SitePoint.com

aspen · Dec 6, 2002, 07:01

These comments are in regards to the SitePoint.com article 'Practical Web Design - Top 15 META Tag Tricks'.

Of the 4 major crawling search engines: Google, Fast, AV, Inktomi.

Only Inktomi uses meta tags, and consequently it is the least popular of the 4. Furthermore it was the description meta tag, not the definition meta tag that search engines once used to describe your page.

TheOriginalH · Dec 6, 2002, 07:10

and the following statement blatantly encourages poor standard of coding:

Quote:

Note that META tags are "singletons"; they don't require the use of closing tags like </META>. They have to go within your <HEAD></HEAD> section to function.

For the unenlightened, if you were to use meta tags (I still do, no harm in massaging inktomi), the following:

Code:

<META NAME=”keywords” CONTENT=”META tags, Practical Web 
Design, HTML, tips, tricks, SitePoint, Michael Tuck”>

Should now be written thus:

Code:

<meta name=”keywords” content=”META tags, Practical Web 
Design, HTML, tips, tricks, SitePoint, Michael Tuck” />

Can't help wondering if a: this is an "old" regurgatated article, or b: the guy is a little out of date....

Golgotha · Dec 6, 2002, 10:18

hahah, nice one H, busting out the strict XHTML coding rules. You gotta love SitePointers they'll keep ya in check.

META tags are the appendix of a website-- not appendix as in supplementary material, but appendix as in tube extending from lower right intestine that doesn't really do much, but why not have it there anyway

copycat · Dec 6, 2002, 10:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Golgotha
META tags are the appendix of a website-- not appendix as in supplementary material, but appendix as in tube extending from lower right intestine that doesn't really do much, but why not have it there anyway

Ha-ha, I like that line!

flaimo · Dec 6, 2002, 11:21

not directly meta tags, but link tags also belong to the header part of a page.

if you look at the sourcecode of cnn.com you'll see:

Code:

<link rel="Start" href="/">
<link rel="Search" href="/search/">

so far only opera 7 uses the information in the link tags:

more information here (translation)

blufive · Dec 6, 2002, 12:33

Quote:

so far only opera 7 uses the information in the link tags:

Wrong.

Mozilla has been using it for months, Lynx (yes, the text-only browser) has been doing it for years. I think iCab (Mac-only) has been doing it for some time, too.

<link> is from HTML 2, IIRC. It's been there for ages, but IE and older Netscapes never bothered to implement it.

MTuck · Dec 6, 2002, 13:44

Thanks for the input, everyone. I appreciate any and all commentaries and corrections. We'll try to do a "tweak" of the article to fix the missteps in the next few days.

The article, which is the first in a series called "Practical Web Design," isn't designed to appeal to the bleeding-edge professional Web designers. It's more for the less proficient designer who creates Web pages (often using something like FrontPage or the like) but isn't always sure what they're doing or how to perform a particular function. The series won't appeal to the high-level Web designers among the SitePoint fans; it's aimed at a broader audience, most of whom don't have the tremendous wealth of knowledge and expertise as the usual SitePoint forum contributor.

Maybe we need to make that clear at the beginning of the columns...?

If you guys have any more critiques, criticisms, or comments, please feel free to continue posting them here or e-mail them to tucksitepoint@yahoo.com . Also, if you come up with an idea for a column that would appeal to a broader, less technologically proficient audience, please let me know. Thanks!

Jeremy W. · Dec 6, 2002, 13:46

Hey mate,

No matter the audience though, you do need to ensure your facts are straight. No biggie, but that's what these threads are for. After all, what use is it to a less profficient designer (who doesn't know any better) if they use a "definition" meta tag?

J

MTuck · Dec 6, 2002, 22:25

Lord have mercy, I did say "definition," didn't I? Someone please whack me with a stick.

MTuck · Dec 8, 2002, 21:31

The corrected article has been posted. Let me know if you have any comments. I appreciate the kick in the pants

tempyyyst · Dec 9, 2002, 04:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Golgotha
META tags are the appendix of a website-- not appendix as in supplementary material, but appendix as in tube extending from lower right intestine that doesn't really do much, but why not have it there anyway

Where does apendicitis fit into that analogy? Can META tags suddenly cause you unbelievable pain followed by electronic peritonitis?

Lister14 · Dec 9, 2002, 06:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Golgotha

META tags are the appendix of a website-- not appendix as in supplementary material, but appendix as in tube extending from lower right intestine that doesn't really do much, but why not have it there anyway

As an appendix is usually at the end i'd call a meta tag the 'abstract' of a website.

mpc-tutor · Dec 18, 2002, 05:49

I have a couple of observations about the article, just points that I think you should make clearer to people.

