• http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    Egos are on the line. The test as outlined in the affidavit is invalid for more than one reason, including (but not limited to):

    1) The test does not in any way attempt to factor out changes on the search engine’s side

    2) The test only uses one iteration and therefore fails to demonstrate any pattern or trend upon which a reasonable conclusion may be based

    3) The test does not focus on unique terms

    Also, he loosely interprets Google’s use of the word “keywords” in its documentation to refer to the keywords meta tag, which the context of the documentation does not clearly support.

    The writer also fails to note for the court in his comments that Google changes its algorithms several hundred times a year, and that the certainty of any test results is thus questionable within any length of time because the conditions of the environment change so often.

    Based upon the sloppy research method he used to support his claims about Google’s use of meta tags, one has to wonder just how good the standards are.

  • ronabop

    “Google doesn’t use anything in or about meta keywords for ranking.”
    “Google doesn’t specifically use meta keywords values for improving ranking”
    “Google specifically says they do not use them”

    These are three very, very, different statements. (Which is why lawyers exist).

    Here’s another experiment:
    Make two identical pages.
    In one, use the meta keywords value of “boo”
    In the other, put 3-5 Mb of virus code into meta keywords.

    Make sure everything else about the pages is identical. Inbound links, anchor text, etc.

    What do you expect the outcome to be? If the values of meta keywords truly do not matter in any way, shape, or form, they would be identical, yes?