confused!

[sweetie]

hey,

i am realy conserned with how to set up my meta tags. i hear much out there and do not know who to believe. do put all my keywords for my site in the keyword tag? there are about 12 of them. thanks

[ihelpyou]

Welcome sweetie! :cool:

I do it this way. The front page of your site is important. I usually try to put my 3-4 best keyword phrases in the tag on this page. Not more than 15 words.

After that, for my mext 3-4 important pages, I target 1-2 phrases and put in the tag on this page. My most important keyword phrase is first. I will also put other keywords in the page but they should also be in the content of the particular page.

I know this is very general so feel free to ask specific questions.

[Advisor]

Your meta tags are so so so unimportant to your ranking (especially if you're talking about the Meta keyword tag), that I wouldn't worry about it. What matters is good copy, first and foremost. That is, well-written copy that also just happens to use your keyphrases.

Once you've got that done, worry about your Title tag.

With good copy and a good Title tag, you're golden.

You should probably also create a great Meta description tag too if you have the time. But the Meta keyword tag...blech...don't worry about it.

Jill

[WebSavvy]

Hi,

If you're interested in getting a set of meta tags for your site you can visit my site. I have a free meta tag generator that I've written and you are welcome to use it.

It creates 27 meta tags for your site. The URL is at:
http://announce.esubmit-it.com/meta.shtml

The tags are hyperlinked so if you don't know or aren't sure how a tag should be formatted just click on the hyperlink and a small popup window will open up and give you the information for that tag.

The script is also available for download at:
http://announce.esubmit-it.com/resources.shtml

Or if you'd like to, you can download it at hotscripts.com and scriptsearch.com. It'll be available at CNET, download.com, and ZDnet later this week.

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Savvy1

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums savvy1! :hi:

There are only really 2 tags a page should have... the description and the keywords tag. All others are virtually ignored by the spiders and even tend to push the meat of your html code further down the page, which is a bad thing for the spiders. This is my opinion anyway but thanks for the links and info!

[Advisor]

27 meta tags???

:confused:

Jill

[WebSavvy]

Yep, 27 tags:

1. title
2. base href
3. generator
4. content-type
5. MS Smart tag
6. cache-control
7. pragma
8. expires
9. resource-type
10. reply-to
11. abstract
12. description
13. keywords
14. classification
15. category
16. robots
17. revisit-after
18. distribution
19. ratings
20. copyright
21. author
22. owner
23. publisher
24. language
25. doc-type
26. doc-class
27. doc-rights


Regards,
Deborah

[Advisor]

Deborah,

Those are all well and good, but as Doug mentioned, have nothing to do with search engine optimization.

Jill

[Advisor]

Interesting site you have there. Submit your site to 2200 search engines, I see. And look at that, you even rank number 1 in yahoo for the keyphrase: "search engine submission to 2200 search engines"

Does that bring you much traffic?

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yes Deb. The engines do not care about all those tags.

Your submission thing is okay as long as you do not do this for the major search engines. Even with the rest of them, you should explain to your clients about all the spam they will receive because of this. It does not do much good for link pop either. The couple of major search engines and directories are really the only ones that matter.

[MsSearch]

welcome savvy1 to the forums! :hi:

As far as I'm concerned Meta tags are pretty much useless when it comes to optimization...except some engines still index the description and even fewer use the keyword tag...

[ihelpyou]

hey Deb, you do have a good looking site!

I am seeing more and more of personal pics on web sites these days. I think that is great and gives your visitor a more trusting feeling when they know who is behind the site.

I know a few members in here, including me, have our pics on the site. I think it helps a bunch! Kudus to you!

[WebSavvy]

Hi Everyone,


Thanks for your input. Yes I am aware that the meta tags really do not do much for optimization.

However, there are many foriegn search engines that index US webpages based on the meta data that I've listed.

And yes, actually the Yahoo keyword ranking does bring a lot of traffic. :)

I get a lot of traffic from others who are familiar with my work anyway. I've designed quite a few web sites and am a former editor at Briefme.com.

I own quite a few search engines myself....65 to be exact. The indexing method that I use in my own search engines also does take into account the following tags: title, description, abstract, and keywords, when placing the site into the proper categories.

Many search engines have many different methods. For example AltaVista ranks a site higher if they use 2 title tags.

Regardless of keywords, content, or relevance, most SE's will rank sites according to their TLD. For instance, .com is always first, followed then by .net, .gov., .org, .cc, and other lower-level domains.

