- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:24:20 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6609 --- Comment #1 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> 2009-02-25 04:24:20 --- A couple more aspects: Antonyms are usually a waste of time in this area, so the keywords-not attribute need not be invoked just to provide an antonymy. Rather, this is for cases where the same word serves very different meanings, such as _virus_, including opposite meanings by the same word, such as _sanction_. Thus, writing keywords-not would be infrequent, although the sheer scale of the Web and of HTML usage means the attribute would be still used enough to warrant recognition in a standard and adaptation by search engines. Search engines give more weight to thematic words written directly into page content. However, some thematic words may be difficult for authors to work into text without going to some length to explain important complications, and that might make the whole page too cumbersome, losing readers. If the main text is to be short, leaving those secondary keywords out may be smarter writing of content. This is often true when stating principles, which may be more easily understood if stated in just a few words, leaving redundant particulars out. But searchers may still use various common particulars to find this principle via search engines. To support search, the keywords that represent the particulars and are not in the visible text should be put into meta tags. Some would go into meta elements with the keywords attribute. But, for some of them, keywords-not may be the more relevant attribute. And that would keep the positive keywords metatag from getting enormously long. -- Nick -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 04:24:32 UTC