With regards to keywords, I feel it would be prudent to advise people to avoid including words in the meta tag that are not present within the textual content of the page. This will defintely be viewed as spam by any search engine still recognising this tag. This means that you should create a different keyword tag for each page, and make sure its content is 100% relevant to that particular page (I notice that you have the same Keyword tag for every page on your site, and some of these words are not mentioned within the page content - this may be harming your ranking)

My other point is about the Refresh tag. While you state very good reasons to avoid a short Refresh time when approaching a re-direction, I do feel you should also point out that Search Engines are very likely to view such re-directions as Spam (for the same 'porn' related reasons that you mention with regards to surfer confusion), so caution should prevail in these cases.

Hope that helps

Andy

MTuck · Dec 23, 2002, 08:19

Andy, thanks for the observations. They're very valid and worth noting by anyone who reads this article.

It's also worth posting that Emory Rowland, who provides us the free METTY program for making META tags, sent me an e-mail that noted four other META tags that can be used:

Revisit:
<meta name="revisit-after" content="2 weeks">

Distribution (global or local)
<meta name="distribution" content="global">

Rating - (General, 14 Years, Mature, Restricted)
<meta name="rating" content="14 years">

Abstract
<meta name="abstract" content="condensed site summary">

Thanks, all.

aspen · Dec 23, 2002, 14:39

meta tags are meta data for a website. Meta data is data that describes other data. Look it up.

Jeremy W. · Dec 23, 2002, 14:40

No reason to be so harsh, all of the extra tags are in fact meta data: they describe the data in the page.

Jim@FLARE · Dec 24, 2002, 07:16

I think it's important that before any article is posted it should be checked for validity. The easiest place to start a rumour is via the internet.

It was mentioned that this article isn't for the 'cutting edge'.. I think we all fit under the same category.. and you might aswell teach the correct stuff to the beginner also..

How much harder is it for someone to use " />" on the end of tags that do not have a close tag? Do amateur footballers use a wider goal to make it easier?

I was recently told (by aspen) that the revisit tag is useless and doesn't do ANYTHING.. yet here it is again in this thread with someone saying it can be used..

MTuck · Dec 26, 2002, 22:24

According to Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineWatch, the "revisit" tag has never been recognized by the major search engines. That's why I chose to leave it out of the article. But like the Dublin Core meta tags, which are also not used by the major search engines and were left out of the article, the revisit tag might be used by smaller or more specialized search engines, or some internal search engines. (If anyone knows of some specific engines that use either the revisit or the Dublin Cores, I'd love to know about it.)

SEW has updated its "How to Use HTML META Tags" article at http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/meta.html . Worth reading.

Hope I didn't indicate anywhere in the article that /> tag closers shouldn't be used. They most definitely should.

dragonfly_7456 · Jan 23, 2003, 12:46

Here are two that should be used:

Code:

  <meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no" />

  <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

The first one disables the image toolbar that Internet Explorer 6.0+ has integrated into every large picture. Very helpful.

Second one every one should know

. Its self explanetory.

But what about these two, should they be used, or are they worthless weight?

Code:

  <meta name="COPYRIGHT"
 content="Copyright (c) 2003 BLA BLA BLA" />
 
  <meta name="ROBOTS" content="index, follow" />

Dec 6, 2002, 07:01	#1
aspen Serial Publisher Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: East Lansing, MI USA Posts: 13,285	Practical Web Design - Top 15 META Tag Tricks These comments are in regards to the SitePoint.com article 'Practical Web Design - Top 15 META Tag Tricks'. Of the 4 major crawling search engines: Google, Fast, AV, Inktomi. Only Inktomi uses meta tags, and consequently it is the least popular of the 4. Furthermore it was the description meta tag, not the definition meta tag that search engines once used to describe your page.

Dec 6, 2002, 11:21	#5
flaimo SitePoint Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Linz, Austria Posts: 17	not directly meta tags, but link tags also belong to the header part of a page. if you look at the sourcecode of cnn.com you'll see: Code: <link rel="Start" href="/"> <link rel="Search" href="/search/"> so far only opera 7 uses the information in the link tags: more information here (translation)

Jan 23, 2003, 12:46	#19
dragonfly_7456 SitePoint Wizard Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moscow never sleeps! Posts: 1,078	Here are two that should be used: Code: <meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no" /> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> The first one disables the image toolbar that Internet Explorer 6.0+ has integrated into every large picture. Very helpful. Second one every one should know . Its self explanetory. But what about these two, should they be used, or are they worthless weight? Code: <meta name="COPYRIGHT" content="Copyright (c) 2003 BLA BLA BLA" /> <meta name="ROBOTS" content="index, follow" />

