Slashdot Mirror
Declaring The Death of Metatags
theduck writes "Andrew Goodman of Traffick.com pleaded for someone to announce the end of metatags (at least with respect to trying to skeeve good search engine ranking). and Danny Sullivan, Editor of The SearchEngineReport obliged. Personally, I've resisted using them for years, but convincing clients that they're not worth the effort has always been difficult. Does anyone (except porn sites) actually use them anymore?"
<meta name="will_be_shutdown_by_the_riaa" value="">
<meta name="contains_drm_technology" value="">
<meta name="capable_of_withstanding_slashdot_effect" value="">
<meta name="viewable_with_browser_other_than_IE" value="">
<meta name="uses_extremely_irritating_blink_tag" value="">
<meta name="requires_irritating_to_install_plugin" value="">
Mentioning your site every chance you get on slashdot probably did more for your ranking than using a tag that google is known to ignore.
... a reference to the awesome Meta Crap article which highlights very clearly the problems with relying on <META> tags for useful information.
Metatags are still useful, just less so on the public internet. Like all information retrieved from the public internet, metatag keyword and description information must be considered suspect. It's useless for search engines that index arbitrary pages. So what good is metatag information? At the very least, local site searching. If you add a simple search engine to your web site, the keyword and description information is very likely to be valid (after all, it's your site). It's also useful for external sites that might index you specifically. For example, when Google decides to index the University of Wisconsin at Madison web sites, the metadata information isn't perfect, but relatively trustworthy.
I also wish that Google would show the page's metatag description in addition to the text in the displayed page. Sure, you need to also show the displayed page matches to help quickly identify liars, but Google could easily show the description as well. For many sites the description is an excellent summary useful for filtering out bad hits.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Which is one of the things they are there for.
META was never intended to be the primary key for search engines. The idea that search engines should believe a page with a billion Meta tags is pretty wierd.
The purpose of Meta was to allow people to add their own search terms to a document for their own convenience. That use is not invalidated just because Google and Co can't find a way to use that information any more than the existence of spam does not invalidate the idea of email.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Read the article. It is only talking about keyword meta tags. There are lots of other types of meta tags. The Slashdot title is misleading.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
IMO what metatags are good for is supplying synonyms that you don't want to have to put into your text.
For example, a webpage might be about "OOP Criticism". However, searchers may not think to use the word "criticism", and instead look for "OOP complaints", "OOP skeptics", etc.
"OOP criticism" and "OOP skepticism" are pretty closely related. But text indexing or link indexing probably would not be able to make the connection.
Thus, they have legit uses IMO. Sure, they are abused, just like any other technology, including word indexing an link tracing.
A search engine should use *multiple* approaches IMO. Better yet, allow one to select the weights of each one for a given search. Have drop-down boxes with numbers from 0 to 9 on which to select the weightings given to links, text, and metatags.
Table-ized A.I.
interestingly, the article html contains meta name="keywords" content="metatags are evil, metatags must die, death to the meta tags"
I think the main issue with "keyword" metatags is that they're completely unreliable for search engine use, since it's easy to abuse them by stuffing them with terms that users search for that aren't necessarily related to the content of your page. Fine, I think that's obvious. Nobody's really going to argue that one.
:P
The "description" metatag is still EXTREMELY useful, though. Even if a search engine doesn't use the metatags for ranking purposes, it can still use the "description" metatag to display a nice human-readable summary of the page. Often search engines just display the first N characters of text on the page and use that for a summary, which usually is not a good or readable summary for the site.
The problem with Google is that it seems to randomly use the "Description" metatag sometimes, but not others. Here's an example. Notice how the second "Anime Expo 2002 at Bootyproject" link has a nice readable summary under it, but the first one doesn't. (It may have changed between the time I posted it and the time you view it, who knows) Which makes no sense to me, because if you look at the source for each of the two pages, the metatag information is identical for both pages. I don't get it, I dunno if Google's just a little broken in that respect, or if I screwed something up. Sorry to pimp my own site there... it's just an example I'm obviously quite familiar with.
But anyway, when search engines and authors use the description metatag properly (ie, the search engine doesn't use it for ranking, and the author takes the time to write a nice summary), it's pretty nice.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Once I actually went to explicity search for "pussy"
Bars tend to be better than search engines for that sort of thing.