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
-
Does Google considers the direct traffic on the pages with rel canonical tags?
Hi community, Let's say there is a duplicate page (A) pointing to original page (B) using rel canonical tag. Pagerank will be passed from Page A to B as the content is very similar and Google honours it hopefully. I wonder how Google treats the direct traffic on the duplicate Page A. We know that direct traffic is also an important ranking factor (correct me if I'm wrong). If the direct traffic is high on the duplicate page A, then how Google considers it? Will there be any score given to original page B? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Thoughts on RankScience?
I'm sure most of you have heard about this startup, RankScience, that has big ambitions to disrupt the SEO industry with their automated (I know I know...the word 'automated' and 'SEO' in the same sentence!!!) optimization software. Their claim is that by running thousands of congruent A/B tests on your site, they can maximize rankings and organic traffic. Initially my thoughts were "oh crap, there goes my (and a lot of other people's) career". But then I started thinking about it a bit more and realized a couple things. First, software can't replace a face-to-face client meeting. Being in an agency world as most of us are, client interactions are vital to a sustained partnership. Second, someone is going to have to understand what this software does, configure it, and monitor it, and I'm ok with that being part of my job if that's how the industry shifts. Third, and most importantly, in theory this software has the capability to reverse engineer search algorithms. If they had the data of 10,000 websites using their platform and are collecting data on what works and what doesn't, it's only a matter of time before they can pick apart the algorithm piece by piece to figure out exactly how it works. Google is obviously not going to like that very much and will almost certainly right the ship. That's my 2 cents, looking forward to what your thoughts are on RankScience and the future of our industry.
Algorithm Updates | | LoganRay2 -
Do I need to track my rankings on the keywords "dog" and "dogs" separately? Or does Google group them together?
I'm creating an SEO content plan for my website, for simplicity's sake lets say it is about dogs. Keeping SEO in mind, I want to strategically phrase my content and monitor my SERP rankings for each of my strategic keywords. I'm only given 150 keywords to track in Moz, do I need to treat singular and plural keywords separately? When I tried to find estimated monthly searches in Google's keyword planner, it is grouping together "dog" and "dogs" under "dogs"... and similarly "dog company" and "dog companies" under "dog companies". But when I use Moz to track my rankings for these keywords, they are separate and my rankings vary between the plural version and singular version of these words. Do I need to track and treat these keywords separately? Or are they grouped together for SEO's sake?
Algorithm Updates | | Fairstone0 -
Google's spell check recognize a keyword with volume
When the keyword "acls recertification" (an important keyword for our client) is typed into the Google search box, the word "recertification" is underlined in red. Note that you only need to type "acls rec" to make the red underline appear.BUT, Google does not underline the word "recertification" when it is typed into the search box alone, nor does Google underline the word "recertification" when the following keywords are searched: cpr recertification bls recertification pals recertification ^These are all closely related to the keyword "acls recertification," so this spell check behavior is very inconsistent.Why does this matter? Because no matter how close you come to typing "acls recertification," Google's autocomplete suggestions never include "acls recertification" (because of the perceived misspelling?).BUT, Google does suggest "acls recertification online" in the dropdown menu. If you select the "acls recertification online" suggestion then backspace until the word "online" is gone, the red underline disappears, and "acls recertification" becomes an autocomplete suggestion. VERY strange behavior...I have replicated this issue on various depersonalized browsers and devices, so I am confident that this is not related to my personal settings.This keyword contributes to a large portion of our client's business (they specialize in acls certification and recertification), so you can imagine how concerning this is for us. Note that until very recently (3-4 months ago), this keyword did NOT have any spell-check issues. This keyword averages 2400 searches per month according to AdWords which should be enough volume to allow Google to recognize the correct spellingI posted this issue in the Google product forums, where I was advised to submit feedback directly on the search results page via Google's "feedback" link. I have submitted this feedback to Google, but I thought I would bring this to the MOZ community as well to see if anyone has experienced a similar issue, or has any ideas as to what could be causing this issue.
Algorithm Updates | | RyanKent0 -
Did Google update the length of characters allowed in Meta Description?
Hey all, I do SEO. I'm currently working with another SEO firm on a project. The lady mentioned to me that Google recently updated (couple months ago) and changed their font causing them to lower the meta description to 55 characters. Is this true? I have not heard of this. Could she be confusing the meta description with the title tag? I didn't know Google could have even update the Title tag too.
Algorithm Updates | | ColeLusby0 -
Sub-domains and keyword rich domains
Hello All I'm hoping for some opinions as i am confused as to the best action for me to take. The problem:
Algorithm Updates | | jonny512379
Although i say the below, we have never been penalised by Google, not taken part in any bad link building and don't do too bad with SERP. but i worry Google may not like what i do these days. We have one main site that is broken down into areas/cities (i,e London, Manchester, etc) so the domain looks like www.domain.co.uk/London But in addition to this we also use Sub-domains to target popular areas (i,e. http://London.domain.co.uk).
These sub-domains take the content from the main site but of course only display results relevant to London and are optimised for "London + Keyword"
Any page that gets duplicated (i.e London.domain.co.uk/profile123 and www.domain.co.uk/profile123 are ALMOST the same content) we add a rel="canonical" link that points to the main domain+page on www.
All these sites have a large amount of links back to www.domain.co.uk/?Page so the user can also search in other areas other then London, etc. This method has worked well for us and is popular with both users and Google search results. All sites/sub-domains are added to GWT under the same account and all sites have unique sitemaps. I do however worry that Google may class this as link manipulation owing to the amount of links pointing back to the main domain and its pages (this is not the reason we use the sub-domains though) In addition to the above sub-domains we have a few domain names (5/6) that are keyword rich that we also place the same content on (i,e www.manchester-keyword.co.uk would show only content relevant to Manchester), and again these sites have links back to the main domain, so users can navigate other areas of the UK. I worry that these additional domains may also not be liked by Google What do people think? I have started to reduce/replace some of the additional keyword rich domains with sub-domains from the main site and then 301 the keyword rich domain (i.e. www.manchester-Keyword.co.uk now goes to http://Manchester.domain.co.uk) as i feel sub-domains may not be penalised as much as unique domains are.
There are domains that i dont really want to 301 as they bring in good amounts of traffic and users have bookmarked them, etc. Any opinions or what you think i should do would be great, as i really worry that if Google stops giving us good results, i'm in real trouble. Although im not sure if what we do is wrong with Google or not.0 -
Does this mean that exact keyword phrase anchor text is not the dominating ranking factor anymore for serps?http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2011/11/ten-recent-algorithm-changes.html
Does this mean that exact keyword phrase anchor text is not the dominating ranking factor anymore for serps? http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2011/11/ten-recent-algorithm-changes.html If so what is the new most important factor?
Algorithm Updates | | AndrewSEO0 -
Can I check the rank of a keyword over time ?
Is there any tools available that allows users to track ranking of a keyword in SERP over time ? I know the question can be a bit confusing so here is an example that I hope makes it a bit easier to understand EXAMPLE : I am doing keyword research for say "iphones games" and I find out the current sites that rank for the term but If I want to see who ranked for the term 6 months ago or 1 year ago, is it possible ? Also can I get data of the SERP ranking history for "example.com" for the term "iphones games" ? eg : in jan 2011 rank 10 feb 2011 rank 7 ... sep 2011 rank 5
Algorithm Updates | | avant_seomoz0