---Deborah

[Hope]

I do not think that the TLD is that big of a factor. I have worked for .com, .net and .org groups and have been able to obtain top rankings for all. I have not worked with country domains or the new TLD yet, so I cannot comment on them.

[ihelpyou]

Your thing about other engines using more tags is interesting. I know that ... hmm... what's his name? Oh, Aesop Marketing guy has a search engine that has it's own meta tag specific thing.

[WebSavvy]

Hi Hope,

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant.

Example....

I own a webmaster's search engine named WebSavvy. The TLD is a .cc, if you search at Google for the term WebSavvy you will get query results placing .com, .net., and .org, before .cc

Even though WebSavvy.com, and WebSavvy.net do not have as many pages indexed into Google as I do for WebSavvy.cc

We still have an overall #4 ranking though. :)

There are over 400+ pages from websavvy.cc indexed there, you see all results when doing a search term under WebSavvy Smart Search.

I did not mean to imply by my post that top positions cannot be reached by .net or .org

It simply seems that most SE's favor certain TLDs over others. It will be interesting to see how well .tv, .info, .biz will rival in SE placement against .com.

:)

Deborah

[ihelpyou]

Yes. I am thinking that the other TLD's might be looked at as extensions to spam from. Not sure though as it is too early to tell.

[Spider Man]

Welcome Savvy1 (sorry about the delay)

I of course have a comment!!

It simply seems that most SE's favor certain TLDs over others. It will be interesting to see how well .tv, .info, .biz will rival in SE placement against .com

With one exception I am unaware of any major search engines placing emphasis on the TLD. The exception being google which has been known in the past to have given better rankings to .edu TLDs (which along with .gov are the only ones that make any sense - keeping in mind that anyone can own any of the others and therefore there is no guarantee of quality of information).

There must be another reason for your example, it's worth pointing out that whilst the number of pages you have indexed in Google will have some effect on your rank - it's unlikely to be the most influential factor.

[Advisor]

Many search engines have many different methods. For example AltaVista ranks a site higher if they use 2 title tags. I would personally call that spam, and would recommend against anyone doing this.

Jill

[WebSavvy]

Hi Jill,

Yes, I agree. The usage of 2 title tags is spam in my opinion as well.

There are however, many sites that do this and AltaVista rewards them for it by giving them a higher placement.

In the future I'm sure there will be an established standardized algorithm that will be adopted by all internet search engines in the efforts to eliminate spam, and sites participating in practices such as this will be banned from the SE's.

---Deborah

[prosayist]

Originally posted by webwhiz
Interesting site you have there. Submit your site to 2200 search engines, I see. And look at that, you even rank number 1 in yahoo for the keyphrase: "search engine submission to 2200 search engines"

Does that bring you much traffic?

Jill


LOL

[Mel]

Hi Savvy1
In the future I'm sure there will be an established standardized algorithm that will be adopted by all internet search engines in the efforts to eliminate spam.......

I would be interested in your reasoning that results in the above opinion.

It seems to me just the opposite is true in that each search engine tends to use a different algo in an attempt to improve the relevancy of its results and/or to differentiate itself from other SEs.

If all SEs used a standard algo, there would be no need for more than one SE since all would return the same results, with the exception of different data being indexed. This would result in the closure of many of not all of the financilly struggling SEs.

[WebSavvy]

prosayist, rmridgew

I do not think that the post that Jill made was meant to be taken in a sarcastic light, however, prosayist & rmridgew, your remarks are meant in a sarcastic manner.

I simply tried to offer some help to someone who was asking for information. I haven't poked fun at, nor been sarcastic to anyone here at this forum.

If sophomoric attitude with intellect to match are the common theme here, then I see no need to return here. What a pity, Doug has a nice forum here, but like all things in life, idiots are something we have to endure!

Regards,
Deborah

[rmridgew]

you are correct, im usually not a sarcastic person, and i have edited the above comment.

when i started here i didnt know my butt from a hole in the ground, (still dont compared to most of the people around here) and i certainly did not get the kind of sarcastic remarks that i participated in.

i apologize

[WebSavvy]

rmridgew,

Apology accepted. :)


==================

Mel,

Perhaps I should have worded that better to allow for less confusion.

My opinion is that search engines will standardize a method for weeding out spam, irrelevant results in search queries, and which meta data will actually be used to establish the relevance of an individual site to its respective category.

