I thought META KEYWORDS tag was dead?
-
http://www.wpkube.com/wordpress-seo-plugin/ this article just came out as a one of the many guides to Yoast's Wordpress SEO. I am surprised it mentioned:
- Use meta keywords tag: Google reportedly doesn’t use the keywords that your enter for your posts but as Google isn’t the only show in town, you might want to check this box.Recommendation: check
-
I stopped using meta keywords tag because Google doesn't use it any more, plus if you are in a competitive field by using keywords you are giving free keyword research to your competitors? Does any one still use meta keywords here? If so why?
-
Google doesn't use keyword tags, has anyone experienced a dis-benefit to meta-keywords tag from Google ie. dropped rankings etc.?
-
I read that Bing looks at the keyword tag to make sure there's nothing spammy going on. Ignore it and you'll avoid raising any red flags.
Mike
-
"I'd have to quit my job and just drink full-time."
You say that like it's a bad thing?!
Paul
-
Dr. Pete,
"at least one major search engine used META keywords as a spam signal in the past" - I heard that some where as well, that is partly why the question was asked
...Safe to assume some search engines still use it as a spam signal?
-
Oh meta keywords, curse you and your inevitable betrayal.
-
OK, now I am confused... Scientist vs sense of humor (and a good one at that). But, how can this be???? For he is the Kwisatz Haderach!!!
Good one Pete.
-
Pete, you crack me up:)
-
That's the kind of study I don't do because I'm secretly afraid it might work and then I'd have to quit my job and just drink full-time.
-
Dr. Pete,
While I agree with what you have here, I am disappointed that you are unwilling to set up a single variable study of some type focusing on the aftereffects of putting the wrong keyword meta tags in to trap the lazy, unrepentant, claimers of SEOdom, etc.
I would love to see how many cosmetic surgery sites that do liposuction would end up ranked for Saw2 barbequed ribs! as a long tail keyword!!!
If anyone can do it, you can do it. We believe in you!
Best to you and the team!
-
One warning - not to derail the discussion, which is amazing - I'm as sure as is reasonably possible that at least one major search engine used META keywords as a spam signal in the past, and I'd bet it's still corroborating evidence for Google. Probably goes without saying, but if you use it - use it well. Just because it's not a positive ranking factor doesn't mean it's not a negative ranking factor.
I agree that the competitor aspect never bothered me. Hopefully, you also use your keywords in your actual content. Otherwise, what's the point?
-
I'm working from home today and trying not to wake up my husband because I'm laughing so hard. Time to move downstairs before I read any more replies!
-
I read somewhere that BING use the keyword tag as a spamming signal. Anyone else see that?
EDIT: Read that here:
http://www.semrush.com/blog/tips/the-myths-behind-meta-keywords/
-
Thanks for your input Tom, that sounds right. Now just curious, has anyone experienced a benefit?
-
I have seen no drop in placement with my projects that have no kw tags on Google, Bing or yahoo.
-
They don't call you clever for no reason
-
@Ron and others,
I am just looking for some evidence from those that use keywords to see if they help. Example maybe someone has found that some search new search engine, like duckduckgo, topsy, etc that uses meta keywords for example and they see keywords helping them get traffic from those places. Otherwise why not is not a good enough reason for me, as its extra work to add keywords without benefit, plus it looks SEO 1.0 (think html tables, static pages) vs SEO 2.0 to me.
Thanks for adding bit of FUN to this thread BTW
-
one of the first things I look at to judge an SEO on is whether or not they have 50 keywords per page with meta tags.
--Yup that's one of the things I look at as well
-
The keyword meta tag is alive and well, they just call it the meta title nowadays
-
I put key words in as it cannot hurt. If it gets a few more leads per year why not :). As far as the previous string goes I think these comments are truly silly as there are many good tools to figure out the key words you are targeting without the meta key words. So if "why not" is a good enough justification then you should do it.
-
UPDATE: wordpress all in one seo pro has the same thing keyword siggestion.......
-
Funny thread!
how would you respond to this?
Customer "Q#1" why didn't you write keyword tags for my website.....? " give proper answer"
Q#2... If Google does not care about my keyword tags than why is it listed here "cache:domain. com" ?
-
Actually, I laughed my a__ off when I wrote it.
