I always thought that with Google being the 800-lb gorilla, that Meta tags were worthless.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:27 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I always thought that with Google being the 800-lb gorilla, that Meta tags were worthless.
Pretty much since the gorilla doesn't even care about them.
Also: SEO is a silly buzzword to sell consulting services.
-Chad
On 21/03/2011 01:46, Chad wrote:
Pretty much since the gorilla doesn't even care about them.
Keywords are useless. Even more so having the same keywords everywhere.
Description, not that much useless. Google can use it as a human preview of a page content. But it should be a good snippet of the page content, something a computer has to extract (you can't set it for each page). Same description overused is on the other hand more harmful than no description at all.
I would agree 90% with that. My wiki shows up pretty high in google searches (top first page) with out any SEO. The trick? Better content than the competition. I do use "keywords" in my writing however. Instead of saying "it" or other ambiguous words, I use the actual name of the part I am writing about once a paragraph.
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Chad wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:27 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I always thought that with Google being the 800-lb gorilla, that Meta tags were worthless.
Pretty much since the gorilla doesn't even care about them.
Also: SEO is a silly buzzword to sell consulting services.
-Chad
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Adam Meyer meyer7@mindspring.com wrote:
[...]The trick? Better content than the competition.[...]
I am not sure if i can confirm that. Let me show you an example. If you google "Corporate Social Responsibility" you see of course a good Wikipedia article with ~5 Page on top, followed by many many other sites with low content. I have written ~30 Page essay about it, very detailled, very scientific etc. (published 2 months ago) and I come somewhere on google page 27.
But all about I am not sure if 2 months are enough and if It needs more time. But I could give you other examples aswell, where I wrote a lot of scientific stuff and other sites just a lot of google pages infront of me while I am on page 16 etc.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Adam Meyer meyer7@mindspring.com wrote:
I would agree 90% with that. My wiki shows up pretty high in google searches (top first page) with out any SEO. The trick? Better content than the competition. I do use "keywords" in my writing however. Instead of saying "it" or other ambiguous words, I use the actual name of the part I am writing about once a paragraph.
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Chad wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:27 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I always thought that with Google being the 800-lb gorilla, that Meta
tags
were worthless.
Pretty much since the gorilla doesn't even care about them.
Also: SEO is a silly buzzword to sell consulting services.
-Chad
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
uv22e Alcott wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Adam Meyer meyer7@mindspring.com wrote:
[...]The trick? Better content than the competition.[...]
I am not sure if i can confirm that. Let me show you an example. If you google "Corporate Social Responsibility" you see of course a good Wikipedia article with ~5 Page on top, followed by many many other sites with low content. I have written ~30 Page essay about it, very detailled, very scientific etc. (published 2 months ago) and I come somewhere on google page 27.
But all about I am not sure if 2 months are enough and if It needs more time. But I could give you other examples aswell, where I wrote a lot of scientific stuff and other sites just a lot of google pages infront of me while I am on page 16 etc.
Although I can't speak for Adam Meyer, I believe when we say "better content than the competition" we are referring to the interpretation of humans, not those of robots.
Google most likely pays no or not much attention (either they don't think it should matter or it's very hard to do programmatically) to the quality of the content in comparison with the content of other sites.
Instead we, humans, decide that for Google by spreading, sharing and discussing webpages.
An important factor in, atleast Google's, search engine results order is the PageRank. Many factors decide the pagerank a page has. One of those factors is the number of pages linking to the current page. Or, to be more precise, the total pagerank of the pages linking to the current one (ie. if 1 popular page links to page X that has likely more influence than 100 links from unknown or low-ranked sites[1]).
So, you get higher by having better content then competitors. Because by having better content people are more likely to link to your content and more likely to mention your website in articles and link to your website and/or a specific webpage within the site. And as a result your pages and overal domain will get a higher PageRank.
-- Krinkle
[1] A link in a New York Times article likely raises your pagerank more than a dozen links from these free linkexchange directories. As many people link to Wikipedia articles and to Wikipedia as a whole, Google assumes that people find Wikipedia's content better.
Since there's also a domain pagerank (or domainRank), many new articles on Wikipedia boost to the #1 position amazingly fast because, although nobody links to that specific article, there are many links to Wikipedia in general and that, in some cases, causes unknown or low-quality wikipedia articles to get high in Google's search engine results pages (SERP).
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org