Google and Meta Tags - (was: Re: VERY GOOD READING query re Google actions)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> Date: November 17, 2009 3:23:35 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Google and Meta Tags - (was: Re: [IP] VERY GOOD READING  
> query re Google actions)

> Dave,
>
> There's no reason to speculate about this.  Matt Cutts, who is
> Google's point man for such topics and a straight shooter, addressed
> the meta tags issue specifically in a Google Webmaster blog entry and
> video in late September:
>
> "Google does not use the keywords meta tag in web ranking":
>
>   http://bit.ly/2M4Pme  (Google Webmaster Central Blog)
>
> As far as I'm concerned, if some people refuse to believe Google's
> statements about this that's their problem, not Google's.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren () vortex com
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, NNSquad
>   - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
> Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
>   for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
>
>
> - - -
>
>
> On 11/17 14:42, Dave Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Eric Glover <eric_ip () ericglover com>
> > > Date: November 17, 2009 2:01:43 PM EST
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] query re Google actions
> >
> > > As an expert in web search who worked for two search engines I would
> > > like to point out a few key points:
> > >
> > > Before I write them - I do not, and have never worked for Google,  
> > > and
> > > do not claim to have any inside knowledge of what Google actually  
> > > does
> > > for certain, merely what other engines do and what Google also  
> > > appears
> > > to do from experiments and observation.
> > >
> > > First - it is a very difficult matter to determine exactly why one
> > > page ranks higher than another for a given query - without getting  
> > > the
> > > raw features and actual algorithm from Google. Google's top-level
> > > ranking algorithm is not public knowledge so we can only infer as Mr
> > > Farance has done.
> > >
> > > Second - there are many other factors which can influence the  
> > > ranking
> > > of a particular page for a given query, and there could easily be  
> > > some
> > > other feature (not using meta-keywords) which can cause the same
> > > effects (I list some below).
> > >
> > > Specifically: Web graph, click-data and user behaviors, and various
> > > domain-trust features are likely other factors which can  
> > > significantly
> > > affect ranking.
> > >
> > > It is my belief (as an expert who has worked for two commercial  
> > > search
> > > engines in the past in a variety of roles) that the complex ranking
> > > function of Google as well as other engines is not a simple 'linear
> > > function'. Specifically, depending on one feature other features  
> > > can be
> > > positive or negative. For example, a page which 'looks like a  
> > > homepage'
> > > might consider in-link and title features differently than a page  
> > > which
> > > looks like a 'reference page'. A page on a 'trusted domain', or  
> > > linked
> > > from a 'trusted domain' might consider meta-keywords (not  
> > > commenting on
> > > the particular pages in the disclosure), but otherwise they would be
> > > ignored or considered 'negative'. Maybe a page which was recently
> > > "discovered" might only consider the first 100 words of the document
> > > for ranking purposes, etc...
> > >
> > > A search engine might not directly use a feature - say Pagerank - a
> > > feature which I believe is not used at all directly for run-time
> > > relevance calculation by any serious commercial search engine -  
> > > might
> > > be 'indirectly used' - say some researcher does an offline  
> > > experiment
> > > that calculates Pagerank and from that builds a list of 'trusted
> > > domains' and the 'is trusted domain' is a feature which is used by  
> > > the
> > > ranking to decide what other features to consider or how to use  
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Specific confounding features:
> > > #1: Web graph - it is important to note who/what currently (and
> > > previously) linked into those pages - what concepts were discussed  
> > > on
> > > those pages. Although academic papers talk about in-bound  
> > > anchotext, it
> > > is likely Google and other engines consider much more than simply
> > > 'words in links' (I have personally published papers about using
> > > windows of words near anchortext).
> > >
> > > Also, I suspect if you have a company who knows what a Meta- 
> > > keyword is
> > > and does a "campaign" to optimize, they are also asking "friends" to
> > > link to them with the desired keywords, as well as optimizing  
> > > their own
> > > site to add those words on inlinks.
