Advertisement:

Author Topic: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant  (Read 15526 times)

Offline Sirius OCTeam

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • OCTeam
[2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« on: January 01, 2009, 11:04:16 PM »
Hi,

This is almost to consider as a bug.

The meta description is not following the basic SEO standard recommendation, we can have 150 characters, but for now we just have the perfect copy of the title, and this is absolutely not recommended (by google in fact).

So we could have, more in the meta desc with for example the copy of title + few firsts words of the post to reach the 150 characters, or just the 150 firsts characters of the post.

In a second time, the <title> tag should be in the first position just follow by the meta description.

Like this:
Code: [Select]
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>So you think you found a bug with SMF?</title>
<meta name="description" content="So you think you found a bug with SMF?" />
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 05:08:42 PM by Sirius OCTeam »

Offline karlbenson

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 15,629
  • Gender: Male
    • Criminal Brief UK
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2009, 11:13:12 PM »
meta description is ONLY useful for appearing with the listing when searching.

SMF writes/outputs the meta description BEFORE it queries to get the content of the topic/post.
There are ways to get some of the first post into the description/keywords (there are several posts floating around the community), but i wouldn't expect smf to do this by default (as it wastes resources).

There is also the vb style meta mod.

As for title. There is NO set ordering in the html/xhtml spec.  And IIRC, google has said that it doesn't matter what order <meta> and <title> tag come in. It parses them in either order.

Offline Sirius OCTeam

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • OCTeam
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2009, 11:32:42 PM »
Thanks for reply

Quote
meta description is ONLY useful for appearing with the listing when searching

you mean the google search listing ?

Quote
but i wouldn't expect smf to do this by default

Ok understood, but by default a fresh install got no chance to get well ranked on google results pages with a meta desc like that. So I will check what's this vb meta mod...

Quote
There is NO set ordering in the html/xhtml spec

Yes I know that, but I wasn't thinking about compliance here, this is just my user experience that demonstrate to me that's better.
The quickest the bot found the title tag, the better it is.

Quote
google has said that it doesn't matter what order

Same as previous...

Thanks

(hu...sorry if I'm misunderstood...french talking here lol)  :)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 11:36:34 PM by Sirius OCTeam »

Offline SleePy

  • Site Team Lead
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 30,291
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats his happy face.
    • jdarwood007 on GitHub
    • @jdarwood on Twitter
    • SleePy Code - My personal site
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2009, 07:24:55 PM »
This is by design. You can change how it does meta descriptions if you would like :)
There is even mods to do this :)
Jeremy D — Site Team / SMF Developer
Support the SMF Support team!
Profiles:
GitHub

Offline Sirius OCTeam

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • OCTeam
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2009, 07:48:15 PM »
Yes, thanks

It's done  ;)

Just sound strange to me that SMF is not SEO compliant on fresh install...

Offline SleePy

  • Site Team Lead
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 30,291
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats his happy face.
    • jdarwood007 on GitHub
    • @jdarwood on Twitter
    • SleePy Code - My personal site
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2009, 08:01:02 PM »
Please read around on SEO, it isn't all that you think it is :)
Jeremy D — Site Team / SMF Developer
Support the SMF Support team!
Profiles:
GitHub

Offline karlbenson

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 15,629
  • Gender: Male
    • Criminal Brief UK
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2009, 08:07:04 PM »
With respect, you keep using compliance in respect of unwritten uncertified non-standard rules.
SEO is like religion, its based on beliefs, not fact. (Just as everyone bangs on about SEO-urls, then google came out and said its preferrable NOT use seo-urls to for dynamic sites like smf).
 
Like I said above, you don't need meta description for seo. It is not involved determining the ranking in the listing.
 
Whilst SMF isn't perfect (no forum software is), it does follow major seo rules which contribute most to search engine performance. (smf 2.x being better than 1.1.x) balanced against cost in terms of performance.
 
So overall, it shouldn't be a problem even for seo-minded admins. And those who don't believe it can install seo description mods etc.

Trust me, where seo is concerned, content is key.  There are no quick cheats to good ranking.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 08:09:50 PM by regularexpression »

Offline Sirius OCTeam

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • OCTeam
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2009, 08:44:47 PM »
Hi,
I'm absolutely not a "religious SEO" oO

I only apply what google say, since several years, and that's why my site is the first on most keywords (related to what is my site is about)

... you don't need meta description for seo. It is not involved determining the ranking in the listing.
 
That is not really true in fact, if there is a metadesc ,google will take it, and if is enough for the snippet so it's ok like that.
But sometimes he will do a parsing of the content too because the metadesc is not enough or is too irrelevant.

So you can do without metadesc, ok, that's true you can, but I prefer use it to give more precision to what I want google to put in the snippet on the keywords that I choose.

It's a question of taste...I think.

 :)

Offline karlbenson

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 15,629
  • Gender: Male
    • Criminal Brief UK
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2009, 08:48:14 PM »
Google will show it in its listing, but thats the extent that it will trust it.
 
Meta tags were intended for reliance, but that all went Pete-tong when people started keyword stuffing into meta keyword and meta description fields.
Thats why they are ignored for seo purposes.  Meta description is then only used when its shown below the link when you do a search.
 
I personally have had better SEO by leaving it as smf has it, so google then detects it as unchanging, and then it uses the first content on the page. OR the relevant bit on your page which matches that keyword.

Offline Sirius OCTeam

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • OCTeam
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2009, 08:51:38 PM »
I personally have had better SEO by leaving it as smf has it, so google then detects it as unchanging, and then it uses the first content on the page. OR the relevant bit on your page which matches that keyword.

