News Source: http://www.searchmarketinggurus.com
Published: Jul 16, 2008 - 11:12 am
Story Found By: dsnyder 1305 Days ago
Category: SEO
28 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.searchmarketinggurus.com
Published: Jul 16, 2008 - 11:12 am
Story Found By: dsnyder 1305 Days ago
Category: SEO
28 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX West - Feb. 28 - Mar. 1, 2012
- SMX Munich - Mar. 27-28, 2012
- SMX Toronto - Apr. 25-26, 2012
- SMX Sydney - May 1-2, 2012
- SMX London - May 15-16, 2012
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Aug. 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Sept. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 2012
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Marketing Day: February 10, 2012
- Report: iPhone, iPad Now Drive More Web Traffic Than Mac OS
- Drawing Out Your Affiliate Program Marketing Plan
- Is Yahoo About To Make Another Big Mistake — With Its Display Ad Business?
- Google Analytics For The Enterprise: Perception & Reality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- The Inside Scoop on Automating and Optimizing Your PPC Campaigns - February 21, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google’s Recent Domain Registrations: Labs, Screenwise & AdWords
- Google AdWords Gets Shared Lists To Eliminate Duplicate Data Entry
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, February 10, 2012
- Now, Mitt Romney Has A Santorum-Like Bing & Google Problem
- Search In Pics: Google Sugar Cube, Yahoo Valentines & Chrome M&M’s
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
So which bit is upsetting you? It would be interesting to have that discussion because it may be that you misunderstood something in the article or you didn’t know something that Li does and actually you’re the one who’s wrong.
Sphinning this to encourage more women in the SEO industry to do vids.
"Oh come on Halfdeck! We already have quite a few women who rock the industry."I didn’t say we didn’t Pageone; I just said more videos would be cool. SEO is such a geeky industry it needs a facelift. Plus I’m tired of reading.
OK, let me try again because clearly you getting defensive is not the intended outcome I wanted from my question. And I don’t think you’re weak: I just want you to point out exactly what’s wrong with the post and not say "Did you come away with the feeling that something wasn’t right? I did." Tell me what that something that made you feel it wasn’t right is.So: Which bit in the article and video contain misinformation?Pierre
Here you go again making statements without backing them up. I read the post before I sphunn and before my first comment.I’m just waiting for you to actually back up your words. Only then will I be happy to have a discussion with you about whether the post is right or wrong. Until you come up with a specific complaint or set of complaints, you’re simply making unsubstantiated statements.
Finally! How hard was it to point out exactly what you’re talking about, namely the meta descrption? See, now we can talk about it instead of waving our hands in a fluffy way saying "something doesn’t feel right". Saying things are off is not good SEO.And I know about the story of meta descriptions and their uses. A good reference is http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/11/anatomy-of-search-result.html from Matt Cutts. The way he describes the meta description is about the user. I can’t dig out the reference that says the meta description doesn’t have much weight in the algo. That’s consistent with what Li said.What’s your bone to pick?
Just to be clear...watched the video...read the words...sphunn it. I have no issues with the content.Sure, it’s just the very basics, but it’s something I’d want to pass along to my newbie ebuzz coaching clients who are focusing on lots of things besides just seo.
pageone is just a nitpicky soapboxer, we get those alot in our industry. The vid is simple, but generally good advice. Not work my sphinn vote, but definitely worth my defense against attack from arrogant people who think they’re right when they’re just wasting whitespace!what she said about the meta description is correct. or at least that’s the resounding opinion I’ve never read to be opposed until today. Even if you’re right, waving your arms around in protest is the wrong choice, you just look like an asshole.
pageoneresults get some sleep... and a new keyboard. You need both apparently.And next time you think you have something big and important to say, say up straight without dancing and pretending you know best. You’re not better than any of us.
The decscription holds no value in the algo fo search engines, that’s been stated many many times since SEO’s back in the old days use to game it. But it still holds value... in the way users see it and that’s what’s stated in the video.
