How many meta tags do you need for SEO

[dtalbot]

Hi,

I've been optimizing sites for quite a few years and have had very good success in optimizing pages by focusing on titles, h1 tags, content and links amoung other things. Meta tags roles have constantly changed but I've always made sure to pay attention to them. I use Webposition as a guide. I only put in two meta tags, description and keyword. The description is crafted more for what shows in the listings. The keyword is for the meta search engines. If by off chance both tags are the flavor du jour for Google, Yahoo and MSN, more the better.

A new client has an "seo" expert who disagreed with this approach and wanted addtional meta tags added. I've listed them below. I was under the impression that too much "stuff" watered down optimization. The question is do they harm or hurt? What has everyone else experienced with these?

<meta name="Title" content=" Targeted Keyword Title – CompanyName.com" />
<meta name="Description" content="Targeted keyword string written like an ad featuring keywords, keyword, keywords and much more but don’t spam. Use variations of the keywords rather than repeating. Limit this tag to about 20 words." />
<meta name="Keywords" content="keyword, keyword, keyword variations, keywords, keyword, etc., Company Name, CompanyName.com" />
<meta name="Classification" content="page particular keyword, keyword, keyword variations, keywords, keyword, etc., Company Name, CompanyName.com " />
<meta name="target" content="page particular keyword, keyword, keyword variations, keywords, keyword, etc., Company Name, CompanyName.com " />
<meta name="allow-search" content="yes" />
<meta name="audience" content="all" />
<meta name="robots" content="all, index, follow" />
<meta name="revisit-after" content="7 days" />
<meta name="Rating" content="General" />
<meta name="distribution" content="Global" />

Thanks,

[alhefner]

I can't see that the additional tags would hurt SERP too much unless the repeating of keywords in the "classification" and "target" tags is seen as keyword loading.

I also don't see that the additional tags would greatly help either.

One thing I can see is that the addition of the extra tags could be used to justify several hours of work resulting in higher fees.

If the approach does make a positive difference the the additional work may be justified but if they do not help SERP then it is simply "make work" and the client is paying for work that never needed to be done.

[thindenim]

You are absolutely right, my comments are as follows: -

Title - Required (Company name not necessarily required)
Description - Used as description in Search results, so should be enticing
Keywords - Hardly used, but supposedly yahoo uses for different spellings. Optional.
Classification - No need
Target - No need
Allow-search - No need
Audience - No need
Robots - No need, they will do this anyway unless you tell them otherwise
Revisit-after - I doubt they pay any attention to this
Rating - No need
Distribution - No need

You might want a meta content type tag for language, i.e: -

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

The rest will just decrease your text to code ratio.

[erikko]

does too much meta keywords may lead to keyword spam? that's just my concern though

[wige]

Other than title (which isn't a meta tag), keywords, description and content-type, none of the other tags are needed. The remaining tags will be ignored by the major search engines.

Google has some information on meta tags here (http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/metadata.html).

[alhefner]

wige is again on target. Thos "extra" meta tags just don't mean anything to the SE's. If you are focusing on effective use of keywords, concentrate on how they are used in the content of each page.

When I optimize a page, I perform quite a bit of keyword research to find the terms with the best KEI. I try to keep these terms to only two or three of the best and write, or edit, content with those in mind and avoiding keyword loading.

When you examine pages with litterally hundreds of keywords in the keyword tag, take a look at the content too. You will often see that only two or three terms or words from the keyword tag are used in the content in anyway that matters.

[~DaRk-EyE~]

does too much meta keywords may lead to keyword spam? that's just my concern though

It depends on how meta keywords are written...
Many are spamming meta keywords hoping to manipulate their SERP rankings....
You'll notice that meta keywords are spammy if its repeated and cannot be seen on the content page...

[gridsix]

Agreed; a few keywords that match site content would be ideal.

[dtalbot]

Everyone,

Great information. I think I needed some re-affirmation more than anything else.

Thank you all!!!

[Webnauts]

Eric Enge wrote the best tutorial about meta tags I ever read and fully agree:
Metatags and SEO (http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/metatags-and-seo.shtml)

[fctoma]

I really do not think they'll hurt but I agree with just about every post, they are not needed for any search engine. They are ignored with exception of the Title, KW, and Desc

Just because you put a tag in there stating follow and index, or update every day, doesn't mean squat to the search engines...

Stick with the top three and you'll be fine. You may pose the question to the "seo expert"; "Give me three reasons you need these extra tags"

[activeco]

The answer is really simple: Use them if YOU need them.
Regarding search engine needs, Wige answered it well in post #5.
Meta tags will not help neither hurt your SERP's.

[Webnauts]

The answer is really simple: Use them if YOU need them.
Regarding search engine needs, Wige answered it well in post #5.
Meta tags will not help neither hurt your SERP's.
Inappropriate implementation of meta tags can trigger spam filters and can harm your SERPs.

