1 BEST PRACTICE SUMMARY – Metatags M. Weideman Oct 2012 This is a Technical Report on best practice for designing webpage metatags, to make webpages more visible to search engine crawlers. It is based on extensive research by leading researchers including Craven, Konia, Kritzinger, Sullivan, Weideman and others. Every webpage has an “owner” – the person or organization responsible for providing the content. This “owner” should generate the three metatags as described below, and ensure that they are coded into the header section of the relevant webpage(s). Some search engine crawlers ignore some metatags, but it is considered good practice to include al least these three in any case. 1. GENERAL a. Webpages should be designed to be user-friendly, to make navigating them easy and effective. b. At the same time, webpages should be designed to be visible, or search engine crawler friendly. This will enable crawlers to easily find and index webpages, which in turn will open up the webpage to a wider audience through search engines. c. There are many ways in which a webpage can be altered to be visible. Only the easiest three aspects are covered here – coding the TITLE, DESCRIPTION and KEYWORD metatags properly. 2. DO’s and DONT’s a. TITLE METATAG This tag should be supplied as a single English sentence, very descriptive of what the webpage is about, grammatically correct and loaded with meaningful keywords. The TITLE metatag should be around 62 characters in length (including spaces). The bold italicized section below adds up to 60 characters. A TITLE tag can be longer than 62 characters, and the crawlers will read all of it, but the human user is likely to see only these first characters on a SERP. It is important to write this metatag correctly, since it appears in at least three prominent places on the screen, under certain circumstances – see below. i. The TITLE metatag coding is invisible to the casual browser, since it is embedded in the coding (header section) as in Figure 1. 2 Figure 1. ii. However, when this webpage is viewed by any user, the wording will be visible in the reverse bar, as well as in the Favourites section – see Figure 2. Figure 2. iii. Finally, if this webpage is displayed on for example a Google result page, the TITLE metatag will again be visible as the first line of the result summary – see the first ellipse in Figure 3. Figure 3. The three examples below meet most of the criteria for a well written TITLE metatag. iv. www.uvasys.com Uvasys: Uvasys sulphur / sulfur dioxide generators control postharvest fungal decay in table grapes v. www.bmw.com BMW automobiles - website of the BMW AG vi. www.cape-epic.com Absa Cape Epic presented by Adidas | The Magical + Untamed African MTB Race b. DESCRIPTION METATAG This tag should be supplied as a single English paragraph, very descriptive of what the webpage is about, grammatically correct and loaded with meaningful keywords. It is therefore an extension of the TITLE metatag. 3 The DESCRIPTION metatag should be written in such a way that the most important keywords fit into the first 165 characters – most search engines will index all characters, but only display the first 165 on average. i. The DESCRIPTION metatag is invisible to the casual browser, since it is embedded in the coding (header section) similar to the TITLE example above. ii. If this webpage is displayed on for example a Google result page, the DESCRIPTION metatag will be visible as the summary below the title line – see the second ellipse in Figure 3. The three examples below meet most of the criteria for a well written DESCRIPTION metatag. iii. www.uvasys.com iv. www.ananzi.co.za v. www. hetzner.co.za c. KEYWORD METATAG The KEYWORD metatag is not used by most search engines, but the human designer should use it as a library of keywords/key phrases. This tag should be supplied as a series of keywords separated by spaces. Overused and stop words must not be listed (eg. computer information system the that I, etc) Each keyword must be descriptive of some aspect of that particular webpage, and care must be taken to spell them correctly. The keywords selected should be repeated a number of times in the body text of the webpage, and should contain around a maximum of 100 keywords. There should be no repetition of keywords in the metatag itself, but different spellings (eg colour color) could be included. The three examples below meet most of the criteria for a well written KEYWORD metatag. i. www.bmw.com 4 ii. www.uvasys.com iii. www.hetzner.co.za 3. REFERENCES - Chambers, R. Search engine strategies: A model to improve website visibility for SMME websites. 100% Research thesis, full time, Cape Peninsula University of Technology. 73%. Graduated 31 March 2006. - Hamdulay, Z & Weideman, M. 2006. Search engine visibility: the effect of generic top-level domain choice. Working research paper for: The 8th annual Conference on WWW Applications, Bloemfontein, South Africa. September 05-08. - Kritzinger, W. & Weideman, M. 2007. Keyword placing in webpage body text to increase visibility to search engines. South African Journal of Information Management. 9(1). April 2007. http://www.sajim.co.za. - Mbikiwa, F. Search engine exclusion policies: implications on indexing e-commerce websites. 100% Research thesis, full time, Cape Peninsula University of Technology. 70%. Graduated 31 March 2006. - Mbikiwa, F. & Weideman, M. 2006. Implications of search engine spam on the visibility of South African ecommerce Web sites. South African Journal of Information Management: 8(4). December 2006. http://www.sajim.co.za. - Weideman, M. 1999. Internet topic searching matched with search engines to provide relevant information to IT/IS students - a South African approach. Proceedings of Bitworld99, Cape Town, South Africa, CD-ROM. June 30 July 2. - Weideman, M. 1999. An empirical study on Internet topic searching (using standalone Internet search engines) by undergraduate computer study students. Proceedings of IRMA99, 1999, Hershey, USA, p1044 - 1045. May 16-19. - Weideman, M. 2004. Empirical evaluation of one of the relationships between the user, search engines, metadata and websites in three-letter .com websites. South African Journal of Information Management: 6(3). September 2004. http://www.sajim.co.za. - Weideman, M. 2006. Crawler visibility and human usability of a government services website from a technomunity angle . Full research paper for: Community informatics for developing countries: Understanding and organising for a participatory future information society 2006, Cape Town, South Africa. August 31 - September 02. - Weideman, M. & Chambers, R. 2005. The application of best practice towards improving website visibility to search engines: an empirical pilot study. South African Journal of Information Management: 7(4). December 2005. http://www.sajim.co.za. - Weideman, M., Chambers, R. 2006. Improving website visibility and information retrieval of e-Commerce ventures: a specification to please the crawlers. Proceedings of e-society 2006, Dublin, Ireland, Volume 2, p285- 289. 13 - 16 July. - Weideman, M., Kritzinger, W. 2003. Search Engine Information Retrieval: Empirical Research On The Usage Of Metatags To Enhance Website Visibility And Ranking Of E-Commerce Websites. Proceedings of The 7th World Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, Florida, USA, Volume VI, p231 - 236. July 28 - 30. - Weideman, M. & Schwenke, F. 2006. The influence that JavaScript™ has on the visibility of a website to search engines - a pilot study. Information Research. http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper268.html.