Google’s John Mueller shared in a LinkedIn post that two site traits often seen as indicators of site quality are not ranking factors, indicating that other perceived quality indicators might not be either.
Site Characteristics And Ranking Factors
John Mueller’s LinkedIn post offers insight into how an attribute of quality doesn’t necessarily qualify as a ranking factor. His comments encourage considering what should be deemed a quality signal versus merely a site characteristic.
The two aspects of site quality Mueller discussed are valid HTML and typographical errors (spelling mistakes). His post followed an analysis of 200 home pages from popular websites, revealing that only 0.5% had valid HTML. This means that among those 200 sites, only one homepage used valid HTML.
Mueller stated that something like valid HTML as a ranking factor would set a low bar, as spammers can easily generate web page templates with valid HTML. He mentioned similar thoughts regarding spelling errors.
Valid HTML
Valid HTML refers to code on a web page adhering to the rules of proper HTML usage. The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), the global standards body for the web, defines what constitutes valid HTML. Concepts like HTML, CSS, and web accessibility are among the standards the W3C establishes. HTML validity can be assessed using the W3C Markup Validation Service.
Is Valid HTML A Ranking Factor?
The post addresses a recurring query about whether valid HTML is a ranking factor or required for Google Search. Due to its quality implications, it’s a valid question.
“Every now and then, we get questions about whether ‘valid HTML’ is a ranking factor, or a requirement for Google Search.
Jens has done regular analysis of the validity of the top websites’ homepages, and the results are sobering.”
The phrase, “the results are sobering” expresses surprise at how most home pages use invalid HTML.
Given that virtually all content management systems don’t generate valid HTML, it’s surprising that even one out of 200 sites used valid HTML. A number closer to zero would be expected.
“…this is imo a pretty low bar. It’s a bit like saying professional writers produce content free of typos – that seems reasonable, right? Google also doesn’t use typos as a ranking factor, but imagine you ship multiple typos on your homepage? Eww.
And, it’s trivial to validate the HTML that a site produces. It’s trivial to monitor the validity of important pages – like your homepage.”
Ease Of Achieving Characteristic Of Quality
There have been many false quality signals promoted and later abandoned by SEOs. Recent ones include “authorship” and “content reviews” designed to imply an authoritative figure wrote or reviewed an article. Some resorted to creating fictional authors with AI-generated images linked to fake profiles, thinking it would deceive Google into awarding ranking points.
The authorship signal was in the end a misinterpretation of Google’s guidelines, proving a waste of time. If SEOs had considered how easy it was to create an “authorship” signal, more might have realized its trivial nature made it unlikely as a ranking factor.
Mueller’s post suggests first verifying if Google explicitly confirms something as a ranking factor. Also, consider whether it’s easily achievable by spammers before assuming it’s a ranking factor. If achieving it is trivial, it likely isn’t a ranking factor.
There Is Still Value To Be Had From Non-Ranking Factors
The fact that something is easily faked doesn’t mean site owners should disregard it. If it benefits users and builds trust, it’s probably wise to continue with the practice. The absence of a ranking factor status doesn’t undermine its value. Continuing activities that cultivate trust in a business or content is beneficial long-term, regardless of ranking implications. Google aims to interpret signals from users or websites to gauge if a site is high quality, useful, and helpful. Thus, actions that generate trust and satisfaction remain worthwhile.
Featured Image by Shutterstock/stockfour
