Google's Home Page Has 67 Validation Errors

Feb 7, 2007 • 7:29 am | comments (13) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine
 

WebmasterWorld moderator pageoneresults notes in a WebmasterWorld thread that the Google home page, www.google.com, does not validate fully. In fact, he notes they have 67 validation errors.

I did a quick check at W3C validator and returned 66 errors, including a No DOCTYPE found.

But who am I to complain, I have 131 errors, but I do have a DOCTYPE.

Should this bother you? Depends on how picky you are about HTML.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Previous story: Randfish Proposes To Girlfriend on Veronica Mars
 

Comments:

Michael Martinez

02/07/2007 05:27 pm

The W3C recommended standards are not obligations we are all compelled to honor. If the people whom your Web site is intended to reach don't see any problems with their browsing software, you should not feel like you're doing anything wrong if a W3C validation tool identifies "errors".

pageoneresults

02/08/2007 01:16 am

"If the people whom your Web site is intended to reach don't see any problems with their browsing software, you should not feel like you're doing anything wrong if a W3C validation tool identifies "errors"." Its that kind of thinking that gets big companies into trouble. Look at what happen to Target. ;)

Elmer W. Cagape

02/08/2007 01:53 am

It shouldn't bother me at all. If Google were to correct these errors, what difference would it make?

John Riviello

02/08/2007 04:22 pm

"It shouldn't bother me at all. If Google were to correct these errors, what difference would it make?" For one, you be downloading a page that's 21 percent smaller in file size than the current Google homepage. See <a href="http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200608/google_valid_and_strict/" rel="nofollow nofollow">Google valid and strict</a>.

Drew Staufer

02/08/2007 04:31 pm

When you take your car to a mechanic for an oil change, are you ok with the fact that he puts most of the oil in your car, but not all of it? NO. They do the job completely and correctly or you don't have them do it at all. Websites need to be the same way. Lowering the standards isn't helping anyone. The W3C has these standards and regulations for a reason.

TheDame

02/08/2007 05:22 pm

I actually asked about this when I interviewed at Google (being a fan of web standards), and the Googler I talked to said that basically it's a pragmatism thing. Some Googlers are really into web standards, while some would rather just code up the fastest thing that works cross-browser and get it out there. Things move shockingly fast inside Google (tasks, priorities, etc.) and some Googlers would rather get their product out the door than take the time to make it standards-compliant (because yes, let's face it, it does take more effort to make something standards-compliant and cross-browser compatible than to just slap a bunch of tables together and call it a day). So I guess it kind of depends on which UI designer your product gets...

Wayne P. Olson, PhD, FAIC

03/06/2007 06:56 pm

I Googled myself and found that my name has been misspelled several times as Olsen. Until recently, my name has been spelled correctly. My name is affiliated with (a) work in VietNam during the war and (b) biotechnology texts. There is another Wayne P. Olson who is a CPA and lives on the West Coast. Olsen as an author is unknown to me.

Wayne P. Olson

03/09/2007 06:03 pm

The errors of spelling of my name are still present at this time. Please correct them. Wayne P. Olson, PhD, FAIC

Barry Schwartz

03/09/2007 06:07 pm

Wayne, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Wayne P. Olson, PhD

03/24/2007 03:50 pm

Wayne P. Olson is the author/editor of Automated Microbial Identification.

Barry Schwartz

03/25/2007 12:17 am

And how can I help you?

T Swift

04/26/2007 07:07 am

Google's non-w3c valid status has to do with loading times and bandwidth optimisation. Minimising code (and download filesize) whilst still getting the same cross-browser performance regardless of w3c compliance is what they're all about. At least this is what I read a couple of years ago. Just reading above now, John Riviello's comment blows this theory out of the water! Very interesting. LOL at Wayne P. Olsen/Olson. I think he thinks you're God of the interweb.

Anne Zinta

02/03/2008 12:23 am

Even our site, <a href="http://www.retailord.com"> Retailord.com </a> returned errors, its ok when there's no problem from visitors.

blog comments powered by Disqus