Validation - The Biggest SEO Myth
The value of W3C Validation is the biggest myth currently being promoted in Web development circles. Just about every SEO scam artist out there is repeating and promoting this nonsense.
W3C Validation is a Big Lie
In the real world, the vast majority of Web sites suffer from the so-called flaw of non-compliance to W3C Validation. Yet, these same sites receive millions of hits everyday from visitors. The top players have consistently made millions on the Web, year after year, not caring in the least that they do not validate. Amazon.com, for example, has a whopping 1,000+ validation errors. If the claims of the W3C Validation promoters were true, this commercial site should be dead in the water. Nothing could be farther from the truth, for this multi-million dollar revenue generating Web site.
The success of Amazon operationally proves that the claims of W3C Validation could not possibly be true. At the very least, non-compliance to W3C Validation prevents nobody from making millions on the Web.
Who can take these Validation Quacks Seriously?
These people know as well as I do that the claims of W3C Validation could not possibly be true. Yet, these unethical people continue to promote their lies. They are basically asking everyone to accept their position as being true, on faith alone. These validation promoters are predicting a future of doom where some time in the distant future browser developers will suddenly start writing new browsers that will crash on invalid code. And, that Google will one day rate all successful commercial webpages that do not validate lower in value to the non-successful stuffy boring pages that do manage to validate.
I hate people who routinely lie through their teeth. And, that goes double for organizations whose mission is to knowingly promote falsehoods. So, why are there thousands of webpages out there promoting W3C Validation? Maybe the SEO Trolls are trying to sell you their expensive SEO validation services? Apparently none of these SEO people know anything about proof. Most certainly they have little regard for the ethics of promoting a concept that they have never bothered to prove to be true. And, mostly likely in all likelihood know to be a lie. But, they will gladly validate your entire site for a nice big fee.
If W3C Validation is a tool that measures the quality content of a Web site, then validation is a hopelessly blunt tool. Are webpages with 3 errors of more value than a page with a 1,000 errors? Should a site with just one validation error be condemned? While a boring site that validates should be praised and given a better value rating? If so, who would reward validating Web sites? What magical benefits would suddenly be accrued by a Web site that goes from one to zero validation errors? And, when can newly validating sites expect the Internet to suddenly open up to them?
The nonsensical positions of the validation promoters are simply not defensible.