 :o you got some chance with you, because for me absolutely no, that's why I wanted to apply the metadesc to see if there's better results.....

So it's time to wait....

Offline 青山 素子

  • Server Team
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 17,066
  • 戦場ヶ原、蕩れ!
    • srvrguy on GitHub
    • @motokochan on Twitter
    • Nekomusume Moe
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2009, 12:02:58 AM »
:o you got some chance with you, because for me absolutely no, that's why I wanted to apply the metadesc to see if there's better results.....

So it's time to wait....

Google has specifically said they have never and will never trust the META keywords and description tags and do not use them in determining ranking in results (Posted in Journal of Internet Cataloging, Volume 5(1)). The description tag is only used for display if Google can't find enough relevant text in the page itself.
Motoko-chan
Director, Simple Machines

Note: Unless otherwise stated, my posts are not representative of any official position or opinion of Simple Machines.


Offline aldo

  • Sophist Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Gender: Male
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2009, 12:14:50 AM »
Goody goody :P I tell that to some people and they tell me I am a total and complete idiot... now I know for sure I am not :)

(Even though when I compare all their ranks to mine mine is way better then theirs, lol)

Offline Nao 尚

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 5,928
  • Gender: Male
    • wedgebook on Facebook
    • Wedge
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2009, 07:26:26 AM »
SEO is like religion, its based on beliefs, not fact. (Just as everyone bangs on about SEO-urls, then google came out and said its preferrable NOT use seo-urls to for dynamic sites like smf).
Seriously? Can you link to this story please?
I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.

Aeva Media rocks your life.

Offline 青山 素子

  • Server Team
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 17,066
  • 戦場ヶ原、蕩れ!
    • srvrguy on GitHub
    • @motokochan on Twitter
    • Nekomusume Moe
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2009, 12:18:16 PM »
SEO is like religion, its based on beliefs, not fact. (Just as everyone bangs on about SEO-urls, then google came out and said its preferrable NOT use seo-urls to for dynamic sites like smf).
Seriously? Can you link to this story please?

Original post on the Google Webmaster Central Blog

Topic I started on the article, including the full text of article: Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs - Google Webmaster Central Blog.
Motoko-chan
Director, Simple Machines

Note: Unless otherwise stated, my posts are not representative of any official position or opinion of Simple Machines.


Offline Nao 尚

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 5,928
  • Gender: Male
    • wedgebook on Facebook
    • Wedge
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2009, 04:23:46 PM »
Thanks!
Couldn't help myself from posting my opinion on it.... ;)
I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.

Aeva Media rocks your life.

Offline eclipsenow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 180
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2009, 06:36:45 AM »
What do you guys make of this SEO company's review of SMF, phpbb3 and Fireboard? It's a bit dated, and said FANTASTIC things about SMF compared to phpbb3, but regarding SEO basically slates all free-open-source forums.

http://www.a3webtech.com/index.php/compare-forums.html

Quote
SEO
A poor SEO score for the basic app; which rises to merely 'not good' with plugins.

OK, so the pages validate - fine. It doesn't end there, though. There has to be some sort of concession to the fact that search engines exist - and that people need search traffic on their sites. Here, the basic app just doesn't cut it, though of course that doesn't really matter in the world of dynamic webapps - as long as there are plugins to fix it.

URLs: there is a choice of two SEF URL plugins, and we tried one of them. The resulting URLs are OK, but not perfect (they look a lot like Joomla core SEF URLs, or ASP CMS SEF URLs for instance). However, the bonus with the SEF solution we used (PrettyURLs) is that it's all done within the app - there is no htaccess involved. That's really handy, as, with other dynamic apps in the same webspace, there could otherwise be htaccess conflicts.

Metadata: aarghhh! Boilerplate metadata - identical sitewide. The standard stuff can be replaced with a meta plugin, but that only means you get all your meta identical on every page, instead of the default meta. In fact you could do that yourself by hacking the files, all the plugin does is put a text box in the admin backend to make it easier. A module job if ever I saw one. And of course it's sending a boy to do a man's job: this needs a component-level plugin, to fix things at a higher level so that per-page meta can be input.

One day (perhaps when a core dev needs to make some money out of one of his own sites), they'll realise that search engines are important; and that search success demands unique per-page metadata. Four variables are vital here: title, description, keywords and follow/nofollow, index/noindex. (And please don't try and tell me that this meta or that meta is no longer necessary: this is my daily work and I can assure you that they are all needed and I'd bet you a million bucks on it if I had it -  I sure couldn't lose. Any testing procedure will show you that 4 meta fields as a minimum are needed.)

Here, the title is changed automatically to be the post title; the rest are missing or boilerplate.

The single thing that stands out in all our forum reviews is that the software authors, universally, have no idea how important search engine traffic is to website owners.
* Please don't PM me for help, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ANYWAY!
* Please tick your thread as "resolved" when after you have implemented solutions to your problem

Eclipse Now predicts...
2015: Airlines bankrupt, freight routes collapse, agricultural crisis and the "Greater Depression" begins. Welcome to the end of the oil age!  (We had better leave oil before it leaves us!)

Offline karlbenson

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 15,629
  • Gender: Male
    • Criminal Brief UK
Re: [2.0 beta 4] Meta description not SEO compliant
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2009, 07:39:11 AM »
Well on both counts they are disagreeing with Google directly.
Google says dynamic urls are better than static seo urls
Google says they don't trust meta information.

This company vs Google. I know who i'd believe more.

This is the problem with SEO, every company and its bandwagon think they know best.  Popularizing the same myths and beliefs.