major page not indexed, online for 2 years

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:16:41 +0200, Tom's Best <tkirby (AT) vabest (DOT) com> wrote:

The product description is already on the page! Why have a meta
description tag at all?

It is like asking "what are the abstracts for, I've put everything in the
paper already!"

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

.. Keyword tags may be omitted, but if used

should be correct (And probably worth using - you never know what the future
will bring, and some specialized SEs do use them

i omitted them for years because "the search engines don't use them".
Yes, they do. Not as a mechanism to add keywords that otherwise aren't
in the text, and not as a place to stuff variant keyphrases, but they
do use them.

Changing a file name is EXACTLY the same - to Google - as deleting a file
and building a new one. Think first.

It doesn't seem to be too bad if you leave a redirect in place for a
month or two.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:45:27 +0200, Phil Payne <phil (AT) isham-research (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

Changing a file name is EXACTLY the same - to Google - as deleting a
file and building a new one. Think first.

It doesn't seem to be too bad if you leave a redirect in place for a
month or two.

If old url is linked to from the outside you have to leave redirect
forever. If it ain't broken, don't fix it

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

"Tom's Best" wrote ...

The point I was making is that other search engines have no problem
with my "incorrect" meta tags. If Google is really so screwed up as to
fail to properly index a page because some mysterious invisible text is
not "correct," then they are producing inferior search results because
most sites pay no attention to tags at all.

So google is 'screwed up' because it follows the rules?

What will you do when MicrosoftN and Y! learn the rules?

Duh!
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

So google is 'screwed up' because it follows the rules?
What will you do when MicrosoftN and Y! learn the rules?
Duh!

"the rules" are not generally accepted standards. RFC lists the meta
tags as optional. Guaranteed - all major search engines know "the
rules" already. They are just smart enough not to allow "the rules" to
cause poor performance.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:16:26 -0400, z <email (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Tom's Best wrote:

Thanks to all for the advice. This same page that Google can't seem to
find has the #1 spot on yahoo, ask, and alltheweb, etc... I guess I'mSee
Matt Cutts from Google talk about it here:
tired of redesigning the site every time Google has a problem indexing
a page. I see it more as a fault in Google than my sites. But... The
title changes are easy enough - I can do that in a few minutes. I
don't know what to do about the meta tags - didn't think the search
engines paid any attention to them anyway. As for the file names, that
will have to stay because it's a major rewrite to change that. The html
errors are mostly bogus details - not really worth the time (I think)
but who knows?

Meta description is important.

In my experience it won't help with Google rankings.

If it is the same on every page, Google
won't like it. Even Matt Cutts (from Google) has confirmed it somewhere,
but I can't find the url. I think it was a comment he left on
threadwatch.org.

Any idea where exactly?

If your meta description is the same on all pages, Google can throw the
entire site into the supplemental results.

I've not seen this, any examples?

I've fixed a couple of sites
like this. The entire sites were in the supplemental results because the
meta description was the same. Fix the meta description (and make sure the
title> is different on each page) and the site should quickly be indexed
properly. I've seen Google rankings go from nothing to very good with just
a few meta description and <title> adjustments...

Now the title element yes, that's very important to Google. Are you
sure you aren't confusing changing both the title element and the meta
tags at the same time and thinking both helped?

Have you tried just changing meta tags and seen the same thing?

The idea that "meta tags don't mean anything" is bogus. They mean
something -- but just not what they meant years ago. Meta tags are not a
place to stuff 500 keywords, but they do tell the search engines some
useful information.

Evidence supports the view that Google ignores meta tags for ranking
purposes. The only thing that is difficult to test is when the
keywords in the meta keywords tag are also part of the content. It's
easy to show keywords that aren't in the content (or anchor/alt text
of links) are not helping with Google rankings.

The tip about the order of the title isn't going to get your site out of the
supplemental results. That was just a suggestion on the side.

I wouldn't change the file names because that will give the search engines
404 errors...

Don't change filenames, nearly always a bad idea.

David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
More Earnings Blog http://www.morearnings.com/

David wrote:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:16:26 -0400, z <email (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Meta description is important.

In my experience it won't help with Google rankings.

The purpose of meta description is not rankings. It is to provide a text
snippet as a summary. If the text snippet is the same on every page,
Google can put the entire site in the Supplemental Results.

