Page 1 of 2

Google doesn't validate?

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:29 pm
by alex.barylski
Did I do something wrong, or is this accurate? :?

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... ogle.ca%2F

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:33 pm
by John Cartwright
Jellyfish created a topic with the exact same title as you did. Search is great isn't it?

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:56 pm
by superdezign
What would it matter that Google didn't validate? Their search results are all in tables when they could easily use paragraphs, headers, and/or divs. But they just haven't cared enough to change it. If it works, it works.

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:55 pm
by The Phoenix
superdezign wrote:What would it matter that Google didn't validate? Their search results are all in tables when they could easily use paragraphs, headers, and/or divs. But they just haven't cared enough to change it. If it works, it works.
Its less 'caring' and more cost / benefit. There have been people that have done attempts at standards compliant variations of google's pages, but generally, they end up larger than the original. Which means they are choosing based on total bandwidth spent. When you have millions of visitors a day.. each byte adds up.

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:06 pm
by alex.barylski
Standards (regardless of where they apply; Design, Architecture, Core, Structure, Docs, Conventions, etc, etc...) indicate professionalism, even if they are not perfect. Standards certainly beat adhoc solutions anytime.

I look for quality at every level when I use & develop software. If you cannot justify the time required to validate a simple page like Google...what does that say about the rest of your practices? It's a public display, unlike their file structures or software design practices, which is why I find it weird.

Some might argue: "They spend their time wisely on optimizing their algorithms"

Great!!!

That just gives the competition a chance to surpass you (in one or more ways). Why can't you optimize and validate? Personally, thats an unacceptable attitude.

Every application I develop I hold against (what I consider) extremely high standards so that it's more difficult for competition to over take me, if not impossible. I am just surprised that a billion dollar corp. cannot justify something as simple as validation against a well known source like W3C.

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:17 pm
by Ambush Commander
Most companies don't have validating pages. In fact, most standards buffs don't have validating pages. It's tough to do if you're still concatenating HTML together in the backend.

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:38 pm
by superdezign
Hockey wrote:That just gives the competition a chance to surpass you (in one or more ways). Why can't you optimize and validate? Personally, thats an unacceptable attitude.
You know, we developers are pretty much the only people who care about validation. I'm pretty sure that most Google users aren't web developers.

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:20 pm
by alex.barylski
superdezign wrote:
Hockey wrote:That just gives the competition a chance to surpass you (in one or more ways). Why can't you optimize and validate? Personally, thats an unacceptable attitude.
You know, we developers are pretty much the only people who care about validation. I'm pretty sure that most Google users aren't web developers.
True enough. In fact that was my argument until iamsure convinced me otherwise. :)

The point is, as a professional, do you sell a car knowing the tires are under-inflated and could potentially pose a safety risk. Just because most people who drive don't pay attention to tire pressure?

Personally, I'm passionate enough about web design/development that as a professional, I would take care of things like that. :)

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:27 pm
by superdezign
Hockey wrote:Personally, I'm passionate enough about web design/development that as a professional, I would take care of things like that. :)
Yeah, most of us here do. :D

If Google wanted to be lazy though, I say they've earned it. :P

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:48 pm
by alex.barylski
Nonsense. They were at the right place at the right time with the right connections, which allowed them to acheive success like they have.

I'm disappointed in Google, as I truely admired them for many a years (as most big corps they begin to loose their appeal).

I've busted my balls as a professional for 15 years having sold a flight distance calculator on the now defunct FSFORUM Compuserve, all at the age of about 13. 15 years later and I still bust my balls and have very little to show for it unfortunately. :P

The fact they think their that "safe" and do not have to validate is even more depressing and a let down for me. Like Air Canada (a company I admired since birth; My old man works for them) having just sold 70% of their maintenance division. Thats absolutely heart breaking for me as I truely loved that company. It reflected (and still does to some degree) everything professional and positive about this country on an international scale. My beloved flagship carrier. :(

I admire perfection and strive for it daily. I couldn't be bothered to get out of bed otherwise.

I have now taken this off topic and turned it into a personal matter, but if a company like Google can't strive for perfection what company is a fledging, hard working, dedicated soul like myself supposed to look up to?

Toyota. There is a company that just does it right.

Thanks for listening. :P

Cheers :)

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:03 pm
by superdezign
Hehe. Well, at least you won't be surprised when the Google-Apple alliance becomes the new Microsoft.

And not just in terms of money either. You know how Microsoft purposely made Google run slower than Windows Live Search on Vista? It reminds me of how Apple didn't put Flash on the iPhone, but set up YouTube to be the only Flash video site that will be compatible.

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:07 pm
by alex.barylski
superdezign wrote:Hehe. Well, at least you won't be surprised when the Google-Apple alliance becomes the new Microsoft.

And not just in terms of money either. You know how Microsoft purposely made Google run slower than Windows Live Search on Vista? It reminds me of how Apple didn't put Flash on the iPhone, but set up YouTube to be the only Flash video site that will be compatible.
Hadn't heard that one yet, nope. Although I remember M$ getting flack about it's Office suite of products using "undocumented" API which made the application perform better. Not sure if I agree with that or not. I mean, I understand one must do whatever it takes to keep or gain a competitive edge.

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:07 pm
by Benjamin
I wrote:In the example you pointed out with google, besides the fact that they have a lot more pages than just the one you see at google.com, and they also have quite a few developers, it would be quite a hassle to ensure that all code written by all developers is compliant. The main issue though is bandwidth. They optimize some of their pages down to the last byte, mainly so you get the pages faster. It's not really a monetary issue so much as a let's get this smurf through the series of tubes as fast as we can issue. They might have OC12's, but that doesn't do you much good on dial up. In doing so, there is no doubt that breaks a few rules. But in the end you find what your looking for, it renders correctly, and 99.9% of the people that use the site would never know whether it validates or not, and the few that do know wouldn't care.
Google Doesn't Validate?

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:44 am
by timvw
Reality has learned me that not html, but ie-html (the stuff the internet explorer engine is able to render) is the standard... (That doesn't mean that i like it)

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:50 am
by Benjamin
timvw wrote:ie-html (the stuff the internet explorer engine is able to render) is the standard...
Well, everyone has their 15 minutes of fame and there is a time and a place for everything. As time progresses and solutions come along, certain applications will no longer be issues.