FrontPage and Google

Posts: 410 · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:48 pm

Since I have a FrontPage website, I'm concerned whether Google likes FrontPage or not. Google might consider them 'unprofessional' but if content is king... then it shouldn't matter but, to them, it probably does. Just in case and in order to eliminate their robots from identifing it as FrontPage, I'd like to delete (if possible) all meta tags identifying it as such.

Currently under <head> I always put the following:

<title>xxx</title>
<meta name="description" content="xxx">
<meta name="keywords" content="xxx">

But FrontPage also automatically includes the following:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta name="Microsoft Theme" content="refined 011">
<meta name="Microsoft Border" content="tlb, default">

</head>

Anyone with thoughts on whether this extra stuff is necessary? I'm chicken to try deleting them. Confused

Or, anyone with thoughts on whether Google may dislike this extra nonsense (if it is nonsense as some have said)? I know nobody knows for sure what Google likes or dislikes, but I'm guessing it could be hurting me to identify my website as FrontPage derived.

Posts: 126 · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:09 pm

Hello,

I dont know this as a fact, but considering the popularity of Microsoft Frontpage I would assume that google.com would simply ignore the added information that Frontpage throws in and only looks for meta keywords and meta description. Also, scanning for the Frontpage information would increase the amount of work that they would have to do with their spiders. Considering the nature of their business, the less they would have to scan for the better.

-Alan

Posts: 101 · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:13 pm

I don't use frontpage at all but I do know that you want the meta keywords and description above as much of the other code as possible (frontpage stuff, javascript, etc.)

When I take over a frontpage site, I delete anything not necessary to the site. You may need that other stuff in there for frontpage to read, or it may be that the program would just put it back in.

Posts: 410 · Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:41 pm

Thanks for the input... while I did find some more information about this at http://www.searchnewz.com/searchnewz-12-20021202The-Advantages-of-Using-FrontPage.html which addresses how to permanently get rid of this code (otherwise FrontPage keeps putting it back in), I'm still unsure of the effects. I have not yet found anyone who will elaborate on this. It is often just referred to as 'unnecessary' or 'extraneous'... but surely it has some function, at least parts of it.

The above link referred to a website which apparently eliminated this code but in checking it out, none of the pictures (logo, GIF and such) were being downloaded for the visitor (me) to see. Maybe it was just a temporary glitch for that website however (it would download these pictures if you clicked on the little 'x'). I'll continue to check on that website to see if it is functioning properly. If anyone has experience with eliminating this code I'd love to hear about it.

As to how Google might rank a FrontPage website, I only suspect they don't like them. I thought I'd try eliminating this code to see if it helped my ranking. There seems to be some reason why Google ranks my website poorly... curious since Yahoo ranks it so very well. I've tried everything else. While Yahoo did penalize me for changing titles a month or so ago, I'm now back in good (better) graces. I've learned one thing... pick your title carefully and then leave it alone.

Posts: 5 · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:20 pm

The fact that you have FrontPage Meta tags in your code should not affect your ranking at all with Google. Google in fact does not even put a heavy emphasis on the Meta tags for your site. Google in fact uses an algorithm to determine how relevant your site is to the search being entered. This equation takes into account the content on your page, what sites link to your sites and their relevance to the search, and other things along these lines. The reason for the differences in your placement on Google and Yahoo is due to the fact that Yahoo does not use the same method for relevance that Google does. Basically, the FrontPage Meta tags will have no affect on your Google rankings.

Posts: 410 · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:56 pm

Well, I always listen to opinions but unless someone is a Google insider, nobody knows for a fact what Google considers (sorry to be so blunt). While what you state is probably the consensus, it is only conjecture. And, it goes without saying Yahoo has a different algorithm. Personally, I think Google prefers a website with a little flash, with some hi-tech gadgetry... whereas Yahoo doesn't care. That's why I suspect plain-Jane FrontPage meta-tags could be hurting me with Google. My website, you might guess, is plain-Jane. While content should be king with Google... it isn't.

Clues come in unusual ways however, and some statements made by Google cannot be trusted. I recently complained to Google about them only showing 4 links to my website... Google's answer was that they don't consider the number shown. Well, I don't believe it for a minute. I pointed out to them that links are relevant information and should be accurate, whether or not they factor in (like Yahoo does). I pointed out the undue grief it was causing website owners... and that we shouldn't have to wonder what the reason may be. From their wording, I was left with the impression they weren't setup yet to accurately list links. I don't believe that either. Strange, it seems, that correctly listing links is beyond their current capabilities (especially since occasionally they do list them all).

A growing number of people seem to believe Google doesn't consider links anymore but I'm not one of them. Perhaps they heard the same thing from Google... and believed them. However I am among those who believe Google is penalizing those who have optimized their webpages... even moderately. I think Google's algorithm could be compared to Germany's World War II enigma machine and why it is so difficult to pin down. Some of my webpages remain static in the rankings for weeks, other jump around while still others are likely to completely disappear. If it was merely a matter of (1) content/search term relevance and (2) what sites link to these pages, rankings would be more consistent... only to be slowly edged out by those getting more links. Those two things (content/ search term relevance and links) may only account for half of it.

Posts: 766 · Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:39 pm

I think Google's algorithm could be compared to Germany's World War II enigma machine and why it is so difficult to pin down.

