Metatags for GOOGLE?

[greeneagle]

Are metatags relevant in GOOGLE any more?

There has been so much discussion in Forums about metatags meaning nothing in GOOGLE any more, that I sat down and searched top listings in some of the most competitive terms that popped into my mind. I listed a few results here so that anyone can check them for themselves. See what you think:

Here's just a few:

Marble: http://www.marble-institute.com/ - #1,out of 10,500,000 returns – Title only, no metatags.

Chickens: http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/ #1 out of 3,630,000 returns – Title only, No Metatags, No HTML Body, list of breeds in the navigation frame.

Trucks: http://www.chevrolet.com/ - #1 out of 23,400,000 – Title and Description, “truck” or “trucks” not used in either, no keywords.

Tires: http://www.goodyear.com/ - #1 out of 12,800,000 returns. Title only, no metatags.

Fertilizer: http://www.fertilizer.com/ - #1 out of 4,310,000 returns. Title only, no metatags.

Snakes: http://www.pitt.edu/~mcs2/herp/SoNA.html - #1 out of 4,330,000 returns. Title only, no metatags.

Oil: http://www.oilonline.com/ #2 out of 91,300,000 returns. Title only, no metatags.

Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome - #2 out of 50,700,000 returns. No Title or Metatags

Marketing: http://www.marketingpower.com/ - #1 out of 176,000,000 returns, Title only, no metatags.

Fruit: http://www.crfg.org/pubs/frtfacts.html - #3 out of 36,400,00 returns, Title only, no metatags

Maybe we can finally answer this question:
Do metatags mean anything to GOOGLE any more?
What do you think?

Ken

[Faglork]

Hi Ken,

AFAIK Google does not use the meta tags with the exception of TITLE. However, it shows DESCRIPTION in their SERPs when the search phrase is not to be found in the text, but in the DESCRIPTION.

A somewhat dated overview can be found at
http://searchenginewatch.com/webmast...le.php/2167891


Although - due to excessive abuse - most SEs ignore meta tags, you definitely *should* include them. Not for the spiders, but for YOU. So optimise them as if YOU would be using them.
The reason? If someday you add an onsite search, you have your pages ready for your own little engine. And the better your engine can use your pages, the better will be the experience for your customers.

hth,
Alex

[greeneagle]

Alex:

"Although - due to excessive abuse - most SEs ignore meta tags, you definitely *should* include them. Not for the spiders, but for YOU. So optimise them as if YOU would be using them."

I agree with you completely. They are a great tool for Site and Page structure, and focus, especially when you haven't revised that page in some time.

I really didn't expect to see so many top Sites in almost any category without them though. That fact definitely shifts more emphasis to good copywrite in the Body.

Ken

[Jason Tor]

I think the evil Google hasn’t paid much attention to META tags(at least the keyword tag) in quite some time. However they are not ignored by Yahoo or MSN by any means.

My index page comes up in the angelic MSN for website financing due to my META description tag.

Yahoo used the description tag as well plus the content in the body.

It looks as though the keyword tag is complete unused but the description tag is still being utilized.

Jason Tor

[jawn_tech]

I can agree completely on the meta keywords issue.
Also, I can agree meta descriptions are not the big factor to getting to top serp or page one for that matter. What I'm not sold on is that they mean 'nothing' to SE's. They do mean something, otherwise they would not be showing them at all in SERP's, especially when they are highlighting the matching keyphrases when they show them.

I would almost venture to say meta description is second to title, in the order of what they look for when a spider looks at code. Sites that aren't showing a description match in their SERPs are pretty much getting there due to the biggest factor, which is links with anchors, or just high volume links.

[greeneagle]

Don't get me wrong guys, I don't only agree with your need scenarios, there are several more good reasons to continue using them. Most of the Sites that make it to the top have them, but there remains the fact there is a stronger contingency than one might expect, of Top Sites that don't have description or keyword metatags. Some don't even have a Title.

