Will, regarding your comment and link to AdSense text info here...https://forums.sitesell.com/viewtopic.php?p=1370009#p1370009
That is not referring to the META KEYWORD tag. It's irrelevant to this discussion.
Good find here, AJ...https://forums.sitesell.com/viewtopic.php?p=1370033#p1370033
The post is, as you note, 5 years old, but a Bing project manager is good enough for me as a source.
There is so much bad info online that my thinking is strictly binary when it comes to SEO claims. It's "hearsay" if it doesn't come from THE source (Google, Bing, etc.). A project manager quoted by a reliable publication certainly fits.
The other source that I'll buy is this..
A reputable source in the field does a study and comes to certain conclusions. If the study is well-explained and well-structured (I can't find reasons why it would introduce error/bias), I'll likely accept its conclusions (but I'll still search for reactions to that study if this is something worth passing on to you). The ideal situation is that the methodology is explained in such detail that the entire study can be reproduced, just like happens in the sciences.
The ultimate example of the value of this was when 2 highly respected scientists reported a successful experiment in the production of cold fusion energy. The world would have changed massively for the better if that discovery had proven true. The methodology was explained clearly. Scientists all over the world jumped to reproduce the findings. Not one was able to.
I took huge lessons from that...
1) Even the most well-regarded in their field can see what they want to see without being con artists.
2) Enabling others to verify your results by providing the process is the ultimate in good faith. It's a statement of confidence, a guarantee even. It's embarrassing when you're wrong, but the point is that others can reproduce to confirm that you're right.
Everything else is just speculation. I don't care if 100 folks say the same thing vs 0 - it's usually just 1 or 2 originators with everyone else looking for different ways to spin the same conclusions. If the originator got it wrong (without solid study) but had some respect in the field, it's mind-boggling how replication follows.
Actually, you'll see that next week in a series of blog posts about Alexa, perhaps one of the most misunderstood tools of all. Even recent reviews in 2017 regurgitate from pre-2008 articles (because they fail to mention big changes Alexa made, still refer to it using only ONE toolbar, its own). We'll be coning that series down into tighter articles in the TNT HQ, but for those interested, check them out.
Back to the "Bing Thing"...
A later blog post casts some doubt on that (2014 vs 2011)...https://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/2014/1 ... yword-tag/
So I suppose that this is, if anything, an argument to keep the reduction to 1 because the tag is confirmed as being dead in terms of having any positive value.
There's a small risk at Bing, if what you found, AJ, still stands
. If it does, the tag could impact negatively because 1 out of 1000 times it picks up a spammy signal (pretty rare).
On the other hand..
- ONE keyword can never be viewed as spam. That we know.
- Could 5 keywords in the Meta Keyword tag POSSIBLY be considered as spam?
We covered this with Analyze It! because stuffing keywords and keyword roots into the META keyword tag was a negative factor way-way-WAY back when. It's a shame that webmasters abused it so much that engines just dropped its recognition - look at the way tagging is used well today elsewhere!
But THIS keyword tag was the first, so its fate was sealed. When SEOs learned they could game it, they did. The engines should have said, way-way-WAY back then, right at the beginning...
"Just put ONE keyword in the meta tag. Otherwise, we ignore it completely."
THAT would have given the ancient engines an exact and useful statement, as intended. It would have told the engines, clearly that "My page is about ________."
They don't need that kind of statement anymore, are way past that.Bottom line:
Bing ignores the keyword tag - it can't help you. If it still uses the tag (in doubt), it can only count negatively. Analyze It! had conditions to pick that up, but seriously...
The whole thing is just not needed anymore.
Limiting the box to 1 keyword is, if anything the safer choice. But it's probably safer to say that IF this is still a factor at Bing, you can't get into any trouble by ONLY including 1 keyword.
The reason why it's not necessary to reduce 5 on already-existing pages is that the 5 keywords have passed the algo that looked for those mistakes. So don't worry about having 5.
There's just no upside to continue to doing it, going forward.
So we simplified, as I said in most post at...https://forums.sitesell.com/viewtopic.php?p=1369960#p1369960
The shame of having this discussion which is such a simple little improvement is that I doubt this would even be a thing if the "use case" had not been overlooked.
I should have defined "use case" in my last post When designing software, you constantly ask yourself "what if," imagining situations that the users could get into. In complicated programs, unusual use cases get overlooked - thousands of folks get into situations that are hard to imagine.
This one should not have been overlooked. If we don't roll this back next week, that will be fixed. If we roll back to the older version next week (per the vote here), we'll do that.
Unfortunately, giving that error message led folks to believe "oh no, I've got to change all my pages." No, you don't. This will only affect META keywords going forward...
It's still my best recommendation, per my post here...https://forums.sitesell.com/viewtopic.php?p=1369960#p1369960
So far, the majority seems to prefer the advantages of reducing it to 1. It's my own recommendation (or we would NOT have simplified it).'
Here's what to vote on...
1) keep the new release (simplify to 1 keyword - and fix that oversight)?
2) roll it back to the way it was (5 keywords)?
Hope that helped.
All the best,
P.S. Leaving it at 5 "because it leaves both options open" is not really a valid reason because it ignores the benefits that I outlined in my previous post.
I'm really sorry for the bother of the oversight. The team just missed a nice little feature that we tried to squeeze in. I understand that resentment there, but some of the comments feel a bit "us" vs "you"...
We're all on the same team. SBI! is sort of like a really focused tennis coach. It not only does everything it can to help you play at your highest level, but to get the very most out of every second that you put into building your business.
Simplifying to 1 keyword...
- grabs a minute or two here and there
- forces a tighter think on what the page is about, which in turn...
- sends the best possible keyword for each page to the SBI! software that uses this information in several places, including the upcoming BI!4 release.
To me, this is pretty obvious/tiny. I'd spend a great deal more time if there was misunderstanding over something that was really important. See my first post for more complete info. I'll be back after the final vote count on Monday morning (or later if this thread hasn't slowed down in voting yet) to tell the programmers which direction to take.
Good weekend to all!