<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Reacties op: Does W3c validation provide benefits to SEO</title>
	<link>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/</link>
	<description>Searchability and usability.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>Door: Internet laptop</title>
		<link>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-179</link>
		<dc:creator>Internet laptop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-179</guid>
		<description>I personally think that W3C validation doesn't give you an automatic higher ranking copmared to other websites, but I agree with the advantages that you name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally think that W3C validation doesn&#8217;t give you an automatic higher ranking copmared to other websites, but I agree with the advantages that you name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Door: SEO Ranter</title>
		<link>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>SEO Ranter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-101</guid>
		<description>One thing missed - having valid markup ensures that spiders see your page as you intended. Open tags, broken markup, and using client-specific code can all lead to fairly ambiguous intentions being sent to the spiders. If your page is valid, you can be sure that any decent spider will be able to identify precisely what you want and interpret the page correctly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing missed - having valid markup ensures that spiders see your page as you intended. Open tags, broken markup, and using client-specific code can all lead to fairly ambiguous intentions being sent to the spiders. If your page is valid, you can be sure that any decent spider will be able to identify precisely what you want and interpret the page correctly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Door: Oeroek</title>
		<link>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>Oeroek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-99</guid>
		<description>I agree that the view of Matt should be leading. He notes that at the time of the video it was not a signal yet (2 years ago!).
However, he also notes that if the HTML has too many errors and mistakes it can interfere with the spider. If the spider cannot normally access your website, it can actually damage your ranking. 
Part of SEO is making sure that the spider can freely access and crawl your site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that the view of Matt should be leading. He notes that at the time of the video it was not a signal yet (2 years ago!).<br />
However, he also notes that if the HTML has too many errors and mistakes it can interfere with the spider. If the spider cannot normally access your website, it can actually damage your ranking.<br />
Part of SEO is making sure that the spider can freely access and crawl your site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Door: droralon</title>
		<link>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>droralon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.wwohn.com/seo-w3c-validation/#comment-98</guid>
		<description>isn't matt cutts view is the only one that should be apllied by seos and developers? 
the idea is to optimize your site in goggles serp,so why spending efforts on validating if we know it doesnt serve the main cause?

Dror</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>isn&#8217;t matt cutts view is the only one that should be apllied by seos and developers?<br />
the idea is to optimize your site in goggles serp,so why spending efforts on validating if we know it doesnt serve the main cause?</p>
<p>Dror</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
