There are some arguments that are almost impossible to avoid in the world of SEO. These are tactics that have been hotly debated as to whether or not they improve SERPs and most are on-page factors. These debates include meta tags, W3C validation and more. Why are they stupid? Well, most of these issues really have nothing at all to do with SEO but some people think they do.

I think it is important for me to preface this article by stating I have been drawn into most of these debates myself. It wasn’t until recently when I got a much deeper understanding of what a great website really is that I could see the bigger picture behind these issues.

Meta Description Tag

The argument is whether or not the meta description tag helps or not. Can crafting the right tag with the correct number of characters give your site that little extra oomph in the SERPs?

Answer: Probably not. The meta description is useful to search listing conversions though! Since your meta description often appears with your listing in the SERPs it may be the deciding factor on whether a viewer clicks through or not. So write your meta description for people, not bots. Also, Google will start dropping pages to the supplemental index if every page on the site has the same description so if you do use this tag make sure it is different on each page!

Meta Keywords Tag

This waaaaay-too-easy-to-exploit tag has become so devalued as a result of spam the debate rages as to if it is even a factor at all.

Answer: The meta keywords tag is still worth including but not worth spending a lot of time to come up with the “right” keywords. By mixing up you meta keywords from page to page you can alleviate duplicate content issues. And by adding common misspellings for words you may get a small amount of extra traffic.

W3C Validation

Does validating your site make it more attractive to search engines? While I could bore you about the fact that none of the major search engines code validates and that most high-ranking sites don’t validate, the reality is this is a stupid debate for SEOs.

Answer: The W3C did not create a set of standards for higher search engine placement; they created a set of standards to make the internet browsing experience more universal, enjoyable and accessible. By making sure your code validates you ensure your site can be viewed across most browsers. It also means the search engines can read the code which should offer some peace of mind for getting indexed. Valid code is more professional IMO (like using the correct spelling and gramar) and shows dedication to the craft of website development. And by making sure your code validates you do ensure a minimum level of accessibility which just makes you a good human being.

What is the best keyword density?

Keyword density is the number of times a targeted phrase is repeated on a page compared to the overall amount of words on the page.

Answer: Keyword density is not important. Back when keyword density ruled SEO each search engine had an optimal percentage to attain so you were building pages for specific engines which is a frustrating experience akin to the Netscape versus Internet Explorer browser wars. Now it is suspected that keyword density isn’t used at all in place of term weight. Or if it is used it’s just to detect spam. The reality is if you write engaging, informative copy people will link to your content and that is much more important than any keyword density rating. If you don’t believe me just take a look at copyblogger. That site is almost entirely content-driven and was just named the “best blog for writers - congratulations Brian!.

Content versus Backlinks

Which is really king? This is the chicken or the egg debate repackaged for the new medium we call the internet.

Answer: Content is king for overall website success but backlinks rule for SEO. Both are very important but you have to have something worth linking to or you will have a hard time getting links and the visitors you do get will be pissed that their time was wasted and move on quickly hurting your brand image.

Ugly sites get better ranking

Do ugly sites really rank better in the search engines?

Answer: Actually, yes they do… to a point. For some reason sites that have very little visual appeal seem to rank better than “pretty” sites. I can’t really explain it beyond thinking that maybe the content stands out making it more linkable. Or maybe there is something trustworthy about these sites viewers find enduring? Whatever the cause there is some reality behind this myth. However, these sites can be beat in the SERPs with a bit of extra marketing effort. I think SEOmoz is a good example of a well designed site that ranks well but has become strong enough to leap past the many thousands of ugly sites striving for the same keywords. I was recently doing some keyword research for an SEO-related issue and SEOmoz kept appearing in the top 10 for almost every query I ran on Google. But here again quality content built the links needed to make it happen.

Next Article: Fathom down Previous Article: A short break