Not to say that they will all adopt the same methodology but, perhaps a more unified standard for organization and categorization. Much the way a Library is organized and categorized using the dewy decimal system. It's the closest analogy that I can offer without going into a great depth of detail as I'm sure most would be bored by.

I know that in running my 65 SE's that there are certain indexing methods that I use that weed out the spam. I also index certain meta information on the page itself which helps to increase relevancy in query results.

I have a new SE named Iris that's getting ready to launch within the next 60 days that has a fully automated crawler that can reindex all 800 million World Wide Web pages every three months.

I hope that I was able to explain it a little better this time.

Regards,
Deborah

[Mel]

Hi Savvy1

Thanks for the explaination, but I am still of the opinion that each search engine will try to differentiate itself through its algo, and spamming a search engine is very much dependant on its algo.

As an example Googles PageRank portion of its aglo is (admittedly with difficulty) possible to spam, but such methods are unique to Google.

I believe that the future trend will be to drastically reduce or even totally eliminate any relevance based on metadata as that is the only legitimate area not seen by the viewers, and hence is easier to spam.

If we have more or less standard methodology in place, the chinks in the armor will be the same everywhere and thus much easier for spammers to abuse.

I'm hoping that each search engine will try to develop new and unique ranking methodology and let the best man (program?) win. So far both Wisenut and Teoma show promise that this may be the path.

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by Mel
Thanks for the explaination.
_______________________________________________

You're welcome Mel. I agree with your ideology on this subject. It certainly makes more sense to completely exclude meta data with the exception of the title when indexing pages.

Allowing meta data as part of the index algo does allow more latitude for potential abuse.

I know with my new search engine (Iris) I will solely be using the title tag and content within the page itself as the index algo.

It would be interesting to me to hear what types of algo you yourself, and others, would like to see implemented within a search engine.

Cheers,
Deborah

[Mel]

Hi Savvy1:

I look withhope at algos such as that used by Wisenut, which seems to return SERPs which are more or less what I would expect for the search terms used.

Is seems to me that there are several general areas which need to be addressed as regards returning really relevant SERPS:

1. First of all the SE has to have a fresh index which includes most if not all of the pages on the web. Without this there will obviously be pages which may be relevant but which the SE cannot return.

2. The SE Algo has to be be able to determine which pages in it's index are the most relevant and then rank them in decreasing order. This is probably the most difficult part of the problem since more and more pages will be optimized for SEs, thus making the job even more difficult. This may be further compounded by inexact search terms. Wisenut returns folders of similiar serps which may be one way of addressing this problem, but there should be some way for the searcher to indicate to the SE which results were most satisfactory to him. or that he was thinking of something totally different.

3. The methods inputting search terms leads to some inexacititude, since you are asked to provide a one sentence question. I sometimes have difficulty asking a question in less than three sentences. Perhaps a staged series of questions or checnk boxes might hlep in this area.

Now to answer your question:
What I would like to see is an algo which bases is rankings primarily on the page content of the entire site, perhaps tweaked with other off page factors similiar to PageRank.

[prosayist]

Deborah,
Contrary to your belief, the post to which you refer was most certainly not made with the intent to harm, ridicule or otherwise cause injurious effect to you, your reputation or our relationship, I simply thought Jill was funny. Granted, the term you used was 'sarcastic' and yes, I am a self-professed wiseguy 97.8% of the time which most people improperly read as "mean, cruel and unusual" however rebutting laughter (or the phonogrammatical representation thereof) with seriously ignominious references to my intellect is, IMHO quite unnecessary and somewhat scandalous. With regard to your association of my attitude and the general demeanor of this forum, please don't attribute my opinions, statements or questions to or consider any of my references to anything in any way similar to, conjunctive of or dependent upon any current or former member of this or any other forum or their collective manner. Please don't misunderstand me, please don't instigate disputations based solely on the implications that you believe me to have inferred. You don't have to like me (I don't require that of anyone) all I ask is that you respect me, preferably as a peer or colleague or fellow forum member but at least as the decent human being that I am.
Thank you,
-Dan

:(

[rmridgew]

phonogrammatical representation thereof) with seriously ignominious references disputations based solely on the implications

did you ever watch "in living color" where daemon waynes plays the jailed hobo,

cant we all just get along:cheers:

[prosayist]

I generally prefer not to pollute my mind with passive, fictorial media but now that you mention it 'Rodney King' comes to mind :cheers:

[MazY]

Originally posted by savvy1
If sophomoric attitude with intellect to match are the common theme here, then I see no need to return here. Deborah

I'm in love! :)

[MazY]

Originally posted by prosayist
You don't have to like me (I don't require that of anyone) all I ask is that you respect me, preferably as a peer or colleague or fellow forum member but at least as the decent human being that I am.


