Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
[edited by: Shaddows at 2:43 pm (utc) on Dec 7, 2010]
Great links will help do a deeper crawl as well...
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS 2.0" href="/feed/" />
<link rel="alternate" type="text/xml" title="RSS .92" href="/feed/rss/" />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Atom 0.3" href="/feed/atom/" />
<link rel="pingback" href="/xmlrpc.php" />
Do I need to take the time now to write a meta desc for 100s of pages or can I just remove the meta desc?
Unique meta descriptions used to be very important for getting more pages in the main index - but that was before Caffeine was deployed. I haven't tested it since then - but my sense of it is things have shifted.
I do think it would be better not to have any meta descriptions at all than to serve a whole lot of duplicates. But especially at the scale you are describing, you're probably much better off the actually write unique descriptions. It's not that big a job, just big enough to be a bit of a PITA.
Worked well enough that these days I don't bother with meta statements on new sites.
Google says they do not use meta descriptions to factor in rankings. Either way, this is what people see in google that makes them either click or not click your site. This is your sales pitch to entice potential visitors, so make it count, a great meta description can go a very long way.
I think there is reason to feel google does use meta descriptions, so we should too.
Its just ... a LOT of work to go back and do all that.
If it costs $1.00 of effort and I only make back $0.50, what's the point?
Sites are all reasonably shallow linked (not too many clicks to each page)...