> > >
> > > #2: Click logs and search behavior patterns. It is well known that
> > > search engines consider user behavior to aid in ranking. Lets say  
> > > you
> > > have page A and page B - maybe for a given query page B is clicked  
> > > more
> > > often - then the engine might (over time) change the ranking of  
> > > page B
> > > - even though 'text-based attributes' might favor page A over B.
> > > Likewise, lets say you have a user who enters query q1 - they do a
> > > search, then they do a search for q1 - the engine might make
> > > connections between q1 and q2 and the pages the users interacted  
> > > with
> > > for those clicks - so a word not on a page may still cause a page to
> > > rank.
> > >
> > > #3: Search behavior and site popularity - although I do not know the
> > > extent to which this is used by Google - an engine which has user
> > > action data from toolbars or other logs might leverage those to  
> > > boost
> > > "popular sites" - so if a site is viewed often then it might rank
> > > higher. So if you do a 'campaign' you buy ads and do other things to
> > > create lots of "views" - these views may indirectly translate to  
> > > higher
> > > ranking.
> > >
> > > Given the political nature of this site, it might have gotten more
> > > views, more in-links (with appropriate keywords on or near the in-
> > > bound links), more clicks, or higher 'trusted' scores (or lower). It
> > > is not possible without direct knowledge of the ranking function to
> > > determine the effect of meta-keywords with certainty. HOWEVER - it
> > > does not mean you can't do experiments to show that metakeywords are
> > > (or are not) likely used by search engines in limited circumstances,
> > > to correctly conclude this is quite difficult. Past experience shows
> > > Meta-keywords when used directly are noisy at best, detrimental at
> > > worst.
> > >
> > > As an expert I can say that often you have "features" which are used
> > > indirectly since they are noisy, and meta-keywords is a "noisy
> > > feature" in that spammers have been known to (ab)use it, but it can
> > > help in selected cases. I suspect IF it is used indirectly then all
> > > stories could be consistent. I also know that engines use lots of
> > > "indirect data" from other sources which can complicate the  
> > > ability to
> > > determine if one particular feature had any effect.
> > >
> > > As a simple proof of this - remember the "Google Bombs"
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb - where users caused  
> > > sites to
> > > rank for specific query terms (even though the words did not  
> > > appear on
> > > those pages). In addition - it is entirely possible that some other
> > > source created extra tags - say an algorithm scanning Wikipedia
> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling) might automatically  
> > > associate
> > > "Jenzabar" with the pages in question as "strong tags".
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > >
> > > Dave Farber wrote:
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > *From:* Paul Levy <plevy () citizen org <mailto:plevy () citizen org>>
> > > > > *Date:* November 17, 2009 7:50:27 AM EST
> > > > > *To:* David Farber <dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>>
> > > > > *Subject:* *Question*
> > > > >
> > > > > In the trademark case where I am defending the documentarists Long
> > > > > Bow Group against a trademark lawsuit by Jenzabar, we have
> > > > > received an "expert report" from an individual named Frank
> > > > > Farance, who claims a long pedigree of involvement in standards
> > > > > and specification development organizations.  Mr. Farance insists
> > > > > that Google takes keyword meta tags into account in computing
> > > > > search rankings (even though Google itself has announced that its
> > > > > ranking algorithm does NOT support keyword meta tags).
> > > > > <http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2009/11/jenzabar-expert-witness-claims-that-google-still-uses-keyword-meta-tags.html
> > > > > > http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2009/11/jenzabar-expert-witness-claims-that-google-still-uses-keyword-meta-tags.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I am curious whether others on the list have any comments on his
> > > > > report.
> > > > > Paul Alan Levy
> > > > > Public Citizen Litigation Group
> > > > > 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> > > > > Washington, D.C. 20009
> > > > > (202) 588-1000
> > > > > <http://www.citizen.org/litigation>http://www.citizen.org/litigation
> > > > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> > > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>    [Powered by
> > > > Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com