[selowitch]

Is it best to have your chosen meta-tags on every page in your site (e.g., via the use of includes) or just on the top-level default page?

[Millennium]

That depends. What meta tags are you planning on using?

[selowitch]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That depends. What meta tags are you planning on using?

Oh, just basic stuff, e.g.:

Code:
<meta name="revisit-after" content="30 Days">
<meta name="Description" content="Here's my website.">
<meta name="Keywords" content="rural broadband initiative wilton maine population high-speed internet nonprofit">
<meta name="Author" content="Sam Elowitch">

So, to rephrase my question: Do you think I would get more hits in Google if I used an include to stick these meta-tags on every page, or is it better practice to just do it on the default page?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by selowitch:
Oh, just basic stuff, e.g.:

Code:
<meta name="revisit-after" content="30 Days">
<meta name="Description" content="Here's my website.">
<meta name="Keywords" content="rural broadband initiative wilton maine population high-speed internet nonprofit">
<meta name="Author" content="Sam Elowitch">

So, to rephrase my question: Do you think I would get more hits in Google if I used an include to stick these meta-tags on every page, or is it better practice to just do it on the default page?

Ah; those.

I've never heard of revisit-after, I'm afraid. Is it some kind of expiration date?

Description should probably only go on the front page. The same is true of Keywords, if you decide to use them at all (many search engines, including Google, ignore them now, because they were been too heavily abused by spammers).

Author can go anywhere, but do you really need it? Few if any browsers or search engines do anything with it, and are you sure that you want your real name on every Web page you write?

[OptimusG4]

I agree. Mainly the first page should carry the meta tags for the search engines. It's not a bad thing to have them on every page, but a hassle to update if you make any changes to them.

[selowitch]

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
It's not a bad thing to have them on every page, but a hassle to update if you make any changes to them.

Not if you use includes, as I mentioned in the original post; in that case, all you have to do is edit the file containing the meta-tags once, and it will appear on all the pages.
That's what prompted the question.

[OptimusG4]

Ah, misread that part, sorry

[Simon Mundy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ah; those.
I've never heard of revisit-after, I'm afraid. Is it some kind of expiration date?

Supposedly to tell the search engines when to come back. More of a suggestion really, as I'm sure the search engines have their own schedules when it comes to spidering.

Author is more of a business rule for us, as it lets us know internally who updated a web page - but no, it's not really that important that search engines know it.

[selowitch]

Anyway, I've kind of fallen in love with the use of includes as an alternative to framesets, which I hate. Each page can have the same header, footer, and other elements while keeping the body of the page unique, for example. And each of the other elements need only be edited once. It's cleaner and definitely reduces mistakes.

So ... what's the consensus? Should I do my metas with includes or not?

[Simon Mundy]

Originally posted by selowitch:
Anyway, I've kind of fallen in love with the use of includes as an alternative to framesets, which I hate. Each page can have the same header, footer, and other elements while keeping the body of the page unique, for example. And each of the other elements need only be edited once. It's cleaner and definitely reduces mistakes.

So ... what's the consensus? Should I do my metas with includes or not?

I do it and I don't feel dirty

If you can use absolute paths within your URIs then I'd also recommend putting external stylesheets, javascripts and all other referenced links in an include as well. Sure beats manual updates site-wide.

[selowitch]

Originally posted by Simon Mundy:
If you can use absolute paths within your URIs then I'd also recommend putting external stylesheets, javascripts and all other referenced links in an include as well. Sure beats manual updates site-wide.

A fine idea. Thank you!

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by selowitch:
Anyway, I've kind of fallen in love with the use of includes as an alternative to framesets, which I hate. Each page can have the same header, footer, and other elements while keeping the body of the page unique, for example. And each of the other elements need only be edited once. It's cleaner and definitely reduces mistakes.

So ... what's the consensus? Should I do my metas with includes or not?

Framesets were depreciated back in the late 1990s, so it's a good idea to get away from them. Also, if by includes you mean SSI, most sites have switched to PHP for the same purpose. I still use SSI because I cannot justify manually updating everything again until I have a more significant site-wide update to perform using PHP. But yes, I don't see any reason not to include your meta tags as includes (hopefully multiple ones tailored to the sub-sections of your site) - it may make a small amount of difference in the placement of your individual pages on various search engines.

[selowitch]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Framesets were depreciated back in the late 1990s, so it's a good idea to get away from them. Also, if by includes you mean SSI, most sites have switched to PHP for the same purpose.

I was definitely planning on using PHP includes instead of SSI.