-
barbequed ribs
OMG! Oh, I am laughing so hard I will have to wash my glasses.
-
Uh?
-
I am going to start putting the wrong keywords in. So on a physician site for lipo, my keywords will be: Saw 2, barbequed ribs, Halloween 3, Dexter, cannibals, etc.
Can't wait to see that competitor rank now!
Thanks EGOL!
-
Well........ if you are ranking well, they are going to try to use what you are using. Again, they are lazy and they are certainly not smart so kudos to EGOL.
-
**Anybody who is lazy enough to harvest that info is lazier than smart. Not a threat. And, I believe in the theory that imitators come in second. **
Bravo. A competitor is gonna look at those 5-20 meta keywords and do what?
-
We prefer to make our client's competitors do their own work and break a sweat.
I fill that tag with BS. That'll fix those lazy weasels.
No, honestly... I still use meta keywords.
When I write an article I write the title tag first.... "Begin with the end in mind." Then I write the meta keywords. Makes me think about where I am going.
Anybody who is lazy enough to harvest that info is lazier than smart. Not a threat. And, I believe in the theory that imitators come in second.
..... and.... I bet Google is using meta keywords and counting those nofollow links it's their "reverse psychology" algo to screw SEOs. (Of course they are not counting blog and forum spam and sitewides... but nofollow links that appear to be editorially given - such as wikipedia citations - are counted at 5x the normal rate)
-
Vadim
As to using it there is no negative effect re Google. The reason most do not use it is that since Google does not, why would you put the keywords in and make it easy on those who want to know what you are targeting?
We prefer to make our client's competitors do their own work and break a sweat. (Also, if I am honest, one of the first things I look at to judge an SEO on is whether or not they have 50 keywords per page with meta tags.)
Hope that helps,
best
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
How much do branded search organic traffic & direct traffic impact the ranking for their non-branded topic/keyword?
Hi Moz community, We can see many websites with a reputation will have more number of visitors landing with these two types of traffic mostly (>90%): organic traffic of brand queries and direct traffic. Will these visits help and impact the ranking of these websites for the keywords/topics they been employing? Ex: Moz will have many such visitors. Will this really impact the ranking of Moz for non-brand queries they try to rank for, like "SEO Software". If so, will this have a huge impact or it's just a minor ranking factor. Because we have this with our website and we don't see such boost in rankings compared to our competitors with less direct traffic; where as I been looking at some SEO articles that direct traffic is one of the most important ranking factors. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Can 'Jump link'/'Anchor tag' urls rank in Google for keywords?
E.g. www.website.com/page/#keyword-anchor-text Where the part after the # is a section of the page you can jump to, and the title of that section is a secondary keyword you want the page to rank for?
Algorithm Updates | | rwat0 -
One keyword gone in Google SERPs - Fred?
I have an ecommerce site. One keyword, which I use to rank #1 for on Google years ago, I'm now completely gone from the SERP's as of a couple weeks ago. I'm scratching my head here, my other keywords don't seem to have changed much recently. Around mid-March of this year, which seems to line up with the Fred update, I noticed I went from page 3 to middle of page 1 for a few days with this keyword. It was a very happy few days. Then it slipped down and down and hovered around page 6. But as of a couple weeks ago, it's now gone. Before the Fred update, I changed a bunch of product pages within the keyword category that had duplicate content because they were kits of items arranged different ways. So instead of repeating the individual item descriptions over and over in the different kits, I changed the descriptions on the kits to links to the individual items within the kits. After the Fred update, at the end of March, I set all these kit item pages that I reduced to very thin content with just links to noindex. My theory is that the Fred update reset algorithmic penalties for a couple days as it was being introduced. So the penalty of duplicate content that I may have had was lifted since I took out the duplicate content, and I made it back to page one. Then as Fred saw I now had a new penalty of thin content, I got hit and slid back down the rankings. Now that I updated the pages that had very thin content to be noindex, do you think I'll see a return of the keyword to a higher position? Or any other theories or suggestions? I remember seeing keywords disappear and come back stronger years ago, but haven't seen anything like this in a long time.
Algorithm Updates | | head_dunce0 -
301 redirect to URL plus anchor tag???
