Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Google Uses The Meta Keyword Tag


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#16 TopDog

TopDog

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Location:Mesa, AZ

Posted 19 January 2011 - 09:26 AM

There is a lot of speculation with this.

The real question is: Is it repeatable and the results predictable? If you cannot repeat it, then is is just another anomaly. I've seen many strange things with Google's new algorithms.

#17 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,775 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 12:49 PM

That's a good point. We'll see if it is in fact repeatable.

#18 Webnauts

Webnauts

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 January 2011 - 01:37 PM

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 7 2011, 03:54 PM) View Post
There's actually no use for the keyword tag for words that are already appearing on the page. The idea is to use it for keywords that don't already appear on the page, but which might be relevant anyway. After all, if they're already on the page, what good is it to use them again?

Jill, as we both know, the purpose of the keywords meta tag implementation is to specify keywords that a search engine may use to improve the quality of search results. It provides a list of words or phrases about the contents of the Web page and provides some additional text for crawler-based search engines.

That said, the keywords placed there must be found within the content of the document. If you want to target semantically relevant keywords not found in the content of the page, the appropriate solution would be the implemenation of " Common Tags " www.commontag.org

#19 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,775 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 01:41 PM

Disagree. The meta keywords tag was originally created to provide a place for words that were not contained on the page. After all, if they're already on the page, the search engine already know it's relevant for those words.

#20 Webnauts

Webnauts

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 January 2011 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 19 2011, 02:41 PM) View Post
Disagree. The meta keywords tag was originally created to provide a place for words that were not contained on the page. After all, if they're already on the page, the search engine already know it's relevant for those words.

So if I got you right, do the keywords meta tag serve the same, or partially the same purpose the "Common Tags" do?

#21 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,775 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 04:17 PM

QUOTE
So if I got you right, do the keywords meta tag serve the same, or partially the same purpose the "Common Tags" do?

Since common tags are just something someone made up and not a real tag, I don't really know.

#22 Webnauts

Webnauts

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 January 2011 - 05:00 PM

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 19 2011, 05:17 PM) View Post
Since common tags are just something someone made up and not a real tag, I don't really know.

Well here is some info about CTags by Vanessa Fox: http://searchenginel...en-better-21021

You said above that using relevant keywords but not found in the content of the page is legitimate. So I felt like I had to be more explicit.

The purpose of implementing keywords in a keyword meta tag is for preliminary indexing and specifically conceived for exhaustively and completely catalogue HTML documents, and not for determining semantic related words or attempts to boost the overall semantical relevancy of a document.



#23 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,775 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 05:26 PM

Since Yahoo isn't doing search anymore, that tag probably has died it as well.

#24 Webnauts

Webnauts

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 January 2011 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 19 2011, 06:26 PM) View Post
Since Yahoo isn't doing search anymore, that tag probably has died it as well.

I am afraid that I will have to disagree: http://andybeard.eu/...y-lives-on.html


#25 DocSheldon

DocSheldon

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:30 PM

I think I'll have to disagree as well, as W3C also has maintained that Common Tags continue to play a part in tagging and folksonomies for Resource Description Framework. SPARQL and its derivatives, for instance, still recognize C-Tags, and there haven't been any discussions of discontinuing the practice.

#26 morestar

morestar

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 07:49 AM

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 7 2011, 02:54 PM) View Post
There's actually no use for the keyword tag for words that are already appearing on the page. The idea is to use it for keywords that don't already appear on the page, but which might be relevant anyway. After all, if they're already on the page, what good is it to use them again?


Hey Jill.

I'm not too sure about this. When I analyze the past and current situation with respect to Google's usage and interpretation of the values within the keyword meta tag I find a few interesting points.

For starters no one knows exactly what Google interprets or thereafter does with the keywords it finds in the meta keywords tag. We've been told over the years that it helps Google (search engines) 'determine what the page is about'. At one time, way back in the day, when copy wasn't written so well (SEO'd) Google would have a hard time determining what a page was about. The same is with respect to keyword density - millions of websites had very low competitive keyword density - so again, keywords helped Google determine what the page was supposedly about.

And as we know, the meta description tag, like the title and alt attributes, got spammed. Google declared they ignore it. Why?? Because they don't need it anymore? Yes! Why? Their ranking system is based on links - and within those links anchor text. Google doesn't need the meta keywords tag populated but instead uses anchor text to build a website's link profile. That's the basis of it's ranking system - links and within those links are anchor text.

So we're clear on that.

