What is the right approach to specify keywords?

[sam222]

I am little confused about keywords specification how Google treats meta keyword tag? I need opinions on it. Say I have a title "The quick brown fox jumps over the white lazy dog" and 2 keywords i would like to specify as "quick brown fox" and "quick white dog".

What is the best way of keywords specification. How I will use keywords: 1) brown fox, 2) quick brown fox, 3) white dog, 4) quick white dog. Is it right approach to repeat fox and dog in keywords? or should i use each word as keyword like: quick, brown, fox, white, dog.

What if i use full phrase as one keyword: "The quick brown fox jumps over the white lazy dog"

[tedster]

Google ignores the meta keywords tag - you can give the concern no more energy.

[sam222]

I made test, I put a phrase "The quick brown fox jumps over the white lazy dog" in title, H1, sentences and in keywords were:

"The quick brown fox jumps over the white lazy dog, white dog, brown fox"

When my page got indexed i tried phrase: The quick brown fox jumps over the white lazy dog it was on first page of Google and then i removed The quick brown fox jumps over the white lazy dog and simplified keywords as:

"white dog, brown fox"

Phrase was no more there in first page of Google and even in first 10 pages i couldn't find. This test i did a week ago(Phrase ofcourse was different).

I am confused here do i really need to ignore keywords tag and what about H1, H2 and title tags?

[tedster]

I have aslo heard some reports lately of very obscure meta keywords showing up in search results. However, I haven't used the meta keywords tag for many years and it doesn't cause ranking problems. Google reps have also said that it doesn't help you rank.

I think you've been reading very old information somewhere.

do i really need to ignore keywords tag and what about H1, H2 and title tags?

As far as I'm concerned, I've been very HAPPY to ignore the meta keywords tag. It was never worth the energy, even years ago - and it doesn't show up on screen for the visitor to your page anyway.

<H1>, <H2> and <title> elements DO show up for the visitor and they are also a part of what Google uses to understand the keywords that your page is relevant for. You can ignore H1 and H2 without a lot of problem today, although they certainly do help a bit. However the title element is probably the most important on-page factor there is.

It's important to use the Title to summarize what that one page is about, and not to change it over and over again - and not to jam in every keyword you can think of. Use it naturally.

[sam222]

As far as I'm concerned, I've been very HAPPY to ignore the meta keywords tag

You can ignore H1 and H2 without a lot of problem today

How else you can specify Google that "brown fox" and "white dog" are the specific keywords to be focused on.

[tedster]

There's the copy you write on the page itself.
There's the internal links that point to the page from other pages on your site.
There's the topic of pages around the web that mention or link to your website.
There's the link text on pages around the web that link to your website.
There's the way people discuss your site in various social media.

I'm sure there is a lot more that search engines can use - but the key is to actually BE about the topic those keywords point to.

In the early days of search engines, they weren't very good at all when they used pure "text match". Today, they use a lot more signals, including other words on the page that are not even directly the same keywords. For example, using a phrase like "medical check-up" on a page about doctors would reinforce the main keyword. It's a pretty deep science at this point.

[sam222]

It's a pretty deep science at this point.

Could you please write the latest discussed thread link(s) from your or other forum(s) about this science more deeply?

[tedster]

Start with Phrase based indexing [webmasterworld.com] - there are now at least six patents about this, but if you understand the main one, then you get the basic idea.

However, even understanding this 5-year old patent probably requires some understanding of "keyword co-occurrence" - and that goes back to even before Google. Here's a thread discussing that relationship:

Phrase Based Multiple Indexing and Keyword Co-Occurrence [webmasterworld.com]

[Natedog]

Hi I am new to this forum signed up today.

Atfer reading posts from sam222 I was interested in finding out the answers as I was going to ask them same sort of questions.

sounds like you have alot on knowledge in this area Tedster and I appreciate the answers given. very helpful to my SEO learning curve.

[tedster]

Welcome to the forums, natedog. I've been at the SEO game since the mid-nineties, so I have some experience to draw on. We've got a number of members here who have been around just as long as me - and total post is not always the best way to spot quality input, but it is a beginning.

Things were a LOT simpler when I started, but it was still on the edge of mysterious. I fell in with a group of webmasters who were testing some ideas about how to rank, and over time some basic rules fell out of that, as well as some ideas that only worked for a shorter while.

Google, Yahoo and Bing (then MSN Search) changed the game a loot and they continue to change it. I learned in more recent years that I cannot test the algorithms the way we used to, but I can read the patents to get some idea of where all those engineers seem to be going.

We've got a thread pinned to the top of the Google SEO index page called Hot Topics - FAQs. [webmasterworld.com] That's a good place to start studying areas that might interest you. And down at the bottom there a decent list of Google patents and papers.

[buckworks]

some understanding of "keyword co-occurrence"

Here's an example.

The word "tuxedo" could mean one of several things.

- software
- formalwear
- a type of domestic cat
- the name of a neighborhood
- probably some other things I haven't thought of

A search engine (and also you or I) would discern the difference by looking at what else was on the page. If the page mentioned words like "fur", "purring", "whiskers" and "claws", it would conclude that the "tuxedo" on that page was likely discussing tuxedo cats. However, if the page mentioned things like "vest", "cufflinks", "patent shoes", "bow tie" and "prom", it would recognize that the page's "tuxedo" references were more likely about men's formalwear.

On the other hand, if you wrote that you felt like a cool cat in your tuxedo and your date was purring because you looked so good, such wording would confuse the search engine unless it had more signals to look at.

If 127 pages linked to you that were themselves clearly about men's formalwear, that would clarify that your own page was about formalwear, not about tuxedo cats and kittens.

[edited by: buckworks at 3:14 pm (utc) on Aug 16, 2012]

[Natedog]

Tedster Thanks for links.. some late night reading for me.

And Buckworks.. haha

On the other hand, if you wrote that you felt like a cool cat in your tuxedo and your date was purring because you looked so good, such wording would confuse the search engine unless it had still more signals to look at.

I now have a clearer picture Thanks again.. sure to be back with more questions.

Much appreciated

[buckworks]

BTW, welcome to Webmaster World! :)