Today I was reading Edweirdos Hub about how to use Tags to make relevant RSS Feeds (thankyou Edweirdo).
In that hub Edweirdo states
"I already knew that the tags we add to our hubs are used as keywords to describe the content of our hubs when Google's robots come along to perform their scans."
Okay, I agree with that (but are we correct) and feel using as many relevant tags as HubPages will allow resulted in more traffic.
BUT - the other day I was reviewing a list of things that Google gives plus points for, as the robots scan, and things they give negative points for, in the algorithm we all love to hate.
One of the negatives was to have keywords that are unused (with unused being undefined in the report I was reading).
So I am wondering, if we use tags that are relevant, of course, no problem. BUT if we don't use those tags in the text to a significant level, say 1% of total text count, are we getting penalized by Google?
I would appreciate help, comments, slaps in the face on this.
Thanks in advance,
This recent post (the entire thread is full of interesting info on this) may be of interest.
It talks about how hubs will now be unpublished if they are found to have "nonsense" tags.
Yes and I agree but I am not talking about nonsense or non related tags.
For example a hub on Willy Mays, famous black American baseball player.
A tag for the Hall of Fame might only be mentioned once in the hub but still listed as a tag. A tag like that is certainly relevant but won't cross the threshold thought to be necessary to be listed as a keyword.
So one question is, are HubPages tags really keywords?
HubPages does not use the Keyword Metatag, for several good reasons.
As I understand it most search engines no longer rely on that meta tag to tell them what the keywords are but if you have the Metatag for keywords and put spam in there, or don't use the keywords you designate as much as that search engines algorithm wants, you get some amount of penalization.
So back to the original questions.
Are HubPageys tags really keyword indicators or really just for grouping like hubs that hubpages may present as keywords for the entire domain. And I imagine hubpages gets revenue for clicks on those tag pages and we get impressions and clicks if someone passes through to our Hubs.
You shouldnt confuse Hubpages internal "tag" system with having anything to do with webmaster information on keywords or meta.
It is more akin to the Wordpress Tag structure -link pages, is all
Okay thank you. So, not to be critical, the information on Edweirdos hub about using tags with rss feeds may be partially incorrect?
"I already knew that the tags we add to our hubs are used as keywords to describe the content of our hubs when Google's robots come along to perform their scans.".
and the tag is just to link all hubs of relevant type together internally.
That means no negative effect with google if a relevant but lightly used
tag is placed in the tag que.
Ed is not wrong. The syntax is just confusing between each persons meaning of keyword, tag, metatag etc. I dont know what article you were originally referring to, or if that author used the syntax in a confused/confusing way or if it was to date etc etc.
The tags are words on the page and inbound/outbound anchored links, sure, why wouldn't a little bot add that to its possible relevant keywords for the page?
I dont see how any negatives could be caused by the tags, who but the author knows the relevance of each term?
Moderators and everyday readers cant possible know every term, word, slang usage, misspelling, jargon etc. for every topic.
Google says it that it ignores tags for ranking purposes unless they are deceptive (not used in the body of the article), then you get a demerit. If you are an honest Joe this is not a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing applied to RSS.
The easy way to avoid problems is to avoid being clever (or stupid) and stick to what is patently reasonable.
That is what I was referring to; deceptive (not used in the body of the article) but does one usage of a genuinely relevant tag suffice - I hope so.
I agree that it is better to stick to what is patently reasonable.
Thanks for your input.
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I'm trying to understand RSS feeds. I think the capsule is a reader that aggreates feeds from other websites, but I'm not sure
by anglfire6936 years ago
Ok, I did look at the FAQ's before coming here, and I found a hub on tags and read it. But it seemed to contradict another article I read. I also read through the comments and noticed that another hubber...
by TIC Publishing5 years ago
The tags you put in when creating an article... are those HTML META Tags? Google stopped paying attention to those in like 1999, and I don't think any important search engine uses them -at all-Is there any use in...
by Dobson6 years ago
I am wondering about a new strategy i am trying. What I am doing is putting an RSS Feed into my best performing (Viewed) hubs with my latest (not indexed by Google) yet hubs. IS this a good way to have them...
by ryankett7 years ago
And indeed my hub rating, after doing something with my hubs.It may seem like stating the obvious, but I went through all of hubs and put the absolute maximum number of tags that I could before it said "you have...
by Dan Harmon5 years ago
A while back someone posted another method of using tags to make RSS feeds, and today I tried it out on 3 different hubs. The format used was: ht tp://hubpages.com/author/authors name/tag/latest?rssand it gives a...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.