If it is the same on every page, Google
won't like it. Even Matt Cutts (from Google) has confirmed it somewhere,
but I can't find the url. I think it was a comment he left on
threadwatch.org.

Any idea where exactly?

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/8222#comment-43372

I've fixed a couple of sites
like this. The entire sites were in the supplemental results because the
meta description was the same. Fix the meta description (and make sure
the <title> is different on each page) and the site should quickly be
indexed
properly. I've seen Google rankings go from nothing to very good with
just a few meta description and <title> adjustments...

Now the title element yes, that's very important to Google. Are you
sure you aren't confusing changing both the title element and the meta
tags at the same time and thinking both helped?

Have you tried just changing meta tags and seen the same thing?

Yes.

The idea that "meta tags don't mean anything" is bogus. They mean
something -- but just not what they meant years ago. Meta tags are not a
place to stuff 500 keywords, but they do tell the search engines some
useful information.

Evidence supports the view that Google ignores meta tags for ranking
purposes. The only thing that is difficult to test is when the
keywords in the meta keywords tag are also part of the content. It's
easy to show keywords that aren't in the content (or anchor/alt text
of links) are not helping with Google rankings.

Meta description was not designed for the purpose of adding keywords to
increase your ranking.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:27:46 -0400, z <news01.web (AT) mailnull (DOT) com> wrote:

David wrote:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:16:26 -0400, z <email (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Meta description is important.

In my experience it won't help with Google rankings.

The purpose of meta description is not rankings. It is to provide a text
snippet as a summary. If the text snippet is the same on every page,
Google can put the entire site in the Supplemental Results.

But there are many sites with unique descriptions and many
supplemental results. So it's unlikely to be the a factor in indexing.

Why would Google use the description as a factor for this?

If it is the same on every page, Google
won't like it. Even Matt Cutts (from Google) has confirmed it somewhere,
but I can't find the url. I think it was a comment he left on
threadwatch.org.

Any idea where exactly?

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/8222#comment-43372

I didn't know that Google used the description in the way described
there, so thanks for that link.

That said it doesn't mention supplemental results per se (someone in
the thread does, but not Matt).

It actually says the opposite-

--
For example, Threadwatch is now only showing a single index page for a
normal site search: site:www.threadwatch.org - yet clicking through
for more results is missing the condemnation of " - Supplmental
Result"."
--

"yet clicking through for more results is **missing** the condemnation
of " - Supplmental Result""

So they DON'T have the Supplemental Listing.

Looks like you read it wrong. Not the only person a commenter or two
also read it wrong-

"I am willing to bet that if the ThreadWatch script generated a unique
meta description per page that the Supplemental status would soon be
rescinded."

The thread is about this result-

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&rls=EGLC%2CEG LC%3A2006-13%2CEGLC%3Aen&q=site%3Athreadwatch.org+&btnG=Sear ch

Then and now the home page is only shown with a site: search with this
at the bottom for other pages-

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
entries very similar to the 1 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results
included."

It's rare to see just one page like this for such a large site!

If you look through the pages indexed I don't see one supplemental (I
randomly flicked through 300 results, three 100 page results).

they all have this description-

"Welcome to Threadwatch, a community website focused on Internet
marketing and related technologies. If this is your first visit then
please register to ..."

So though very interesting (I didn't know this) it doesn't support
your view that using a meta description will remove the supplemental
listings.

I've fixed a couple of sites
like this. The entire sites were in the supplemental results because the
meta description was the same. Fix the meta description (and make sure
the <title> is different on each page) and the site should quickly be
indexed
properly. I've seen Google rankings go from nothing to very good with
just a few meta description and <title> adjustments...

Now the title element yes, that's very important to Google. Are you
sure you aren't confusing changing both the title element and the meta
tags at the same time and thinking both helped?

Have you tried just changing meta tags and seen the same thing?

Yes.

So you are saying you've had a site with many supplemental listings,
changed only the meta description from no description or one site
description and this change alone has resulted in all the supplemental
listings being removed (indexed correctly)? How long did it take?

If so and you come across another one would you let me know so I can
track the results after you make the change.

The idea that "meta tags don't mean anything" is bogus. They mean
something -- but just not what they meant years ago. Meta tags are not a
place to stuff 500 keywords, but they do tell the search engines some
useful information.

