatchers.com, and Starkist.com.  Follow him on Twitter @AlanBleiweiss , read his blog at Search Marketing Wisdom , and be sure to read his column here at SearchEngineJournal.com the 2nd and 4th Tuesday each month. Check out the SEO Tools guide at Search Engine Journal . Anatomy of a Hands-on SEO Audit – Part