Agree and Disagree and can't quite seperate the two.. i'm lost for words and i'm sure its the first time to! ;)
it comes back to the heart of it all, content is Search Engines lifeblood, without it, they die. Google would die of a horrible death tommorow if the "browser" was shot in the back of the head, Apollo and WPF were to rule the world and life as we know it would change. So they and other search engines really can't sit back and enforce the ruling, its not in their interest to do so and the only way they could argue to bring balance back to the force is to adapt to another solution, RSS/ATOM etc.. As atleast its reasonable to say "thou must abide by the validation" rules, which in a summary could allow them to extract subtance from noise? probably why blogs in the google space can be an annoyance a times to the ranking structure - which they appear to have overcome. XHTML vs HTML... its moot point and i realistically can't see any company applying penalities either way for the choice as it would carve out a large percentage of the commodity they love the most. On 12/7/06, Tom Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:25:38AM +1000, Scott Barnes wrote: > > On 12/6/06, Ryan Sabir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > How many of you are developing sites in XHTML these days? Is it > > > worth the extra effort? > > > > SOE is supposedly the ducks nuts as to why. Yet, you'd have to be a > > moron to expect Google to differentiate between XHTML vs HTML as in > > the end, content is the one commodity google and co want initially. > > > > I've read many a debate on it, but in the end the browsers are smart > > enough and will continue to evolve to the fact that tag prediction and > > differentiating between Style vs Semantically Correct tagging has > > probably become a moot point these days and usually reserved for the > > HTML purists out there. > > I'll throw in my purist $0.02 here, and no doubt regret having done so > (I usually do). > > I've not yet read an informed point of view that argued that Google And > Friends *bias* their scoring systems towards XHTML, or even valid HTML. > If you've got a link, I'd appreciate the chuckle. I think there's > little doubt though that they would like to extract all possible content > from whatever document you publish and classify it as best they can. > The argument tends to be more along the lines that an automatic process > is *better able* to extract and classify content from valid, well-formed > HTML that follows a known set of rules. XHTML is better yet again > because of the increased signal-to-noise ratio. Semantically correct > markup simply conveys more information about the document contents. > > No doubt there'll be a number of different experiences from those on > this list arguing for and against this conjecture. This seems to be the > nature of the heavy wizardry of SEO. However my own intuition is that > the search engines whose algorithms do not currently use semantic markup > to better classify content could only justify this with that argument > that there's not enough content out there which is semantically > organized. You'd have to be a moron to think that they wouldn't make > use of this extra information to improve their indexing and > categorization, in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of > their product. ;) > > -T > > > > -- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