Evidence supports the view that Google ignores meta tags for ranking
purposes. The only thing that is difficult to test is when the
keywords in the meta keywords tag are also part of the content. It's
easy to show keywords that aren't in the content (or anchor/alt text
of links) are not helping with Google rankings.

Meta description was not designed for the purpose of adding keywords to
increase your ranking.

I never said it was, I was giving the one example that is difficult to
test, that's all. Don't like to make sweeping statements when there's
a factor like the one above that is difficult to test.

David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
More Earnings Blog http://www.morearnings.com/

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:12:24 GMT, David
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:16:26 -0400, z <email (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Tom's Best wrote:

Thanks to all for the advice. This same page that Google can't seem to
find has the #1 spot on yahoo, ask, and alltheweb, etc... I guess I'mSee
Matt Cutts from Google talk about it here:
tired of redesigning the site every time Google has a problem indexing
a page. I see it more as a fault in Google than my sites. But... The
title changes are easy enough - I can do that in a few minutes. I
don't know what to do about the meta tags - didn't think the search
engines paid any attention to them anyway. As for the file names, that
will have to stay because it's a major rewrite to change that. The html
errors are mostly bogus details - not really worth the time (I think)
but who knows?

Meta description is important.

In my experience it won't help with Google rankings.

If it is the same on every page, Google
won't like it. Even Matt Cutts (from Google) has confirmed it somewhere,
but I can't find the url. I think it was a comment he left on
threadwatch.org.

Any idea where exactly?

If your meta description is the same on all pages, Google can throw the
entire site into the supplemental results.

I've not seen this, any examples?

I'm thinking he means the titles.

I've fixed a couple of sites
like this. The entire sites were in the supplemental results because the
meta description was the same. Fix the meta description (and make sure the
title> is different on each page)

Aha!

and the site should quickly be indexed

I'm betting it was really fixing the titles that did this, assuming
there were lots of them the same.

properly. I've seen Google rankings go from nothing to very good with just
a few meta description and <title> adjustments...

Always worth doing if they're dumbass in the first place but you have
to remember - well, we need a word, here, don't we, for the common
practice of isolating one change in one site and attributing the
ascent or descent of that site immediately thereupon to that change
and that change alone and thus ignoring all external factors that may
well have had a bearing, like, all the other sites above or below got
better or worse in some way. We need a word for that.

Now the title element yes, that's very important to Google. Are you
sure you aren't confusing changing both the title element and the meta
tags at the same time and thinking both helped?

Well, well.

BB
--
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fenton-glass/10-basket-i113978.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fenton-glass/11-vase-hobnail.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fenton-glass/6-5-perfume-i113990.html

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:27:46 -0400, z <news01.web (AT) mailnull (DOT) com> wrote:

David wrote:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:16:26 -0400, z <email (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Meta description is important.

In my experience it won't help with Google rankings.

The purpose of meta description is not rankings. It is to provide a text
snippet as a summary. If the text snippet is the same on every page,
Google can put the entire site in the Supplemental Results.

Weeeeeeeeell..... that could be one of the reasons for that.... I
doubt that that alone would do it though. Suppose you had ten zillion
long term existing IBLs all from PR10 related sites, would the site
still be supplementelled just because of identical meta tags on all or
some of the pages? I doubt it... but it's something to keep an eye out
for just the same. everything comes down to best practice, really,
there's certain elements in the page where you really do need to be
taking care of business and not trying to get away with short cuts.

Have you tried just changing meta tags and seen the same thing?

Yes.

Which means bupkiss really, except to reinforce what I've said
earlier, take care of business on-page and you can't account for
external unknown factors.

Evidence supports the view that Google ignores meta tags for ranking
purposes. The only thing that is difficult to test is when the
keywords in the meta keywords tag are also part of the content. It's
easy to show keywords that aren't in the content (or anchor/alt text
of links) are not helping with Google rankings.

Meta description was not designed for the purpose of adding keywords to
increase your ranking.

Neither were alt tags or comment tags but they've been used that way
in the past. We'd all better duck and run now in case our resident
accessibility guru-ette is listening...

BB
--
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fenton-glass/10-basket-i113978.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fenton-glass/11-vase-hobnail.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/fenton-glass/6-5-perfume-i113990.html