"I generally prefer not to pollute my mind with passive, fictorial media but now that you mention it 'Rodney King' comes to mind "

-Dan

:(

Big box of respect on its way to you! :) I feel awash with kinship!

[ihelpyou]

I am in love with both Savvy1 and prosayist. Well, maybe just Savvy as I do like females much more. :)

[Alan Perkins]

Hi Deborah
My opinion is that search engines will standardize a method for weeding out spam, irrelevant results in search queries, and which meta data will actually be used to establish the relevance of an individual site to its respective category.I note also that you own 65 search engines. I'm interested in how you define spam - because, until you define it, you can't weed it out.

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by prosayist
You don't have to like me (I don't require that of anyone) all I ask is that you respect me, preferably as a peer or colleague or fellow forum member but at least as the decent human being that I am.
:(

Hi Dan,

No hard feelings. I know I am not required to like nor dislike you. Rest assured, there are not too many people that I actually do dislike (with the exception of my ex-husband) ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel,

Thanks for your replies. I have quite a few new ideas that I may implement with Iris, but I would need to beta test the algo first to insure that it will indeed perform as intended.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your replies as well. The manner in which I define spam in order to weed it out is this:

1. Domains that submit EVERY page of their URL instead of just the index page, knowing that the spider will find it any way.

2. Persons who use layers within tables implementing a background graphic with which to keyword stuff in order to gain a higher position.

3. Those who use cloaking methods to deliver a page intended for search engines only in order to gain better ranks. Most of these pages are ones that have never been intended for the viewer to see, and generally have no relation to the content of the website except for the fact that it contains keywords designed to bring traffic to their domain which results in an irrelevant query result from the SE.

4. Those who have sites dealing with MLM, pornography, and get rich quick scams.

5. Those who insist on using two title tags and two description tags in their pages and keywords that are irrelevant to their content.

Hope this answers your question. In other words, Quantity isn't always best whereas Quality wins out hands down every time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mazy & Doug,,,,

Geez.....I never knew :o:


Cheers,
Deborah

[lots0cash]

4. Those who have sites dealing with MLM, pornography, and get rich quick scams.

Ouch!!! As a webmaster of a portal that’s main subject is the biggest get rich quick scam in the world, I take some offence at that statement. I have NEVER spamed anyone or any SE, EVER…

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by lots0cash


Ouch!!! As a webmaster of a portal that’s main subject is the biggest get rich quick scam in the world, I take some offence at that statement. I have NEVER spamed anyone or any SE, EVER…

LOL Lots0cash,

The question asked of me was how I define spam in my own Search Engines when indexing domains for the database. That statement did not apply to you.

I am referring to sites that I seem to see a lot of such as get rich scams like the phony MLM schemes that are literally pouring out of Russia looking to hook business men on an "investment that they just can't afford to turn down."

There are quite a few others that fall well within this category as well.

Cheers,
Deborah

[WebSavvy]

Lots0cash,

BTW...I just looked at your site. Very nice job! :)



:cheers:

Deborah

[lots0cash]

Savvy1,
For the most part I agree with you. I just wanted to make a point. Spam does not come from the web site subject matter; it comes from the Webmaster and/or the SEO.

Thanks for the complement!!
Just to let you know complements and flattery will get you almost anywhere with me. ;)

[Advisor]

Originally posted by lots0cash


Ouch!!! As a webmaster of a portal that’s main subject is the biggest get rich quick scam in the world, I take some offence at that statement. I have NEVER spamed anyone or any SE, EVER… lotso...doesn't it bother you to promote a scam? (not saying it's spam...two different things here.)

J

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by lots0cash
Thanks for the complement!!
Just to let you know complements and flattery will get you almost anywhere with me. ;)


LOL! You're welcome.


And yes, I agree the spam is the result of the web owner/SEO. It seems that certain types of webpages are more often involved in spamming practices such as the ones I have previously mentioned.

Cheers,
Deborah

[lots0cash]

webwhiz

I do not promote (at least I don’t think I do) I provide information.
The Lottery does not need me to promote it. The Governments involved do a VERY good job of promoting the lottery world wide.

And to some people the Lottery is not a scam it is just government controlled entertainment.

[Advisor]

Originally posted by lots0cash
webwhiz

I do not promote (at least I don’t think I do) I provide information.
The Lottery does not need me to promote it. The Governments involved do a VERY good job of promoting the lottery world wide.

