| 3:10 pm on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
How about if you have widget on the page and widgets in the keywords meta tag? Technically they're different, but what if the engine is using stemming and actually looks at the KW meta?
| 4:01 pm on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't think that plurals of the word are issues, it's completely different keywords that I'm concerned about.
| 6:51 pm on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I think the keywords meta element has so little weight that you'd be hard pressed to do anything that qualified as 'bad'. The strongest I'd go for would be 'pointless'.
I'd also echo Marcia's comments and suggest that an exact match between the words in a meta element and the words on a page is not really the issue - what's required is a relationship between the contents of both, and if it's SEO you're after, a relationship that your target search engine is capable of identifying.
| 8:22 pm on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Metas except page title and snippet are worthless these days. Google and other search engines doesn't cares if you put targeted keywords in meta area. What do you say about it?
| 4:27 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Google and other search engines doesn't cares if you put targeted keywords in meta area |
I'd agree that meta keywords are a waste of time, apart from perhaps a few very fringe cases.
| 8:05 pm on May 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Personally, I think the keywords meta element has so little weight that you'd be hard pressed to do anything that qualified as 'bad'. The strongest I'd go for would be 'pointless'. |
I agree. It's almost pointless to spend effort thinking about the keywords meta.
That said, if your page were ever flagged for manual review and you had a ridiculously spammy keywords meta, I tend to think that it would work against you with the manual reviewer.
Also, an historical footnote... way back, when Inktomi had a search engine, there was a time when they did look at meta keywords, and I remember one Inktomi search engineer telling me that they considered metas in the keywords that weren't also on the page as a spam signal.
More recently, several years back, Yahoo was hinting that they did look at meta keywords. The search boost that a meta keyword might provide for a word that might generally be found on pages was probably infinitesimally small, but it was thought that the inclusion might help with misspellings. I don't know where they are on this now.
| 8:21 pm on May 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Agreed that spammy keywords elements could attract the wrong kind of attention. These days the most common advice I give about meta keywords is: delete them, and don't spend any more time on them. But then, I think pretty much every site has areas that warrant more attention.
| 8:25 pm on May 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
the keyword metatag is quite handy if you have your own internal search engine running. because you can fill it with the right words and have your search engine weight them really highly.
| 8:34 pm on May 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|These days the most common advice I give about meta keywords is: delete them, and don't spend any more time on them. |
Yes, I completely agree. I've just been omitting the tag for a while now. There was a point where I was including keyword metas for "bookkeeping" purposes (or perhaps for the rare directory that might want to use them), but they're really not worth the effort.