Bio Angelina a content and search strategist who adores novels, podcasts, and music featuring banjos. She is a grammar nerd who often makes typ0s due to enthusiasm, and she knows more about TV vampires than she cares to admit.
Meta keywords are set in the FANDOM codebase and cannot be edited. You don't need to add anything and you should not worry about it. Meta keywords were once important ranking signals, but spamming and other unsavory tactics have led to a decline in the importance of this on-page element. Incorrect or outdated meta keywords are not ideal, but they should not impact rankings.
Hey there! I was at Community Connect and someone brought up disambiguation pages during the 5 Steps to Better SEO lecture. I just wanted to clarify a few things, since we've got quite a few of them at Acepedia.
To be clear, the most common entity being referred to should use the page title with no tag, and then it should link to something like For similar names, see [[page name (disambiguation)]].
Our best example is "Kei Nagase (AC5)", the most common reference of the term "Kei Nagase". So we would rename her page to get rid of the (AC5) tag, and rename our current Kei Nagase disambiguation page to "Kei Nagase (disambiguation)". Is that right?
We have some disambiguation pages for general names that don't exactly have their own entities under that name. What should we do in these cases?
Best example is "F-14" which disambiguates for all aircraft that start with "F-14", for example, "F-14A Tomcat". But there is no single aircraft named F-14, that's just the best way to disambiguate. What should we do here?
Lastly, you mentioned how adding the canonical link tag in the HTML got rid of all of the edit histories from search results, making them all point their traffic to the current version of the page. Could you guys implement this for redirect pages as well, changing their canonical link tag (and their edit histories' canonical tags) to actually point to the redirect?
Excellent questions—and thanks for the specific examples!
The concerns around redirect and disambiguation pages are more for communities that have created a redirect page for all possible misspellings or have more disambiguation pages than articles. Search engines consider the ratio of bad/thin pages to good/interesting/relevant pages in their algorithms and can devalue the entire subdomain when the bad outweighs the good.
Neither the first nor the second use case should cause an issue as implemented on Acepedia. The F-14 disambiguation page does not have a ton of content but is explains page relationships and links to internal search. I would not expect pages like this to rank in organic search but there is still real value to human users.
On the last point: there is a ticket in our backlog to tackle that. MediaWiki is not the best at handling canonical tags or redirect chains, so lots to clean up behind the scenes before we could build a solution. But it is on our radar! :)
Ahh, I see. For communities that completely flood themselves in redirects or disambiguation pages, it becomes an issue. But on Acepedia, where it's only done where really necessary, we're doing it just right. Thank you for the clarification :D
On redirects - I can't even imagine what you guys have to deal with when trying to handle SEO patches with the software. :P Good to know it's in the pipeline at least!
There's an active Github extension which got publicised on the blogspace. Its titled CrossWikiLink and its responsible for injecting a cross-wiki link to a destination predetermined by staff on the first instance of any specified keyword. An interesting feature but not without controversy, sadly, it will undergo testing for a a period of time though info is limited.
My question is as to what scope an automated extension like this should have to be beneficial in linking wikis and how expansive the dictionary's capacity would be to effectively link contextually rather than linking all instances of a keyword. The main challenge with the extension is that sometimes, the link could potentially not fit the context of the wiki and the immediate sentence surrounding the link.
SEOKitten is on PTO for a bit, so I'm helping her out here. I'm having trouble understanding your exact question, but I do want to note that this extension does not link every instance of a keyword, just the first one.
Can you be a little more specific about your question?
I'm sorry for the lack of clarification, and here's hoping SEOKitten has a good break from work life. I did indeed mean all first instances of a keyword across a wiki, I haven't had a great connection for a while so I couldn't edit it.
My question is this: how much is right with crosswiki links (which there aren't enough of tbf), and how much is too much? Controls? Specificity - dragons could be medieval creatures or some weird in-universe terminology/cultural reference, as unlikely as it is.
I think this tool has the definite potential to work well if specific keywords can be turned off by staff on individual wikis upon request where they won't work as well as they should, and those upon verification of an actual problem. If its a case of "Trivia: <insertnamehere> wields an AK-47 in <insertmissionhere>" and someone claims "That shouldn't be linked to w:c:guns:AK-47", then it should be fine to leave the link there.
An issue I've noticed is that the extension breaks existing crosswiki links to insert its own, hopefully an easy fix on staff's side.
These are important questions so I apologize for the delayed response. This short test was designed to understand the impact of contextual (in the text) links on rankings and focused on 11 terms and about 20 target URLs. There is still some analysis left to complete, but I plan to publish the results here on Community Central.
Our team has not decided on next steps here, but I agree that a goal of future tests should be to have more accurate target URLs that change depending on the context. Some sort of feedback process is also needed should this move out of the testing phase.
p.s. This code shouldn't break existing crosswiki links so that is a bug. I am going to have the team look into this, but feel free to send examples into Special:Contact (attn: Ducksoup).
Hello! I am finding pages from this wiki in Google results and these are performing as expected since this is a new wiki that has just a handful of pages.
Remember that a search engine is an index, not the internet; pages that appear in search results are those that Google has determined are relevant and useful to search users. Continue creating articles, adding relevant images, and building out the right categories and internal links and there should be some improvement soon.
Oops! Apolgies for the late response. I missed this message. :(
Great job on infoboxes, image names, and other SEO basics. I did some reserach, and it looks like the competition for these search terms is significant; lots of websites include the same basic information (e.g. height, construction date, etc).
In order to outrank the competition in search results, it is essential to have the most interesting, comprehensive, and unique information on that topic.
Recommended next step is to expand article pages and include information that appeals to a broader base of search engine users. What movies or television shows have been filmed at these buildings? Is there an important architect, some historical significance, or other names the building has been called? In the case of a buidling like Willis Tower, include "(Sears Tower)" in the article title or in the first paragraph.
On the ones where there is not enough information the stub is absolutely fine. I imagine that is going to be the case on other websites too.
I have not read much of your writing, but it certainly seems like your English skills are strong enough! I also recommend Google Translate (I use that a lot since I am learing Polish!). You can ask online friends (or real life friends) to help edit.
It's tough though; and a lot of effort. But those are some ideas to get started.
SEOkitten wrote: I have not read much of your writing, but it certainly seems like your English skills are strong enough! I also recommend Google Translate (I use that a lot since I am learing Polish!). You can ask online friends (or real life friends) to help edit.
1. I don't thing my English skills are strong enough. What do I do then?
2. But, for what do I need the Google Translator?
3. I don't have any English speaking friends, help.