Now now, be nice. Those sites I do for fun not for a living. Have you found the references yet. If you had anything about you, you would do that rather than making yourself look silly taking on the SEO WORLD EXPERT and being very wrong. EDIT> honestly I come on to offer advice to someone and get this kind of sh1t.
nice.. i can tell everyone I took the "seo world expert" to school today and yes I found many "references" and I already listed them. you can't deny the logic either. Google publicly states that meta keywords overstuffed and/or irrelevant to the content are a red flag. That means they are being used. If they weren't being used, it WOULDN'T be a red flag.
AFAIK Google does NOT mention meta keywords. It does mention Title and Alt tags. The thread is about meta keywords, not keywords. Can you direct us to where you saw these "references"?
Its better to put meta keywords. Though its weight in deciding fortune of organic results fallen significantly.
OK, Im putting this to bed: Read the section 'keyword meta tag' on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_tag Note the line: Newer search engines like Google and FAST have never had any support for the META keywords tag. Steve
slightly entertaining topic there, however.... one of my sayings is "if it doesnt kill me, it can only make me stronger", where is the harm in using keywords, especially if (as somebody stated earlier in the post) yahoo is putting a little weight on them. and although i dont want to get in any argument over this - although wikipedia is generally a reliable source - the writer doesnt know the Google algorithm so I dont think this is the case. in fact, nobody does, so just use keywords 'just in case'
Steve, whilst I agree with you it would be wrong to cite Wikipedia as the absolute reference for anything. Not everything in Wikipedia is accurate and (like this thread ;o) it is often based on the opinions of the writers who have no real accountabilty.
The thing here is, Yahoo which is a Major SE is using the meta keywords in their calculations. The original question has been answered. Am not sure why there has been so much discussion after this was already stated. So do use meta keywords. Just do not overstuff the keywords or it may be considered spammy. If not sure, put in the meta keywords and run them through http://tool.motoricerca.info/spam-detector/ which does a decent enough report to indicate possible red flags.
LOL!!! To bed?? Not hardly, Mr Seo World Expert. Wikipedia is not a valid reference. Anybody can write anything they want. In fact, it says the complete opposite now. dude, you are clueless.
Hi there! yes, meta keywords are very important for SEO, and also if you are interested in having a good text advertise use links and hyperlynks, this is important too, and are used for promoting a site in sites. After that u shall have traffic, good P.R, on google, and also good SEO on google, if you use keywords density!!!!!!. Regards!!!!
Yes, it's really brave to slag people off when you know they are not in the next room but is there realy any need to behave like schoolchildren? This sort of stuff really turns me off this forum. Can't we discuss these things like adults? It could do with being more closely moderated.
I agree. Sadly you get prats like David on all forums, people who will argue the world is flat and that black is white, just because they have no lives. Its very sad.
Excuse you both! I wasn't "slagging" anybody and I have been discussing this like an adult. I don't care if he is on the other side of the planet, or standing in front of me. I would have said the same thing. I have given "real world" examples that back up my argument. All thudufushi has done is call himself the SEO WORLD EXPERT, say how "well paid" he is, and quote something from wikipedia as a valid reference. The definition of clueless is "lack of understanding or knowledge." That accurately describes what thudfishi has contributed to this thread. This only came after giving him MULTIPLE opportunities to provide something that validates his stance. All he did was try to spin me, spew nonsense doubletalk, and quote a wiki. He has not shown anything that disproves my stance. Yet he calls me a "prat" and says I have no life. He has attacked the arguer instead of the arguement. That is a common tactic of con-artists.
You think this helps? Oh yes? What about "dude, you are clueless" It's about time the two of you grew up.
Well "Dad", maybe if you ACTUALLY read my last post, I addressed the clueless statement quite clearly. Let me know if you need help breaking it down.
holy mom...i cant believe i read this. You are serious ? this contradicts all i "learned" about SEO..so google doesnt even care about the KW meta ??? Whow.....DP always amazes me...thats indeed something really important i just learned.