Google Webmaster Blog: meta keyword tag doesn't matter

I recently did some SEO work for a client, whose web designer later suggested I didn't know what I was doing because I hadn't touched the site's meta keywords. So I went looking for a credible source stating that meta keywords don't matter. I didn't have to look hard; a little over a month ago, Google's Matt Cutts posted this hard-to-misinterpret announcement on the Google Webmaster Central Blog: "Google does not use the meta keyword tag in web ranking". Matt McGee captures the significance of this post in his Search Engine Land column:

Google is telling the world what every seasoned webmaster and search marketer should already know: The keywords meta tag has no impact whatsoever on how Google’s search engine ranks pages. None. Zilch. Nada. And while Google often needs to be somewhat ambiguous when talking about how it ranks pages, the message in today’s blog post is perfectly clear ...

Here's are some excerpts from Google's blog post:

Q: Does Google ever use the "keywords" meta tag in its web search ranking?

A: In a word, no. Google does sell a Google Search Appliance, and that product has the ability to match meta tags, which could include the keywords meta tag. But that's an enterprise search appliance that is completely separate from our main web search. Our web search (the well-known search at Google.com that hundreds of millions of people use each day) disregards keyword metatags completely. They simply don't have any effect in our search ranking at present.

Q: Does this mean that Google ignores all meta tags?

A: No, Google does support several other meta tags. This meta tags page documents more info on several meta tags that we do use. For example, we do sometimes use the "description" meta tag as the text for our search results snippets, as this screenshot shows:

Even though we sometimes use the description meta tag for the snippets we show, we still don't use the description meta tag in our ranking.

Q: Does this mean that Google will always ignore the keywords meta tag?

A: It's possible that Google could use this information in the future, but it's unlikely. Google has ignored the keywords meta tag for years and currently we see no need to change that policy.

Redbox and limited choice

Interesting article from Rob Walker in the NYT on redbox's success in offering a limited selection of DVDs to consumers.

"In the venture's early days, [president Mitch] Lowe says, redbox actually experimented with different models, offering wider selections, including classic and foreign films (because the kiosks can hold 600 discs). 'What we found,' he says, 'is that today there are so many choices out there, consumers are really looking for some help and guidance'."

If you've read Barry Schwartz's work, this will sound familiar.

WSJ on volunteer advisers

Have a startup and want to tap into free advisers? The WSJ has some options: "Some small-business owners say their firms are surviving tough economic times thanks in part to advisory boards they regularly turn to for fresh perspectives and support."

Inc. on microtesting

One of my favorite parts of The 4-Hour Workweek is Tim Ferriss's discussion of microtesting new products -- marketing something cheaply and scientifically online to see if you get interested buyers before you go produce it. It's very consistent with ideas I've long been attracted to, in particular: predicting the future is impossible, and it's better to get user feedback on products as early and often as possible. And it's an especially appealing approach for startups and small businesses that can't afford to spend a lot on developing products that go bust.

A recent article in Inc. magazine - "The Bootstrapper's Guide to Launching New Products" - offers some good examples of "microtesting" or "minimum viable product." "What sets this approach apart from practices like using focus groups," the article points out, "is that companies base product development decisions not just on what customers say they want but on how they vote with their wallets."

Giving new products a familiar ring

Good piece in the NY Times - from a Harvard B School professor - on the importance of positioning new products within familiar categories:

"Humans instinctively sort and classify things. It’s how we make sense of a complex world. So when companies develop innovative products and services that don’t obviously fit into established categories, managers need to help people understand what comparison to make. Without that step, potential customers might just walk away wondering, 'What is it?'"

Wash Post on digital nomads

I recently came across this fun front page article from a couple months back in the Post on the rise of 'digital nomads', people who "work -- clad in shorts, T-shirts and sandals -- wherever they find a wireless Web connection to reach their colleagues via instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and occasionally by voice on their iPhones or Skype."

The article describes people who work from coffee shops, hotel lobbies, the DC-NY buses, and rooftop pools (though no mention of my favorite nomad spot: public libraries and law school libraries). Despite being a nomad for two years now, I'd never heard of "jellies" until this article: "Nomads who want the feel of working with officemates have begun co-working in public places or at the homes of strangers. They work laptop-by-laptop in living rooms and coffee shops, exchanging both idle chitchat and business advice with people who all work for different companies. The gatherings are called jellies, after a bowl of jelly beans the creators were eating when they came up with the name." Interesting.

The article closes by mentioning my current main nomad spot:

"Slightly more formal co-working centers have opened across the country, including Affinity Lab in office space above the Diner in Adams Morgan. Ads on the wall at Tryst offer space to the fully-evolved nomad who doesn't want a formal office but still wants a community of people to swap ideas with -- and a fax machine. Members pay $235 a month to work in a communal room -- no desk included -- or $575 for a desk. Users include designers, software startup entrepreneurs, nonprofit group staffers and an importer of Chilean wine."

BW looks inside Google

Robert Hof asks "Can Google Stay on Top of the Web?" in this week's BusinessWeek. Google seems to have offered Hof more access to their inner workings than most reporters. Most interesting to me was his description of the evolutionary, detail-focused way that Google makes many of its search results improvements:

To an outsider, many of the changes may look impossibly trivial. Several years ago, for instance, engineers noticed that while Google was returning useful pages when someone typed an acronym such as 'CIA'—providing links to the government agency and to the Culinary Institute of America—people were taking a slightly longer time than expected to click on one of them. So on the results pages, Google began highlighting in bold the full names. Immediately, Google saw more clicks through to pages—and faster, too. How much faster? Perhaps 30 or 40 thousandths of a second, on average, Singhal says. That's one tenth the speed of an eyeblink. 'This was a small idea,' concedes Singhal. 'But we have a real responsibility as a company to respect people's time.'

In doing research for the article, Hof held in-depth interviews with Eric Schmidt along with 4 key people in Google's search quality group. You can find links to each of those interviews on Matt Cutts' blog.