• Daniel Benny Simanjuntak

    If the code is so bad that the page load time is slower than it should be then THAT makes a bad user experience, and that’s a ranking factor. Correct?

  • Clay Amerault

    Good thing there’s no penalty for broken HTML. The question from the video points out that google.com generates 23 errors and 4 warnings (at W3C Markup Validator, presumably). And look at the validation results from other top sites:

    microsoft.com 519 Errors, 483 warnings
    facebook.com 37 Errors, 4 warnings
    aol.com 20 Errors, 5 warnings
    amazon.com 252 Errors, 127 warnings

    There are some that do pass…

    craigslist.org 0 Errors, 8 warnings
    wikipedia.org 0 Errors, 22 warnings

  • http://www.clickfire.com/ Emory Rowland

    Great news! Now I can go back to doing coding.

  • Pat Grady

    Well then maybe we should conspire to collectively mess up other things, so G will ignore them.
    :-)

  • http://www.latest-seo-news-updates.blogspot.com/ Sathiya Kumar

    Yeah! you are right, As page speed is one of the ranking factors of Google. It will hurt the site if the loading time is too high. So don’t be too lazy to provide correct html coding.

  • Adeel Sami

    So, even we won’t be penalized for the broken HTML tags but still we need no broken HTML tags because page speed haunts us! WOW!