Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
LSI keywords logic - enter in meta and bold in text?
-
Hello,
In the lack of good info about this on the Internet, let me try here.
- I know that it is a good idea to put LSI keywords in natural flow in the body text of the article.
But shall I also put LSI keywords as a meta? In the same manner as doing with non-LSI keywords? Or shall I only reserve meta for non-LSI keywords?
- In body text, shall I emphasize LSI keywords in bold? As non-LSI keywords already does.
This is a bit confusing as I don't wan't LSI keywords to take over show from my long tail (phrase) keyword.
I will appreciate if someone could share a bit light over this.
Thanks in advance!
-
- Actually, more so that I "show" search engines what is important to me, guessing that it will then maybe give me some ranking boost.
Thanks, nice answer
-
Thanks, good clarification!
-
-
If you are talking about the meta keywords tag, don't bother. Google and other search engines don't use it for anything that would benefit you.
-
Does putting those words in bold do anything to benefit users, or are you doing it because you believe it will bold words somehow help improve your position in search results? If it makes something more clear to users by making certain words bold, and doesn't look ugly or stupid, then do it. If there is no benefit to your readers to have seemingly random words in bold, then don't do it.
"LSI" is just a fancy term for synonyms, which are something any writer (SEO or not) should be using so your writing is not repetitive. "Long tail keywords" is just a fancy term for "things people actually search". Write naturally, and think about how people speak and write if you want more "long tail" search traffic.
-
-
As meta keywords - no. As part of your meta description - maybe. Like with your body text, it must flow naturally.
Your meta description should contain your main keyphrases, by which time you wont have much room left for anything else as Google only looks at the first 150 - 160 characters anyway. Anything beyond that a) will get truncated and b) looks like keyword stuffing.
In your case, I'd focus on sliding the LSI keywords in to your body content where natural and not worry about including them in your description.
p.s It should go without saying that 'meta keywords' holds pretty much zero value in SEO anymore. Even Yahoo doesnt care about them much these days.
Further reading: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/meta-description
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
How to fix: Attribute name not allowed on element meta at this point.
Hello, HTML validator brings "Attribute name not allowed on element meta at this point" for all my meta tags. Yet, as I understand, it is essential to keep meta-description for SEO, for example. I read a couple of articles on how to fix that and one of them suggests considering HTML5 custom data attribute instead of name: Do you think I should try to validate my page? And instead of ? I will appreciate your advise very much!
Technical SEO | | kirupa0 -
ADA, WCAG, Section 508 Accessibility and hidden text
I am working on fixing accessibility issues on client's site, and they have contracted with a vendor who provides both tools to monitor the site and consulting to help us fix issues that are found. When there are spatial relationships between elements on a page that would be not be evident to someone listening via a screen reader, a strategy that they recommended to us to is to add text helpers that are not visible, but still read by the screen readers. An example: Directions to our Fifth Avenue Store I have seen this technique used on a major brand site but I am concerned that their brand strength insulates them from a hidden text penalty far more than my client's brand would. Also, their implementation uses class names like "ada_hidden" which may help search engines understand the intent, or may not at all. I am looking for opinions regarding the use of this technique. Normally I wouldn't use it for risk of penalty, but here the intent is to improve the user experience of the pages. Anyone used similar techniques for ADA/WCAG, or solved the problem in a more SEO-friendly way? Thanks, Will
Technical SEO | | WillW0 -
SEO-impact of mouseover text on header pictures
Hi, what do you reckon of taking away the mouseover effect on the header pictures seen on www.viventura.de/reisen/peru?
Technical SEO | | viventuraSEO
We are thinking of eliminating the mouseover text to make User Experience even better but are worrying that our ranking might go down when doing so. Any experiences, any help is highly appreciated!
Thanks, Benno0 -
ALT attribute keyword on the same image but different pages
Hi there, As i'm sure you're probably aware, moz advises to use a keyword within the ALT attribute on pages... On a new website I am launching, I have the ability to add an alt keyword to image headers. On multiple pages we have the exact same image but with different keywords associated them inside the alt attribute. The image itself is a collage of different images and so the keywords used can, quite sneakily, match the image. My question is therefore, will using different keywords on the same image on different pages have a negative effect on SEO? Thanks, Stuart
Technical SEO | | Stuart260 -
Empty Meta Robots Directive - Harmful?
Hi, We had a coding update and a side-effect of that was that our directive was emptied, in other words it now reads as: on all of the site. I've since noticed that Google's cache date on all of the pages - at least, the ones I tested - have a Cached date of no later than 17 December '12 - that's the Monday after the directive was removed on mass. So, A, does anyone have solid evidence of an empty directive causing problems? Past experience, Matt Cutts, Fishkin quote, etc. And then B - It seems fairly well correlated but, does my entire site's homogenous Cached date point to this tag removal? Or is it fairly normal to have a particular cache date across a large site (we're a large ecommerce site). Our site: http://www.zando.co.za/ I'm having the directive reinstated as soon as Dev permitting. And then, for extra credit, is there a way with Google's API, or perhaps some other tool, to run an arbitrary list and retrieve Cached dates? I'd want to do this for diagnosis purposes and preferably in a way that OK with Google. I'd avoid CURLing for the cached URL and scraping out that dates with BASH, or any such kind of thing. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | RocketZando0 -
Google Cache Version and Text Only Version are different
Across various websites we found Google cache version in the browser loads the full site and all content is visible. However when we try to view TEXT only version of the same page we can't see any content. Example: we have a client with JS scroller menu on the home page. Each scroller serves a separate content section on the same URL. When we copy paste some of the page content in Google, we can see that copy indexed in Google search results as well as showing in Cache version . But as soon as we go into Text Only version we cant see the same copy. We would like to know which version we should trust, Google cache version or the TEXT only version.
Technical SEO | | JamesDixon700 -
Beating a keyword Domain
Has anyone here managed to beat a keyword/exact match domain to top spot? I am currently second and wondering if it is worth the time and effort to knock it off the top spot. How hard is it to get these very annoyingly favoured domains off 1st? Any help and advice much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0 -
Domain authority and keyword difficulty
I know there are too many variables for a certain answer, however do people take their domain authority into account when using keyword difficulty tool? I have a new domain which only has a score of seven at the moment. When using the keyword searching tool what is the maximum difficulty level keywords people would target initially? Obviously I would seek to increase the difficulty of the words over time but to start off its a hard choice between keywords which can be ranked for in a reasonable period of time and the keywords which are getting enough traffic to make the effort worthwhile.
Technical SEO | | Grumpy_Carl0