[activeco]

Inappropriate implementation of meta tags can trigger spam filters and can harm your SERPs.

Possible, but hard and unreasonable to implement in case of well designed <meta name="...> custom tags.
According to http agreements, all unknown arbitrary headers should be ignored.

[Webnauts]

Possible, but hard and unreasonable to implement in case of well designed <meta name="...> custom tags.
According to http agreements, all unknown arbitrary headers should be ignored.
Let me be more specific:

1. Keywords/Keyphrases repetition.
2. Irrelevant to page content keywords/keyphrases.

[activeco]

Let me be more specific:

1. Keywords/Keyphrases repetition.
2. Irrelevant to page content keywords/keyphrases.

I understand many people think of meta tags as something invented exclusively for a search engine. Some meta's have been indeed used by search engines to help them in better understanding of the document, especially 'keywords' and 'description' tags, which soon becomes abused by hordes of so-called Search Engine optimizers, so the algo's had to be changed.
Every search engine has its own algorithms and it is possible that they issue filters/penalties for the reasons you mentioned, but it would be against the agreed rules.
While '<META HTTP-EQUIV=' tags are in fact just complementary headers, everyone can use it's own meta information in '<META NAME=...' form and almost all the big software companies have their own meta tags.
Some of them are more or less universally recognized such as 'robots', 'description' , 'refresh', 'generator'..., but nothing can stop you to invent and use your own meta tags for your own purposes and no search engine should object that.
According to standards, unknown meta tags are simply ignored.

[Webnauts]

I understand many people think of meta tags as something invented exclusively for a search engine. Some meta's have been indeed used by search engines to help them in better understanding of the document, especially 'keywords' and 'description' tags, which soon becomes abused by hordes of so-called Search Engine optimizers, so the algo's had to be changed.
Every search engine has its own algorithms and it is possible that they issue filters/penalties for the reasons you mentioned, but it would be against the agreed rules.
While '<META HTTP-EQUIV=' tags are in fact just complementary headers, everyone can use it's own meta information in '<META NAME=...' form and almost all the big software companies have their own meta tags.
Some of them are more or less universally recognized such as 'robots', 'description' , 'refresh', 'generator'..., but nothing can stop you to invent and use your own meta tags for your own purposes and no search engine should object that.
According to standards, unknown meta tags are simply ignored.
Hold it a minute. I am talking about the meta description and keyword tags. If they are abused can't that trigger spamdexing filters by some SE?

[activeco]

Hold it a minute. I am talking about the meta description and keyword tags. If they are abused can't that trigger spamdexing filters by some SE?

I said it was possible, but the original question was about excessive use of different meta tags.

[Webnauts]

I said it was possible, but the original question was about excessive use of different meta tags.
Oh, now I got you man. :)

You know what bro? I think I am missing a meta tag on my own site like this:

<meta name="Webnauts" content="SEO Workers Organic Search Engine Optimization Consulting Company" />

Don't you think? :lol:

[activeco]

Oh, now I got you man. :)

You know what bro? I think I am missing a meta tag on my own site like this:

<meta name="Webnauts" content="SEO Workers Organic Search Engine Optimization Consulting Company" />

Sure. But you would be probably better noticed with more recognized ones such as: 'name="author" ' or 'name="owner" ' or even better using Apple meta tag 'name="Author-Corporate" '.

[Webnauts]

Sure. But you would be probably better noticed with more recognized ones such as: 'name="author" ' or 'name="owner" ' or even better using Apple meta tag 'name="Author-Corporate" '.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[mit]

Well, I suggest 2 of them...Title and Description...I add Description here because it is helpful in attracting visitors.

[amjad_you]

Well, I suggest 2 of them...Title and Description...I add Description here because it is helpful in attracting visitors.
But i have seen a number of times search engines like google picks the description from its open dir and display it in its serps.
If a site is not listed in dmoz then it picks the desc. from page's content, in case desc meta tag is not present.
so i think there should be 1 meta tag necessary to keep on page.
<meta name="keywords" content="whatever keywords are">

Title is not a meta tag

:p

[Webnauts]

But i have seen a number of times search engines like google picks the description from its open dir and display it in its serps.
If a site is not listed in dmoz then it picks the desc. from page's content, in case desc meta tag is not present.
so i think there should be 1 meta tag necessary to keep on page.
<meta name="keywords" content="whatever keywords are">

Title is not a meta tag

:p
That would happen with Google if the site is indexed in DMOZ and with Yahoo if the site is indexed in their directory:
More about this: Using NOODP & NOYDIR - SEO Workers (http://www.seoworkers.com/seo-articles-tutorials/using-noodp-and-noydir.html)