Wow... all this stuff while I’m asleep.Thanks Pierre, justfred, donn, Halfdeck, dave s and dave d .... and somewhat pageone.pageone... while you started out complimenting me .... you should work a little on your "take downs". I really don’t know really what the deal is, why you have a problem with what I’ve said. Matt’s said on many occasions that the meta description holds no value in the algo. He’s also stated on many occasions (as well as other Google reps at the conferences) that a good meta description is still good for the search engines, because of it displaying in the search results.Yes, they highlight the keywords in the results, but it doesn’t hold weight in the algo, so I really don’t understand at all what was "wrong" or "misinformation" in what I stated. I stated (pulled from the TRANSCRIPT emphasis mine) "The description does not have any kind of weight with the search engines and their algorithms. It does help the users who are using the search engines to gauge whether they want to click on what they are seeing in the search results or not."Yeesh, I’ve been in this industry way to long when I see a person arguing about the value of meta description. ... I think I might go back to bed and start the day over.Thanks Pierre for pointing to those links. And thanks Dave for sphinning this. I think this is the first video sphunn LOL :)And no... I’m not gonna respond any further... onepage, if you have an issue, email me li@lianaevans.com., unfortunately I’ve got a ton of client work that has to get done, before I’m off to BlogHer in San Fran tomorrow.
I don’t think that saying the meta description has no value for the engines is anything to get worked up about. Not everything we do in SEO is about the engines...there are cases when users are important and I think Li’s video makes that quite clear. Thus Sphunn.
I Sphunn for the sheer fact that Li concerned herself with SEO basics.
I took notes during the video and tried to locate where the information is incorrect.1. Use unique title tags for each page - true2. Meta desc - helpful for searchers and engines in understanding page topic; has no effect on actual algorithm - true3. Links - be descriptive with anchor text; don’t use "click here" when a better description with keywords will do - true4. Images - they come in image searches in Google and Yahoo!; use alt attributes; label them properly - true5. Header tags - use them; they indicate the weight and importance of page topic and when used with keywords, help to clarify for engines the page topic - trueThe video is delivered in video format, as well as content format for accessbility.Very nicely done Li!
pageoneresults (using divine intervention no doubt): Let me tell you something, and I’ll be as clear as possible. As things stand, in July 2008, the meta description does not have much weight (effectively no weight) in the ranking algos. A few years ago it did have weight in the algo.Some references to back up my statements:1. Jill Whalen published test results in 2004: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/search-engines-and-the-meta-description-tag/953/ . Key quote: "I also recently discovered that when I tested a nonsense word in the Meta description tag of a page (with the word not appearing elsewhere on the page), Google did not find it. But when I added the word to the visible text copy on the page, Google would bring up the test page when the nonsense word was searched for. Not only that, but it displayed that part of the Meta description tag where the nonsense word appeared."2. In Dec 2007, a Google employee, Susan_Moskwa, posted on WMW http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3527699.htm the following: "<font face="verdana" size="2" color="#000000">it’s still true that meta descriptions don’t affect your ranking in search results"3. In Sep 2007, from Google itself at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/09/improve-snippets-with-meta-description.html : "</font>And it’s worth noting that while accurate meta descriptions can improve clickthrough, they won’t affect your ranking within search results"<font face="verdana" size="2" color="#000000"></font>As for title element vs tag vs attribute. You’re nitpicking the wrong way. The title tag is correct language, just like there is a body tag and a head tag. A title attribute is correct for tags that allow title attributes like the anchor tag. A tag is an element.<font face="verdana" size="2" color="#000000">So please, again, PLEASE, back up your statements when you make them. I call "Bullshit!" on your statements.</font>Pierre
This will probably be deleted for the flame that it is, but P1R, you are an ass.
p1r: Again, you are not backing up your statements. For example, you say:"Take away your meta descriptions since they do not have any kind of weight with the search engines. Come back and tell us how things turned out. Give it about a week or two."Who said that I don’t do this on some of my sites? Traffic is just fine thank you very much. Actually, when I removed my description tags, my traffic skyrocketed. My theory about that is Google does a much better job at picking a snippet that’s tailored to the query than me. See, if I enter a description tag, Google would feel like using it most of the time (as they state). If I gave them free reign, their snippet generating algo will do much better. It’s been about a year now.Again, I’m talking from experience, not from reading between the lines. People like you give our industry a bad name. Please stop and think next time you want to make a claim.Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go feed myself, not a troll. I’m done here.