And to some people the Lottery is not a scam it is just government controlled entertainment. Ooops! Lol..I hadn't even looked at your site. I was just going by what you said, that your portal was in regards to "the biggest get rich quick SCAM" in the world!

It is ironic that it IS exactly that, yet it's goverment sponsored! (Can you tell I don't buy lottery tix?)

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking on the lines of some other sort of scam, like pyramid schemes or something!

Jill

[lots0cash]

Webwhiz,
Believe it or not I don’t buy lottery tix myself, I used too, before I started this site.

Oops…I guess I let it slip out what I really think about the lottery.

I hope none of my loyal fans are reading this:D

[prosayist]

Originally posted by MazY


Big box of respect on its way to you! :) I feel awash with kinship!

I truly appreciate your repectful response and the one-phrase reply that I have is "thank you because now I feel welcome"

Originally posted by ihelpyou

I am in love with both Savvy1 and prosayist. Well, maybe just Savvy as I do like females much more.


I love you too though more in a professional manner than the emotional way in which you seem to have conveyed. Love is only a strong, emotional identification with another that is the basis of a gratifying or potentially gratifying social relationship. BTW, in which of the five posts did I indicate my gender?

Originally posted by savvy1

Hi Dan,

No hard feelings. I know I am not required to like nor dislike you. Rest assured, there are not too many people that I actually do dislike (with the exception of my ex-husband)


Hi Deborah,

None intended or implied in the case of either party so it's all good. :) I meant not to imply that you didn't know rather that it makes no matter what your opinion is of my opinion only that they get treated as such. Forums are a collection of peoples opinions, a forum is only as relevant as those opinions. Forgive me as it may seem I'm 'dumbing you down' with regard to general internet etiqutte as I am but merely attempting to make sure I understand that everyone else understands that I understand.

I come here to learn because all of you know so much more about the subjects at hand than I do yet as I'd been studying the rest of this site I may have formed my own opinion about SEO based on the information provided by the dominant players in many of the discussions here, so evidently I saw the same absurdity commonly implied within the context as Jill on that particular quote. That was my first post here because, as Doug inadvertantly knows, I'd been waiting to acquire a decent sig before posting. The number of "Posts:" is proportionaely equal to the depth of personality revealed of a member (for example; I feel like I know Doug and Jill based on the number of times I've seen their opinion and hold a lot of respect for them) In presenting on-topic fluctuation in degree of seriousness as a means of contribution, I have simulataneously opened the channel application for membership in "part of the crowd" status and hopefully inferred the fact that because I was able to understand the high-level humor (implied or unintentional, I presume we all know there are sleazy sites that will "submit to a gazillion search engines for $9.95") that I would be taken as one that has a sufficient amount of knowledge about our topic {i.e. I don't need to be introduced to the theory as "no Dan, keyword tags are not magical solutions to ranking problems" or "no Dan, it's really not a good idea to put hidden text at the top of your page" or in this case "no Dan, there really aren't 7 billion most popularly used search engines each supplying 99% of the pageviews for the most commonly used websites".. I know all that as well as some of you and to relatively the same degree (second nature?) It's very possible nobody saw the potential humor with the same mindset that I did, I'm quite unconventional in most anything I do}. Obviously, my opening statement to this community was way to lateral, too subliminal to have my desired affect and for that I apologize, it's analogous to my having joined a verbal conversation in the middle after listening invisibly since the beginning; I know you all well enough to joke but nobody knows me enough to realize that. I I probably have missed something that I intended to mention but I'm sure it'll be brought up again. :cheers:

p.s. there are not too many people that I actually dislike either :)

[WebSavvy]

Hi Dan,

Glad to hear that all is well. :)

I do not claim to be any sort of an expert when it comes to SEO.

The term "search engine submission" is a very tough keyword to get to the top on, or to even get noticed at.

So, there is a method to my madness. I specifically targeted the term (keyword phrase) "search engine submission to 2200 search engines" because the site would get some recognition this way.

As the sites popularity increases I will retarget my keywords for "search engine submission."

I have a meta script that's free to download and it so far in just 2 months has been downloaded 1000+ times. There is a link on the meta script to my site. Once the SE's index again, the link to my site from within the meta script will also be indexed.

The site has only been live for 3 months. So, it's not doing that badly, in my opinion.

The script itself was personally written by yours truly. What sets it apart from the others is that I have written 2200 specific perl modules to cater to the data required by each of the 2200 SE's and their submission policies.