Now I understand and agree with you that keywords within the meta keywords tag that are not on the page could be inserted and should be - for semantic purposes - keyword association but I definitely don't believe:

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 7 2011, 02:54 PM) View Post
There's actually no use for the keyword tag for words that are already appearing on the page...After all, if they're already on the page, what good is it to use them again?


I've always though of the keyword tag of being of some assistance to the search engines - semantic association and page relevancy.

Notice we're all talking about what we believe - based on testing of course - but not yet fact.

Let us continue to speculate?

If indeed Google is still using the values of the keyword meta tag I wish you had found your information weeks or even months after they said they stopped using it.

I've always been of the crowd (a very small one I bet) that knows Google never stopped using it, always will use it for it's purposes, wishes people would stop spamming it (cause it's a waste of resources to have to sift through all the (dumb) duplicate strings) and that it helps associate On-Page keywords and semantically relevant keywords if it needs that assistance BUT all at a very low influence when it comes to rankings.

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 7 2011, 02:54 PM) View Post
After all, if they're already on the page, what good is it to use them again?


So are you asking a question or what that rhetorical? My question to you would be, are you actually saying that if indeed you do add values to the meta keyword tag, that you will not add a keyword as a value if it is on the page in question?



wink1.gif


#27 Webnauts

Webnauts

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 January 2011 - 09:42 AM

Morestar, since when Google ignores the alt attributes? Did I miss something?

#28 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,775 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE(morestar @ Jan 20 2011, 07:49 AM) View Post
For starters no one knows exactly what Google interprets or thereafter does with the keywords it finds in the meta keywords tag. We've been told over the years that it helps Google (search engines) 'determine what the page is about'.


No, that's incorrect. Anyone who was paying attention has known that Google has never used the Meta keyword tag to know what a page is all about in terms of where it might show up in the search results.

QUOTE
At one time, way back in the day, when copy wasn't written so well (SEO'd) Google would have a hard time determining what a page was about. The same is with respect to keyword density - millions of websites had very low competitive keyword density - so again, keywords helped Google determine what the page was supposedly about.


Untrue.
QUOTE
And as we know, the meta description tag, like the title and alt attributes, got spammed. Google declared they ignore it.


Google does not ignore Meta descriptions or alt attributes. Nor have they ever claimed to.


QUOTE
Why?? Because they don't need it anymore? Yes! Why? Their ranking system is based on links - and within those links anchor text. Google doesn't need the meta keywords tag populated but instead uses anchor text to build a website's link profile. That's the basis of it's ranking system - links and within those links are anchor text.


They don't use only anchor text to determine relevancy. It is one of thousands of factors, albeit it is arguably one of the most important at the moment.

QUOTE
So we're clear on that.


Not really. We're fairly unclear since much of what you said is incorrect.

QUOTE
Now I understand and agree with you that keywords within the meta keywords tag that are not on the page could be inserted and should be - for semantic purposes - keyword association but I definitely don't believe:
I've always though of the keyword tag of being of some assistance to the search engines - semantic association and page relevancy.

Notice we're all talking about what we believe - based on testing of course - but not yet fact.


No idea what you said/meant there.

QUOTE
If indeed Google is still using the values of the keyword meta tag I wish you had found your information weeks or even months after they said they stopped using it.


As far as I know, they've never used it so it's not something they declared that they're suddenly not using.

QUOTE
I've always been of the crowd (a very small one I bet) that knows Google never stopped using it, always will use it for it's purposes,


I certainly hope it's a very small crowd that believes that since it's been proven over and over again to be an incorrect belief. But you're welcome to believe whatever you want even if the facts say otherwise.

QUOTE
My question to you would be, are you actually saying that if indeed you do add values to the meta keyword tag, that you will not add a keyword as a value if it is on the page in question?


Correct, I typically wouldn't bother to do that if/when I use it at all (which is rarely). I only use it on my own site for my internal search engine.

Oh, wait, I'm mistaken. I recently was doing some optimization for a client's site and I did use the keyword tag for the phrases which I was optimizing in, but it was for purely selfish/lazy reasons...so that I would remember which phrases the page was optimized for and not have to go back to my notes. I know with 100% certainty that it will have no value beyond that.


#29 piskie

piskie

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Location:Cornwall

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:18 PM

I'm with you Jill, except that Never goes back a long long way.

#30 Webnauts

Webnauts

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:02 AM

Morestar I missed one, that Jill pointed out. Google does NOT ignore the meta description either. It doesn't offer any SEO advantage, but it provides a brief description of a web page. It is important that the description clearly describes the purpose of the page, because it's not just for the search engines results snippets, but primarily for humans to read. And good descriptions can boost your CTR (Click-Through-Rate) in the search results.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!