- Affected App
- WoltLab Suite Forum
https://developers.google.com/…b-forums-are-invalid%252F
Please resolve this ASAP (as soon as possible)
Google Developers - Recommendations
-
- Not a bug
- Aslan
-
This is completely fine and all i see a warnings and nothing that says that there's anything invalid.
-
This is completely fine and all i see a warnings and nothing that says that there's anything invalid.
Just the same, I would like to see this fixed and I see this as a concern that I cannot ignore.
-
I only see two warnings there and no mention of something being invalid.
/edit:
And the warnings say you should check it and take action if action is needed. In this case, it's not, as all of those warnings are bogus. -
I only see two warnings there and no mention of something being invalid.
It is doesn't pass, it's no good. I stand by my statement, this needs to be fixed and it's not valid otherwise.
-
It DOES pass. It complains about rel="author" which is completely okay. It doesn't affect anything.
-
It DOES pass. It complains about rel="author" which is completely okay. It doesn't affect anything.
With respect, I expect more. I want my site to validate and I would think most people here would. Please fix this.
-
Google is not the measure of all things and these warnings are not worth to change anything. The only situation where something needs attention is, if the official W3C validator marks anything as errornous/invalid (this doesn't include warnings). Everything else can be safely ignored.
-
It is doesn't pass, it's no good. I stand by my statement, this needs to be fixed and it's not valid otherwise.
It passes, and it is valid. Those are merely warnings that do not invalidate anything.
Those warnings mean that there *could* be something wrong and that you *should* investigate it and take action *if* action is needed. There is nothing wrong, as those warnings are bogus, so no action is needed.
Btw, Google does not longer track rel=author as of August 28, 2014:
http://searchengineland.com/goodbye-google-authorship-201975QuoteToday John Mueller of Google Webmaster Tools announced in a Google+ post that Google will stop showing authorship results in Google Search, and will no longer be tracking data from content using rel=author markup.
-
Google is not the measure of all things
Unfortunately, until a different search engine ranks higher than Google... That is incorrect. If you're serious about your website... It is incorrect.
Btw, Google does not longer track rel=author as of August 28, 2014:searchengineland.com/goodbye-google-authorship-201975
Interesting... Puzzled why their developer tools keeps warning me about it then.
-
Unfortunately, until a different search engine ranks higher than Google... That is incorrect. If you're serious about your website... It is incorrect.
Yeah... Sure... -
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Wow. That's an epic find.
But no one said it was fair or that there wasn't a double standard that still holds true.
-
@Adam Howard There is not a single error reported by Google, in fact if you look more closely at the report you'll notice, that it is completely messed up:
- It lists an "undefined type" called https://community.woltlab.com/ which appears nowhere in the page source code
- Next in the list it reports the OGP tags which are part of the Open Graph Protocol, the meta used by Facebook and others. While they are not part of the official standard they're still valid, but again Google moans about a single issue
- Last but no least it indicates that there are 3 Warnings, looking at the list of issues there are more than 3 (unless 12 equals 3 these days)
- All warnings pretend that the node it references (click on the headline to see it in the page source) is empty, while there is always at least one children (as visible in the page source on the left)
The bottom line is, we have an undefined type which doesn't appear in the page source at all and 12 warnings masquerading as 3 and all of them are void. Hooray.
Validity is always a double-edged sword because if you run our CSS through the W3 validator it will spit out a big pile of errors. Yet none of these are actually errors because certain features are not yet standardized (in fact they're pending), but implement in all major browsers. Next you have vendor-specific prefixes (which are treated as errors) which are used in place of the standardized declaration because browser X supports it only with the prefixed declaration at this time.
Long story short: Google reports non-sense which does not affect the page behavior/accessibility/visuals/whatever in any browser whatsoever. Neither do they affect search ranking because there is no issue with the DOM (e.g. unclosed tags and similar stuff).
-
It lists an "undefined type" called https://community.woltlab.com/ which appears nowhere in the page source code
I do not see such results. It appears to validate without error.
https://developers.google.com/…://community.woltlab.com/Next in the list it reports the OGP tags which are part of the Open Graph Protocol, the meta used by Facebook and others. While they are not part of the official standard they're still valid, but again Google moans about a single issue
Again... I do not see such results. It appears to validate without error.
https://developers.google.com/…://community.woltlab.com/Validity is always a double-edged sword because if you run our CSS through the W3 validator it will spit out a big pile of errors. Yet none of these are actually errors because certain features are not yet standardized (in fact they're pending), but implement in all major browsers.
I understand and accept that, but Google will follow this
https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/
I am not saying it is right
I am not saying it is fair
I am not saying there is not a double standardBut it is what is is. And you either comply OR Google will punish you as it sees fit.
-
It now reports 4 warnings, but interesting enough you can see that there are way more in the list.
But it is what is is. And you either comply OR Google will punish you as it sees fit.
There is no error, period. Look at the link posted above regarding the result for Google's own site, it lists an error. The URL used does not report any errors, only moans about an undefined type (explained above) and a bogus amount of false-positives.
Again there is nothing Google would punish you for and I might suggest that you take into account that we pretty much know what we're talking about.
-
Again there is nothing Google would punish you for and I might suggest that you take into account that we pretty much know what we're talking about.
I'm not doubting that you do. I am however only following what Google tells me, which Google seems to be warning me about.
-
Just another example of the imperfection of this tool (or Google): https://developers.google.com/…52BSaschaGreuel%252Fposts
-
I am however only following what Google tells me, which Google seems to be warning me about.
That's completely okay and in fact it is good that people care about their sites.
Yet there is nothing for us to fix because there is nothing wrong:
First things first: There is no error reported, check the Google Developer site which actually shows up an error. Now check again the link above, no error.
Second: It reports the OGP tags to be invalid which is true, because they're not standardized. On the other hand they're all right because they have no impact on your site and Google will just skip these because they're unrecognized. The warnings on the other hand are related to some part of the markup where Google reports that they're empty, but if you click on the headlines it will show you that these nodes are anything but empty. Obviously this is a flaw in their checker because it yields incorrect results. -
Just another example of the imperfection of this tool (or Google): https://developers.google.com/…52BSaschaGreuel%252Fposts
" The URL could not be fetched. Make sure it is typed correctly and the remote server is responding "
Pointing it at Google itself, likely will get errors. I again will repeat... I never said there wasn't a double standard. Google has double standard. They will fail their own test, but enforce that you comply to them. So I never said there was not a double standard.
I do know this, your competitor is 1 step away from full compliance. And I have no doubt, they will claim they comply and you do not. And that will be a selling point.
Again, I never said it was fair.
-
I'm sorry Adam, but this leads nowhere. It is fully compliant and there are no errors. Only a bunch of pointless warnings which can be safely ignored because they're bogus by definition AND according to the standards.
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!