I don't use any FFA's. These are REAL search engines. I even have quite a few of them who have joined my affiliate program.

I wrote it after seeing so many scam submission sites. It's really pathetic and makes it very difficult for anyone who is trying to offer a service that's legit.

I have quite a few clients who can vouch for the quality of my service. With the larger amounts of traffic coming from foreign SE's it helps to be listed there.

I have one domain that I own that's listed in 65 countries and actually gets traffic from almost all of them. It was this kind of data that persuaded me to write the script.

Sites are not blindly submitted to all 2200 SE's. They are only submitted to the ones that fit within the content/category of the domain being submitted.

I do all of the submissions myself to prevent abuse by submitters who would just assume submit to every SE there. This however, does not benefit the domain owner, the SE, nor the end user performing the searches.

I know many of you here probably have viewed my site with a level of distrust, based on what we have all seen in the past with other so-called "submission services."

If any of you would like to try the script for free to 50 SE's please by all means be my guest.

It's located at: http://free.esubmit-it.com

I have put in a lot of time on the development of the site as well as to the creation of the modules.

:cheers:

Deborah

[WebSavvy]

P.S.

If any of you SEO experts have any advice to offer I would be glad to hear it.


Thanks!
Deborah

[lots0cash]

Savvy1,

WOW, I have never seen so many meta tags on one site.

IMHO meta tags are over rated and for the big SE’s for the most part useless. I would get rid of most of those.

The term "search engine submission" is a very tough keyword to get to the top on, or to even get noticed at.
So, there is a method to my madness. I specifically targeted the term (keyword phrase) "search engine submission to 2200 search engines" because the site would get some recognition this way.

I believe that you should go for the high traffic keywords, right from the start. You most likely won’t have good ranking at first, but you will be working toward a #1 placement in a high traffic keyword/phrase. A top 10 placement for a high traffic word/phrase takes time, lots of time and IMHO you are wasting your time targeting low traffic words/phrases.

Please remember I am NOT an SEO just a lowly Webmaster, the SEO pros in this forum just might laugh me outta here for what I have said.

[Mel]

Hi Savvy1:

Thanks for the clarification on exactly what your free submission to 2200 search engines is comprised of.

You are right, I was suspicious when I first saw the title - all the more so since some "helpful" soul recently decided to compensate for messing up the setup of a new site by submitting the site to 5000 "search engines" which were really mostly FFA sites. My customer was not exactly a happy camper.

Regarding any advice on your site optimization, there are some areas where you probably could do better, PM me if you want some suggestions.

I have run through your submission site and must say I am impressed by the search engines you submit to. There are some other English language engines in Asia that might be more useful however. Dreamsubmit.com has a list of many of the Asian search engines grouped by countries, or I can give you a list of some of my favorites, including Asia Dragons, which has dedicated SEs for 15 Asian countries, will add your URL to all of them on the basis of one free submisison and will submit your listing on their engines to several of the major SEs

BTW very nice looking site, which I will visit in more detail when I have the time.

[ihelpyou]

Yes Savvy, I promise I will check things out when I get back on Wednesday. :)

BTW, the term:

search engine submissions

is MUCH more popular than the singular. 2200 times a day according to wordtracker. See my rank? :D

[WebSavvy]

Hi Mel,

Thanks for your kind words, and your help! :)
Sent you a PM.


Hi Doug,

Thanks for your help also! ;)

BTW....did you know that you rank #2 for "search engine submission to 2200 search engines" ???

LOL!


Regards,
Deborah

[WebSavvy]

Hmmmm.....just reading some information at Inktomi to see if they had posted any news announcements regarding their name change (which seems the only info on that is from Verisign).....I came across this information, and it pertains to the meta thread.

Inktomi Search Architect Edition

Building upon Inktomi's alliance with Watchfire Corporation, Inktomi Search Architect Edition combines Watchfire Enterprise Solution™ with Inktomi Enterprise Search 4.3 in one easy-to-deploy and manage solution for automating the practice of preparing content for search engine indexing. Inktomi Search Architect Edition automatically scans and analyzes enterprise content for problems that can impact its ability to be searched and quickly and accurately adds important keyword metadata (such as page titles, alt tags, author tags and description tags) to improve the accessibility and ranking of that content.


So it would seem that having the title tag, keyword tag, description tag, author tag, and alt tags, will be important when considering rank with Inktomi (SureList???)

Cheers,
Deborah