<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Meta Tags and SEO for Google</title>
	<link>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html</link>
	<description>I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere....</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Sane warne</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-132670</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-132670</guid>
					<description>I am totally with you John, there is no need to stop using meta keywords just because it doesn’t affect Google’s ranking. As long as the use of them doesn’t make anything worse I think you definitely should define them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am totally with you John, there is no need to stop using meta keywords just because it doesn’t affect Google’s ranking. As long as the use of them doesn’t make anything worse I think you definitely should define them.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: David auf Rechnung</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129388</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129388</guid>
					<description>Hi John,

great article! Just read a few days ago that Yahoo now also ignores meta keywords when it comes to ranking. No surprises there. But you are right - god (I mean, Google) might use that informatipon differently. I feel webmasters are making a big mistake by ignoring this attribute completely. Its importantce might be increased in the future, you never know - so you better be prepared. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John,</p>
<p>great article! Just read a few days ago that Yahoo now also ignores meta keywords when it comes to ranking. No surprises there. But you are right - god (I mean, Google) might use that informatipon differently. I feel webmasters are making a big mistake by ignoring this attribute completely. Its importantce might be increased in the future, you never know - so you better be prepared. :)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Goran Giertz</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129337</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:04:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129337</guid>
					<description>Here in South Africa we know that our local directories use meta keywords as a component of the ranking process, Google are not the only source of traffic.

However many webmasters will hear about what Google is saying and remove them from their sites. Yes it can negatively impact on Google, but It can be positive for those that dig deeper.

As for Trademarks we were contacted some time about about one of our client websites as we used their trademark in the meta tags and I can understand why Google would do this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here in South Africa we know that our local directories use meta keywords as a component of the ranking process, Google are not the only source of traffic.</p>
<p>However many webmasters will hear about what Google is saying and remove them from their sites. Yes it can negatively impact on Google, but It can be positive for those that dig deeper.</p>
<p>As for Trademarks we were contacted some time about about one of our client websites as we used their trademark in the meta tags and I can understand why Google would do this.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Viktor Richardson</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129328</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129328</guid>
					<description>I am totally with you John, there is no need to stop using meta keywords just because it doesn't affect Google's ranking. As long as the use of them doesn't make anything worse I think you definitely should define them. There are more search engines out there, and some of them is growing fast.

/Viktor</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am totally with you John, there is no need to stop using meta keywords just because it doesn&#8217;t affect Google&#8217;s ranking. As long as the use of them doesn&#8217;t make anything worse I think you definitely should define them. There are more search engines out there, and some of them is growing fast.</p>
<p>/Viktor
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Stuart Livesey</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129295</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/700/metatags-google.html#comment-129295</guid>
					<description>A good measured view of the subject John and one I agree with. It was interesting that Matt Cutts didn't use the 'I' word in relation to the keyword meta tag in anything that I've read or seen about it. 

He doesn't seem to have said that Google ignores the keyword meta tag.

Stuart</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good measured view of the subject John and one I agree with. It was interesting that Matt Cutts didn&#8217;t use the &#8216;I&#8217; word in relation to the keyword meta tag in anything that I&#8217;ve read or seen about it. </p>
<p>He doesn&#8217;t seem to have said that Google ignores the keyword meta tag.</p>
<p>Stuart
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
