no meta tags?

[annieo]

In the interest of becoming a better webmaster, I have been reviewing code of pages that have high PR. Many of them, like the one you are viewing, are not using any meta tags.

Does this help with search engine rankings?

Thank you.

[hanewich]

I have seen that on high PR sites as well, and I never understood it. Meta tags have always played an important role in search engine positioning, in my opinion.

[Mohamed_E]

Most search engines ignore the keywords meta tag, so many webmasters do not use it. Many engines do use the description meta tag (Google only uses it occasionally).

I am pretty certain that leaving it out does not help with search engine rankings, just saves time :)

[Yidaki]

Never heard of any se that penalizes you for using meta tags honestly ... so why not? I don't know if there's a ranking difference between using and not using them. I always put the main tags (Keywords, Description) into my sites. As long as you use a good description and a *few* relevant kewords - all describing the actual page content - meta tags are ok and can face lift your snippet text at the se's that use meta tags.

I think, this site (any many of the big sites) doesn't use meta tags because it saves bandwith ...!?

BTW: google ignores meta tags - in *most* cases ...

<added>man, what a slow typer i am ...</added>

[Terry_Plank]

Basically, with Google, only the keywords in the <Title> in HTML is of any value for ranking. It doesn't hurt to have Meta Keyword or Meta Description, it doesn't help to have them.

I like to keep using them so I can identify quickly what is the target keyword for a particular page. And, who know's what search engines will do in the future with algorithm's, they might start looking at them again and I'll be ready for them. :-)

[BigDave]

I can think of two ways that the meta keywords tag could harm you, if you overdo it with the keywords.

1. it reduces the percentage of your file that is used for the actual content. There is no proof whether or not this makes a difference, but it might.

2. If, for some reason, there is a human review of your site for spam, that human will see all the keywords you are trying to stuff. If they view source and the first page on their screen is 50 lines of keywords, they are a lot less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt when they find something minor wrong with your site.

[Dreamquick]

I'd say that of the big two meta tags description is useful while the keyword tag is next to useless to the point that I got rid of it as IMO all it was doing was wasting bandwidth that I could use elsewhere...

Why would big sites not bother with meta's?

1) Maybe they cloak/browser detect so that users don't get fed meta tags - after all what use are they to you?

2) They are already big site and normally their pages are content heavy, therefore keyword rich. At the end of the day why waste time with a keywords meta tag when you have exactly what a search engine really wants - content.

- Tony

[rcjordan]

Ditto what BigDave said.

I haven't bothered with metas for over 2 years now.

[Yidaki]

BigDave:

>1. it reduces the percentage of your file that is used for
>the actual content. There is no proof whether or not this
>makes a difference, but it might.

True, and important if your site is under 10k and your keywords are 5k. I only can speak about my sites - ~15k and 0,4k used for meta ...

>2. If, for some reason, there is a human review of your site
>for spam, that human will see all the keywords you are
>trying to stuff.

Stuffing is cheating and meta tags are used to describe a site.

[SlyGuy]

In the interest of becoming a better webmaster..

If this is the case, then my suggestion would be not to optimize your website solely for Google.

As previously stated by several members, I believe Google only pays heed to the Meta Description tag, if required.

From Positiontechs FAQ:
How do I improve the ranking of my Web pages in Inktomi powered results? [positiontech.com]

I'm not too sure how accurate this is, but it does seem to encourage the use of metas for relevancy.

- Chad

[rfgdxm1]

>Basically, with Google, only the keywords in the <Title> in HTML is of any value for ranking. It doesn't hurt to have Meta Keyword or Meta Description, it doesn't help to have them.

I disagree about meta description. I am fairly well convinced that Google does use this in ranking. It doesn't look like it is given a very high weight, but it is relevant. The meta keywords tag I doubt is used. However, as some other search engines most definitely use the meta description tag, and possibly they keyword one also, it seems to make sense to use them. Particularly WRT the description tag, I'd say that is a must.

[pageoneresults]

I am fairly well convinced that Google does use this in ranking. It doesn't look like it is given a very high weight, but it is relevant.

I too am convinced of this, especially after watching the SERPs over the past 90-120 days. Many here have reported seeing their meta descriptions showing in the snippets, I am one of them.

Use your meta description and keywords as they were intended to be used. Google is of course the major player right now but that should not stop you from covering all of your bases.

By the way, if you look at the information that Google has posted about their Search Appliances, I think you'll find some interesting stuff in there that may coincide with how the main Google search works. ;)

[garry]

Use your meta description and keywords as they were intended to be used.

Good point Pageone.

What does the w3 have to say on the issue.(putting the SE's aside for 8 seconds) Does it not reflect on the web developers work ethics in creating the "correct" web.

What if someone at Google woke up one morning and said "Lets include all Meta tags again". How long would it take to sort out all your sites.

For the sake of half a dozen words, the old boy/girlscouts out there will be prepared.

[rfgdxm1]

>I too am convinced of this, especially after watching the SERPs over the past 90-120 days. Many here have reported seeing their meta descriptions showing in the snippets, I am one of them.

Because some search engines such as Alltheweb display the description meta, it makes sense that it be something reasonable to the page. Another reason for Google to at least give it some weight.

[Brett_Tabke]

>I haven't bothered with metas for over 2 years now.

The download time alone costs you more visitors than any se will kick you back.

[EquityMind]

I definately use a meta description. Meta tags sparingly and only for top keyword phrases because it cant hurt.

[BigDave]

I actually think that using the meta description is a good idea if it makes sense for your site. But for a lot of sites like WW, where most of the content is user generated or other dynamic content, it doesn't make sense. And many of those sites are considered authority sites.