I think you're missing the point of what i'm saying. Good semantic
markup has more meaning, that's what semantics are all about. However,
an algorithm can only begin to assess the true meaning if the syntax is
correct (humans don't always have to do this, because humans are
smart). Good syntax and good semantics result in a search algorithm
being able to correctly understand the content of the page and
subsequently order results as well as possible.
This isn't a sinister situation where standards-compliant sites are
given a ranking bonus because they follow some elitist rules, that
should never happen. A compliant site merely has more information (the
technical kind) for the search engine to draw upon. It could be that
good syntax and semantics actually makes your site appear in results
less results because the search engine knows that it's completely
irrelevant to more search queries. The aim should be to make the search
algorithms more accurate, and if people are looking for what you have to
offer then of course you should appear in the results.
Now i'm not saying search engines do this at the moment (i don't know),
but if the algorithms start taking a closer look at the content of
pages, you can bet that strong semantic markup will play a big part in this.
Regards,
Andrew
Barney Carroll wrote:
The search engine thing is pretty much a lie.
People are begging Google to factor w3c validity into the relevance of
their results, but there's no good reason they should - and I
personally believe this is a bit sinister.
Invalid code should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because
standardistas bully 'validity' into practice.
I hold Google in very high esteem for their complete magnanimity over
standards while maintaining (some might say as a result) the highest
elegance and popularity.
If human beings or machines start complaining that this irreverence is
in any practical way detrimental to their experience, then
standardistas should flock to the rescue. Until then, the notion
cannot help but smell mafiosi - protection racket kind of stuff (- You
need this 'help' I'm giving you. I know it seems inconvenient and
expensive but you really do. - This really doesn't look like help to
me. - I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing).
...
I sympathise with the client: if I can't justify how it's useful to
them, then there's no reason they should be bothered with it. If I
can't justify it to myself, there's no reason I should bother myself
with it. This is the ultimate opportunity to question yourself and
work out whether you adhere to standards because of their actual
virtue or simply because you like rules, big crowds, and being better
than other people.
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