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Dec 6, 2002, 10:18	#3
Golgotha runat="server" Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,143	hahah, nice one H, busting out the strict XHTML coding rules. You gotta love SitePointers they'll keep ya in check. META tags are the appendix of a website-- not appendix as in supplementary material, but appendix as in tube extending from lower right intestine that doesn't really do much, but why not have it there anyway

Dec 6, 2002, 13:44	#7
MTuck SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 6	Thanks for the input, everyone. I appreciate any and all commentaries and corrections. We'll try to do a "tweak" of the article to fix the missteps in the next few days. The article, which is the first in a series called "Practical Web Design," isn't designed to appeal to the bleeding-edge professional Web designers. It's more for the less proficient designer who creates Web pages (often using something like FrontPage or the like) but isn't always sure what they're doing or how to perform a particular function. The series won't appeal to the high-level Web designers among the SitePoint fans; it's aimed at a broader audience, most of whom don't have the tremendous wealth of knowledge and expertise as the usual SitePoint forum contributor. Maybe we need to make that clear at the beginning of the columns...? If you guys have any more critiques, criticisms, or comments, please feel free to continue posting them here or e-mail them to tucksitepoint@yahoo.com . Also, if you come up with an idea for a column that would appeal to a broader, less technologically proficient audience, please let me know. Thanks!

Dec 6, 2002, 13:46	#8
Jeremy W. 32,817 Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 10,496	Hey mate, No matter the audience though, you do need to ensure your facts are straight. No biggie, but that's what these threads are for. After all, what use is it to a less profficient designer (who doesn't know any better) if they use a "definition" meta tag? J

Dec 6, 2002, 22:25	#9
MTuck SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 6	Lord have mercy, I did say "definition," didn't I? Someone please whack me with a stick.

Dec 8, 2002, 21:31	#10
MTuck SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 6	The corrected article has been posted. Let me know if you have any comments. I appreciate the kick in the pants

Dec 18, 2002, 05:49	#13
mpc-tutor SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4	I have a couple of observations about the article, just points that I think you should make clearer to people. With regards to keywords, I feel it would be prudent to advise people to avoid including words in the meta tag that are not present within the textual content of the page. This will defintely be viewed as spam by any search engine still recognising this tag. This means that you should create a different keyword tag for each page, and make sure its content is 100% relevant to that particular page (I notice that you have the same Keyword tag for every page on your site, and some of these words are not mentioned within the page content - this may be harming your ranking) My other point is about the Refresh tag. While you state very good reasons to avoid a short Refresh time when approaching a re-direction, I do feel you should also point out that Search Engines are very likely to view such re-directions as Spam (for the same 'porn' related reasons that you mention with regards to surfer confusion), so caution should prevail in these cases. Hope that helps Andy

Dec 23, 2002, 08:19	#14
MTuck SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 6	Andy, thanks for the observations. They're very valid and worth noting by anyone who reads this article. It's also worth posting that Emory Rowland, who provides us the free METTY program for making META tags, sent me an e-mail that noted four other META tags that can be used: Revisit: <meta name="revisit-after" content="2 weeks"> Distribution (global or local) <meta name="distribution" content="global"> Rating - (General, 14 Years, Mature, Restricted) <meta name="rating" content="14 years"> Abstract <meta name="abstract" content="condensed site summary"> Thanks, all.

Dec 23, 2002, 14:39	#15
aspen Serial Publisher Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: East Lansing, MI USA Posts: 13,285	meta tags are meta data for a website. Meta data is data that describes other data. Look it up.

Dec 23, 2002, 14:40	#16
Jeremy W. 32,817 Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 10,496	No reason to be so harsh, all of the extra tags are in fact meta data: they describe the data in the page.

Dec 24, 2002, 07:16	#17
Jim@FLARE SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Bath, UK Posts: 7	I think it's important that before any article is posted it should be checked for validity. The easiest place to start a rumour is via the internet. It was mentioned that this article isn't for the 'cutting edge'.. I think we all fit under the same category.. and you might aswell teach the correct stuff to the beginner also.. How much harder is it for someone to use " />" on the end of tags that do not have a close tag? Do amateur footballers use a wider goal to make it easier? I was recently told (by aspen) that the revisit tag is useless and doesn't do ANYTHING.. yet here it is again in this thread with someone saying it can be used..

Dec 26, 2002, 22:24	#18
MTuck SitePoint Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 6	According to Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineWatch, the "revisit" tag has never been recognized by the major search engines. That's why I chose to leave it out of the article. But like the Dublin Core meta tags, which are also not used by the major search engines and were left out of the article, the revisit tag might be used by smaller or more specialized search engines, or some internal search engines. (If anyone knows of some specific engines that use either the revisit or the Dublin Cores, I'd love to know about it.) SEW has updated its "How to Use HTML META Tags" article at http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/meta.html . Worth reading. Hope I didn't indicate anywhere in the article that /> tag closers shouldn't be used. They most definitely should.