__/ [ Alfred Molon ] on Tuesday 03 October 2006 21:25 \__
> In article <1517190.JgVLxIkiyF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Schestowitz says...
>
>> Did you use meta name="keywords"? If so, why not make use of captions? Or
>> something adjacent to the image which contains some keywords (without
>> excess). In general, the relevance of image is determined by works that
>> have proximity to the image, if not the alt attribute, which can be as
>> descriptive as you like (but not too long). Other factors are anchor text
>> or text that is adjacent to the hyperlink pointing at the image.
>
> Well no, I placed them as text below the image, with each keyword
> separated from the next with a comma. Captions would be an option, but
> before I removed the keywords from the page, each keyword was clickable
> and would lead to a page with the search results over the entire site
> for the specific keyword.
That sounds like the most reasonable thing to do, from a visitor's
point-of-view, as well as SEO. I am surprised this led to penalties. The
only issue I can think of is excess of tags (try about 5-10), which leads to
dilution (crawling slowed down, 'Googlejuice' distributed) and keyword
spamming suspicion (this is automated). Bear in mind that there are many
other factors to consider, which may lead to a false assumption. SEO
experiments can never really be done on a static platform with
never-changing conditions. The Web around you changes all the time and
algorithms evolve, too.
> By the way, I think Google ignores the meta tags.
Yes, it ignores keywords in meta for all I can tell and hear about.
Hope it helps,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | (S)oftware (U)nd (S)ystem(E)ntwicklung
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Sep 28 23:16 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