Hi - my company has just had a site redesign completed, and our "old" site we have landing pages for a full product line. The new design has taken the content from those landing pages and placed them into one long scrolling page. We currently rank well on the "old" landing pages but now all that content is contained in a single page with anchor tags throughout attached to the headings. Can you set up 301's to anchor tags? Example: old site www.mysite.com/products/automotive/auto-parts.html new site: www.mysite.com/products/automotive#auto-parts
Algorithm Updates | | Jenny10 -
ATTN SEO MINDS: Is there a way/tool to categorize keywords from an Omniture/GA report?
So ideally I would like to take the list of keywords I am currently ranking for, and group these based on what the user intent was in making that query. For example if I am a Thai delivery chain and I am currently receiving traffic from the queries "vegan dish" and "tofu thai food", I would want to have a column in a keyword report that says these queries fall into the VEGETARIAN category. I think what I want to know is how can I filter a massive list by a range of keywords? I want to know does this cell contain, "keyword A" or "keyword B" or "keyword Z". If so list the corresponding category. This way I can look at keyword performance by category or user intent/motivation. Is there a tool out there that will help me accomplish this, or is there a good solution in excel I can use?
Algorithm Updates | | Jonathan.Smith0 -
Are internal search meta keywords necessary?
One of my duties is to improve internal search results. From my reading, good site architecture and content is the way to achieve that. However, for example, are internal meta keywords necessary? I know they haven't mattered externally for a long time, but somebody in my department mentioned wanting this functionality in our CMS. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.
Algorithm Updates | | SSFCU0 -
Should I use canonical tags on my site?
I'm trying to keep this a generic example, so apologies if this is too vague. On my main website, we've always had a duplicate content issue. The main focus of our site is breaking down to specific, brick and mortar locations. We have to duplicate the description of product/service for every geographic location (this is a legal requirement). So for example, you might have the parent "product/service" page targeting the term, and then 100's of sub pages with "product/service San Francisco", "product/service Austin", etc. These pages have identical content except for the geographic location is dynamically swapped out. There is also additional useful content like google map of area, local resources, etc. As I said this was always seen as an SEO issue, specifically you could see in the way that googlebot would crawl pages and how pagerank flowed through the site that having 100's of pages with identical copy and just swapping out the geographic location wasn't seen as good content, however we still always received traffic and conversions for the long tail geographic terms so we left it. Las year, with Panda, we noticed a drop in traffic and thought it was due to this duplicate issue so I added canonical tags to all our geographic specific product/service pages that pointed back to the parent page, that seemed to be received well by google and traffic was back to normal in short order. However, recently what I notice a LOT in our SERP pages is if I type in a geographic specific term, i.e. "product/service san francisco", our deep page with the canonical tag is what google is ranking. Google inserts its own title tag on the SERP page and leaves the description blank as it doesn't index the page due to the canonical tag on the page. Essentially what I think it is rewarding is the site architecture which organizes the content to the specific geo in the URL: site.com/service/location/san-francisco. Other than that there is no reason for it to rank that page. Sorry if this is lengthy, thanks for reading all of that! Essentially my question is, should I keep the canonical tags on the site or take them off since Google insists on ranking the page? If I am ranking already then the potential upside to doing that is ranking higher (we're usually in the 3-6 spot on the result page) and also higher CTR because we can get a description back on our resulting page. The counter argument is I'm already ranking so leave it and focus on other things. Appreciate your thoughts on this!
Algorithm Updates | | edu-SEO0 -
.Co Domains - Any thoughts?
Hi Guys I'm not sure which section this one belongs in as I didn't see a section for domains/tlds. I wanted an opinion on the future of .co domains. We own a gift company (www.xperiencedays.com), as well as a gift recommendation site (www.uniquegifts.net), and invested in a few gift occasion .co domains (www.birthdaygifts.co, christmasgifts.co etc). This was partly because they were cheap and easy to come by, but also with a hope that they soon gain some public recognition. My question therefore is whether anyone within SEOMOZ has an opinion on whether .co will be widely accepted, whether they will (as google claims) be treated as a non-country specific url, and early success stories you know of, and finally whether the recent news from Overstock to rebrand as O.co (http://www.overstock.com/guides/faqs-about-o-co) is the kick start that .co need. I realize that is more than one question
Algorithm Updates | | bigtimeseo2