OG Meta vs. Traditional

Should head content use both?

[neophyte]

Hello All -

I ran across an article that was very helpful in explaining Open Graph (og: ) meta tags.

After reading this article however, I was wondering...

if you use og:title (for example) - is the traditional title meta tag redundant... or should the traditional core meta tags (title, description, author, robots, etc) still be used?

Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

[edited by: bill at 4:22 am (utc) on Jul 28, 2015]
[edit reason] fix formatting [/edit]

[Hoople]

There are times where offering and alternative with the OG has it's advantages. You mentioned one, the title. The other is the description.

As facebook evolved it changed the length of the displayed content of those. The ability to get the maximum info out there without getting cut off with ... endings to me is VERY important.

I test with a page only I see and fiddle the length until the magic length is found that still gives the equivalent meaning but is not cut short (forcing the reader to click to continue reading.)

Hope that made sense? Clarification requests will be politely replied to.

[tangor]

If your target is Facebook or Twitter then use them, else the rest of the world uses ordinary.

[Hoople]

From my site page template. See [developers.facebook.com ] for more detail.

<!-- title shown in facebook post as underlined link (to url) 95 characters max -->
<meta property="og:title" content="">
<!-- usually blog, website or article; more @ http://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraphprotocol/ -->
<meta property="og:type" content="website">
<!-- ideally s/b square - the longer dimension gets cropped otherwise; must be > 1,000 x 1,000 pixels to display -->
<meta property="og:image" content="http://example.com/images/logo.gif">
<meta property="og:url" content="http://example.com/">
<!-- Facebook shows this in place of the standard meta description. Longer version of what web-searchers see. Max 297 characters -->
<meta property="og:description" content="">
<meta property="og:site_name" content="">

<meta name="fb:page_id" content="12345678">
<meta name="og:email" content="[e-mail]">
<meta name="og:phone_number" content="none">
<meta name="og:latitude" content="xx.xxxx">
<meta name="og:longitude" content="xx.xxxx">
<meta name="og:street-address" content="">
<meta name="og:locality" content="Anytown">
<meta name="og:region" content="NJ">
<meta name="og:postal-code" content="xxxxx">
<meta name="og:country-name" content="USA">

<!-- summary is default;Twitter will default to 'summary' if omitted -->
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary">
<!-- title is 70 max before truncation -->
<meta name="twitter:title" content="">
<!-- description is 200 characters before truncation -->
<meta name="twitter:description" content="">
<!-- image should be a square image no smaller than 60×60 pixels -->
<meta name="twitter:image" content="http://example.com/images/logo.gif">

[neophyte]

Hi Hoople and Tangor -

Thank you both very much for your answers - Hoople, and thank you for the example - much appreciated.

While on a similar topic, I've (finally) moved to HTML5 and I notice a lot of H5 sites aren't using the same "traditional" meta tags that were use full for previous HTML builds. The traditional ones I still see most often on H5 sites are title, description... and that's pretty much it.

That being said, are Title and Description the only "traditional" tags that remain relevant to an H5 site?

[tangor]

"Traditional" is what is W3C. Anything else is an extension either embraced, or forced, on the the web.

[lucy24]

is the traditional title meta tag redundant... or should the traditional core meta tags (title, description, author, robots, etc) still be used?

I really hope you didn't mean that literally. You always need a <title>. Any new stuff is always in-addition-to, not instead-of.