Ken

[wednesday]

What benefits meta description brings to the user? Except the description apearing in the SERPs. Of cource there are sites that cannot provide no other description for the SERPs. And what is the genneral idea behind the metas? To provide some information for machines crawling the site. And I think the most important question here is, does the search engines need the description metas anymore?

Martin

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by hornet

What benefits meta description brings to the user? Except the description apearing in the SERPs. Of cource there are sites that cannot provide no other description for the SERPs. And what is the genneral idea behind the metas? To provide some information for machines crawling the site. And I think the most important question here is, does the search engines need the description metas anymore?
Martin

No, IMHO this is not the most important question. If you see site development only from an SEO point of view, you might be missing a lot. You were right on the track:

What benefits meta description brings to the user?

As I said, you can use metas for your very own onsite search engine - try perlfect search (just google for it), for example, works great. Now if you omit the metas, and several hundred pages later you decide to add an onsite search because the darn site has just grown way too fast way too big, you have an awful lot of work to do. It is comparably easy to throw in correct, meaningful metas right at the time when you write (or generate or whatever) the page. Afterwards, its just a huge pain in the ***. I just have to do it at a site where I neglected this ... wish I would have followed my own guidelines ;-)))

So use your metas as if YOU were the search engine. It is no big deal, but it can help you and your visitors a lot.

Just my 2 cents,
Alex

[wednesday]

I don't see site development only from a SEO point of view.

The regular user will never take a look at the matas at all. They're of use for the browser (encoding etc.) and search engines only. If you're running search engine at your site this is a private case. And it is in not a contradiction to my point.

Martin

[wednesday]

Google? I can't see much benefit given to the description. 90% are kw stffd so I suppose they are just ignored in the SERPs.

Martin

[RikR]

My web site has as its core function, a directory of web sites. The software I use, link many of this type, will spider the link for meta tag data and fill in the title, description, and keywords.

If these are missing, I have to visit the site and try to locate theis information in the body and copy and paste it manually (assuming the site even allows copying or does not display the text as a graphic).

If the spidering comes up emtpy and I have to decide to manually get the information, I may choose to delete the entry rather than bother.

I am usually left feeling "if they don't care enough to provide it, why should I care for them and use my time?"

However, more and more these are left out. I wish they were always included.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by RikR

My web site has as its core function, a directory of web sites. The software I use, link many of this type, will spider the link for meta tag data and fill in the title, description, and keywords.

Same with me ;-)
We have built a regional business directory and have spidered about 1500 sites. 80% without or irrelevant meta tags. Aaaargh.

@brainwash:

If you're running search engine at your site this is a private case.

"Private"? Almost all non-trivial sites (say, a hundred pages and up, or are we talking about personal homepages?) feature an onsite search. Not in all cases the pages are based on a database. In such a case, you are lost without metas.

[greeneagle]

One of the main reasons for us to continue their use is that we approach Web Development for a new client, doing a through on-line competitive analysis. This allows us to measure several things, online industry strength, competitive degrees, targeted products and services, and many other parameters which for a good guide can be established into a pyramidal hierarchy of keywords/keyphrases.

This approach even lends itself to determining the degree of effort we are going to have to expend while endeavoring to place our client on top!

In fact keywords/keyphrases become the “cornerstone” of focus and your “Logic Channels” for the entire Site. Unfortunately many designers/developers envision one logic channel into their Site; through the homepage.

Ken

[wednesday]

I'm not arguing against the use of meta tags. And completly agree for local search they can be priceless, but?

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Are metatags relevant in GOOGLE any more?
.....
Do metatags mean anything to GOOGLE any more?

Does Google really need meta description, to figure out how relevant a site is? I think no.

Martin

[greeneagle]

I haven't had the time to examine in detail whether MSN and YAHOO have the same contingency of meta-less top Sites in the SERPs or not.

An initial review indicated that they may actually rely less on IBL's. Many weren't far behind in the SERPs over there either!

