While this is a great article, companies new to SEO that are trying to figure out what is real and what is not are being mislead by phrases such as 'meta tags don't matter'.

I've recently had a few discussions with companies who didn't think metas mattered at all. One wanted to remove metas, and another had every meta title the exact same and didn't think there was a problem.

While there is a good discussion to be had about what a SEO company should do - always pay attention to your words as many people are being mislead. Full thoughts http://www.bgtheory.com/blog/meta-tags-are-not-dead/

Hmm, linkbait about linkbait (linkbait squared?)

@eWhisper Title tags are not "meta tags." As far as I know, there's no such thing as a "meta title."

So when anyone talks about meta tags, in general, they're not talking about Title tags.

Most SEOs make a distinction between the different types of meta tags, such as the meta description or the meta keywords. Removing the meta keywords tag from your site should not be a problem for a site that doesn't use it within their own site search engine.

On the other hand, Meta descriptions can come in handy, especially for pages with very little content. Those that are professionally written in a descriptive manner can get by without Meta descriptions, as well. I don't recommend removing them, but not having them on a well-written site isn't typically a problem.

Jill,

That's a good point - but one that many companies are missing. Most companies lump them all together; and not enough empasis is given to that subtle difference.

I'll have to do a poll and see what people actually think - could be interesting.

@ianmacfarlane, interesting variant of linkbait squared, not the "classic version" which would actually be a linkbait article about how to do linkbait per se, or a linkbait article about how much linkbait per se sucks.

I believe this is parasitic linkbait, or potentially symbiotic linkbait, which is slightly different from linkbait squared.

Thanks,

Andrew

;)

eWhisper, we have enough problems in the SEO industry without people using terms incorrectly. Whether people in a poll believe that Title tags are meta tags or that there's such thing as a Meta Title, is irrelevant because they'd be wrong.

You may want to edit your article accordingly.

All seems to me it not too unequivocally.To learn what people think formally and what are not present it is possible not only through interrogation.

“And yes, the fact that rankings can no longer be accurately used as a measure of success does stink. I used to long for the old days when our job was to just get rankings and whether or not that brought in traffic or conversions wasn't our job or our concern. “

– Why in the world would you tell a client that rankings were a success metric, even back-in-the-day when rankings were easy to achieve given a bit of onsite opt? If anything, you set yourself up to fail and perpetuated the theory that rankings = visitors = conversions.

“Rankings are easy.”

– This may have been true 5 years ago, but depending on your vertical (as you very well know), the same cannot be said for 2009, hence the competitive nature of SEO. But again, if you sell your clients rankings, then you deserve to brave whatever storm comes your way.

“Traffic and conversions, not so much.”

– This is what real SEO is about.

“Why do you think most SEO companies are holding onto their rankings boondoggle?”

– If SEO companies are holding onto rankings, then their business model is poor at best. The "R" word is about as despised in my world as the little green bar that tells my client a number. I hope you're not selling PR boosts as a success metric. 

Great post Jill, there is so much fancy wiz bang SEO CRAP on the market......