If we stop responding to P1R he’ll go away.
I’ve never seen someone type so much yet say so little.
look man, I’m not trying to be a dick here, I don’t enjoy insulting people. but you’ve managed to annoy most of the sphinn community in less than 2 days. take a deep breath and step back from your keyboard. it’s not because youre not a top sphinner, its not because we hassle newbies. you’re coming across as grossly uninformed and extremely obnoxious. I understand you’re new to sphinn, but you’d do well to pull back on the throttle and do a little more listening instead of talking.I admit you have gotten under my skin, and that’s my problem. For both of our own good I won’t be responding to your posts in any way ever again. Good luck.
Just so everyone understands what’s happening here, about once every couple of years, p1r gets off his meds and visits a forum or two and tries to wreak havoc.The best thing to do is for the forum admins to ban him and then he goes away, gets back on his meds and leaves everyone alone for a few more years.I would highly suggest that the Sphinn admins think seriously about going this route. It worked brilliantly at HRF a few years ago when he attempted something similar there. (You notice he mentioned he was banned.)
*** PageOne, you’ve managed to annoy most of the sphinn community in less than 2 days ***<div></div><div></div><div>Errrr, "most"? I’d say not a majority. Not even a "big minority". It’s more like "a few", or less.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>*** you’re coming across as grossly uninformed and extremely obnoxious ***</div><div></div><div></div><div>I’d say PageOne is very informed, and there’s plenty of stuff he’s written in other places that easily shows that to be true. After well over a decade on the web, PageOne has been round the block at least several times now.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>*** more listening instead of talking ***</div><div></div><div>Recent posts here seem to be the result of listening for almost a year, before posting.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I’d say he was more than overwhelmed with the amount of bullshit in SEO and SMO, the rampant spam, a very big lack of factual information; oh, and the various "voting clans".</div><div></div><div></div><div>But, then again, that has been a central feature of this industry for quite a while now.</div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>*** about once every couple of years, p1r gets off his meds and visits a forum or two and tries to wreak havoc *** </div><div></div><div></div><div>Visits a forum or two? You have no idea.</div><div></div><div></div><div>You didn’t notice that PageOne has been a moderator at WebmasterWorld for ten years?</div><div></div><div></div><div>Or, you did, but it would have harmed (no, destroyed) your argument to have mentioned it.</div></div>
I am so glad Jill cleared that up. :-)
This is a hepful post...it makes SEO a lot easier especially for beginners like me..^^
While I agree p1r can probably get the same mileage out of his comments using fewer words, from what I’ve scanned on WMW and on Sphinn I do believe he is an asset to Sphinn not a liability.That WMW thread regarding META description being too short is interesting. I’ve addressed that two years ago here:http://www.seo4fun.com/notes/supplementals.html"Make sure your META description tags are no shorter than 60 characters. The point of using META description tags is to prevent Google from digging into your BODY HTML to fish out some irrelevant text from your navigation bar or listbox. However, if your META descriptions are too short (and 60 chars sounds like a lot, but it really isn’t), Google will still dig into your source code."I haven’t really looked at METAs recently so things could be different now.I’ve personally stripped META descriptions from my SEO blog, and instead structured HTML so that the "right" text will be pulled by Google’s snippet generation bot. The bot was pretty primitive and often got lost in relatively complicated HTML (the last I checked), but once you understand how it parses HTML you can feed it the right snippet without using META descriptions. If you want to optimize for higher SERP CTR its still a good idea to write META descriptions.As for Jill’s test (or mine), it can’t be held up as proof. The recent tests on whether the second link passes juice proved how difficult running an SEO test can be. What Googlers say regarding META descriptions is a good indicator but also isn’t proof. Its interesting how people cherry picks info handed down by Google depending on whether it suits their purpose. Google’s words about paid links are inconvenient FUD while Google’s words about META tags is as good as gold.
Too late Halfdeck. They banned the account and deleted all his posts here. Spoke too many truths that some people on this site didn’t want to hear.
Yeah I noticed that earlier today g1smd. I PMed a Sphinn mod since I wasn’t sure whether he deleted his own account or got banned.
Sphinning - Hey, if this is what Sphinners want, this is what Sphinners will get. Good luck.