Now, "Ask Jeeves" is doing their "own thing". Not only have I seen "ASK" coming on stronger in spidering but also in Site references lately. Anyone want to comment with observations on their relevancy factor? Do they utilize the meta's and if so how and to what extent? Has anyone been off on one keyword searches "out of the blue", "whatever pops up" lately? Ask comes up in top SERPS all over everywhere.

I am personnaly putting them on "watch".

Ken

[garbageaccount]

I've looked at a few of your originally posted search results for Google in MSN and Yahoo.

Yahoo is very different, I'm finding a big difference in the #1 slot here. Not always finding meta-tags but I am finding a keyword density for the keyword in the body text.

MSN, I'm finding a mixed bag, some of the results are the same as google and some are not, but again I'm not finding meta-tags for theme ither.

Personally I've found that yahoo is really starting to look at my keyword meta-tags as I made a major change to them recently and I'm already seeing our site ranking quite well on these new keywords recently introduced to the meta-tag.

Meanwhile my brand new site recently launched, submitted etc. Is getting nowhere except on MSN.

[jawn_tech]

My point is still that meta descriptions are usable by search engines. Yes a site can still get by, even do well without them. Links are 90% (if not more) of the empowering factor. But the fact that SERPs do display descriptions indicate they do use them.

Just to clarify with a (maybe far-fetched) analogy, I don't eat carrots and have better eyesight than some people that do. That doesn't mean carrots are 'worthless', or have no use. My body would still use it if I digested it (fat chance), so carrots do still have a benefit.

In other words, I don't see this as an all-or-nothing scenario. It's not that either descriptions are the top thing or they're nothing. It's simply a matter of yes, they're usable, and if you don't have a lot of links to work with, you ought to use them because SERPs are evidence that the SE's do. If they display them, it stands to reason they also use them to an extent. Maybe not the extent as links or titles, but still a significant extent.

[collusion]

It has been my finding that search engines dont use the keywords or any other tags to make a single decision of whether the site should be on top. BUT, when the site uses the tags, the search engines algo kicks in for that scenerio and determines if they are being used to stuff words or if the keywords and description are actually relevant to the site.

It is good to use them but when you do, make sure you know the algo that is included with them. If your site doesnt match your tags in the SE's eyes then you deserve a nice penalty!

[Chris@lemon]

I agree with most things being said above: We do use them, they're probably not 0 weight, you ca nget to the top without etc.

However, I think the analysis started off from a slightly flawed: You looked at #1 pages for competitive fairly keywords. These guys have sites which could be called "Talking Horses".

Mening: It doesn't really matter what they do, they are so big they'll be at number 1 in any case, even if they put up a completely unoptimised Flash site.

Like the saying goes: If you have a talking horse, who cares what it says: It talks!!

What would be really interesting to research is whether meta tags keywords and description make a difference between Joe's Pizza Parlour website and Randy's Pizza Parlour website who both compete for ranking on Pizza in Kansas Suburbs (or something like that).

I would suggest that Joe's carefully optimised site will beat Randy's by a huge amount if good care is taken optimising all pages including use and balance of descritpion/keywords meta.

And since I'm not going to design the new site for Nike, IBM or BMW anytime soon I have to rely on making my horses run, while others have them tell jokes :)

Chris

[Keimos]

Hi All,

Google may not use all metatags but there are other players out there.

Google used to own most of the playing field but not from the stats I have been receiving, and I do well from Google.

Metatages used as they are meant to be used do help, but I do agree with the above that G does not give them much weight aprat from Title and Description, although in a lot of cases description does match the first paragraph. In some cases I have seen the third or fourth paragraph cted where the search is relevant. (Oh back to the drawing board)

Bottom line - SEO is not only about G you have to cater for everybody.

Keith

[ppayne]

Is there any chance that sites with keyword tags get slightly penalized? It looks slightly worrysome with the results published at the top of this thread.