...maybe we should try coding pages in Navajo? Laughing

Posts: 410 · Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:20 pm

Oh, you mean I shouldn't have been using Navaho? Rolling Eyes

Again, Jamie, you've isolated my problem!!

Posts: 5 · Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:36 pm

I found this "official" google post pulled directly from answers.google.com. Take a look at the link below and read what Google themselves has to say about how their ranking works:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=258429

Posts: 766 · Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:18 pm

I gave up optimizing websites for Google when I found out that I got penalized for using the word "ya'll" too many times.

One of these days I'm going to move back South where people talk normal.

Posts: 410 · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:22 am

Thanks Erik, I checked out the link you supplied and while it is always good to be reminded of the basics, I really didn't see anything new. While there were probably some truths in what Google says, those truths don't represent, I don't think, the whole truth. I'll just point out a couple of inconsistencies... I normally have a PR4 if arriving to my website through a search but if you arrive from my Yahoo directory listing, I then have a PR5. Odd, don't you think?

Secondly, no matter which way I look up my links, of the four or five different ways, Google only lists 3-4 real links to my website. The rest shown, or about 80 plus, are either my own links or other search engines which aren't real links. In fact, Google won't even credit me for a link in its own directory nor that in Open Directory. Only Yahoo directory and two other websites are they counting... so sorry, despite what they say, they got it all screwed up.

From the link you supplied, Google did, however, cite one website example where perhaps they did get it right. Google also stated what can get a website banned which I'm sure is right... but I'm not guilty of those, not even close.

I'd like to comment on what they say here...

"Google is first and foremost a search engine. In my opinion, Google is
the BEST search engine around, and I'm not alone in that opinion. The
reason Google is considered the best is that it delivers RELEVANT
information to a search inquiry. The term "relevant" is extremely
important. If Google returns garbage results, it wouldn't be so
popular.

Google's responsibility is to the searcher, not to webmasters or
website owners, so if you want to ensure YOUR business will be
included in those results, you have to supply RELEVANT information on
your website. It's that simple."

I think the above statement is largely hype (really a sales pitch) because I don't think they provide relevance. Relevant keywords within the text should determine relevance but that isn't the case often. For example, if you were to search for 'sixth sense', wouldn't you be looking for information on our sixth sense? Or the movie Sixth Sense? Well, you'd have to wade through a lot of Bruce Willis crap before you found what you were looking for. If you featured stuff on your website about a movie or rock group, you'd be sure to beat out any prestigious University. Good thing there isn't a popular rapper called 'New York' lest the city would be playing second fiddle. Very Happy

Sorry chief, but it ain't what they say... it just sounds good. Just Look up 'cavemen' sometime and you'll find the 'farting cavemen' website outranking almost everyone... just what people are looking for. Shocked

If Jamie was to search for 'okra', 'black-eyed peas' or 'jambalaya', no telling what those Californians would dish up! Laughing

Posts: 410 · Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:32 pm

Back to the topic... about the FrontPage meta-tags. I've since discovered that <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> would be necessary to keep... it instructs the spiders how to read the website. As far as the rest of the FrontPage code being necessary, I'm still unsure.

Posts: 766 · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:38 am

jam·ba·lay·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jmb-l)
n.
A Creole dish consisting of rice that has been cooked with shrimp, oysters, ham, or chicken and seasoned with spices and herbs.

Creole = Louisiana != Southern

That's cajun! <sigh>

Yankees. Can't live with them. Can't shoot 'em.

Posts: 101 · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:08 pm

Out of the meta-tags that you have listed:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta name="Microsoft Theme" content="refined 011">
<meta name="Microsoft Border" content="tlb, default">

the http_equiv is not a front page tag. The other 4 are. You could try deleting them, but if you use front page all the time, it will probably just add it back in.

I don't think those tags will make that much difference in how the site gets listed in google. I've had some very good luck with some competitive words.

Some suggestions would be:

1. Have more of your search words in the title of your pages. Descriptive words are nice, but not what people search for.
2. Weight of words is important so a page on a farm scene should have those words in the title, as alt tags for images, and a few times on the page. Don't repeat it too much (that would be spamming the search engines and they don't like that)
3. The less coding at the top of the page the better for the search engines that don't read thru the whole page. They read the code, so if you look at just that you'll get an idea of what the search engines will see. That could be where having the front page stuff could hurt. That only applies to some search engines tho.

Let me know if this helps.

Posts: 410 · Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:47 am

Thank you webweaver... one thing I haven't been doing is the alt tags for images, I should do that. As far as the FrontPage meta-tags maybe not hurting me with Google, perhaps you and Erik are right. I'm just looking for some reason I don't rank well with Google. Even tho I have a 5PR, that doesn't mean much if my main keywords are on page 50. Yahoo has me (for those same keywords) usually in the top five, or at least on the first page or two.

As we all know, it could be for any number of reasons and I'm just trying to narrow it down. One thing that I'm beginning to consider is that my website has five major themes (different) and could be diluting my positioning (with Google). By themes I mean I write articles about four topics... agriculture, politics, metaphysics and ancient history and then I do a bookstore directory for Arizona. For a bookstore directory, I do very well with Google so perhaps they think I'm mainly that. So maybe I need five websites? Shocked