Opinions of listing sites with no meta, alt, or title tags?
 

The title pretty much sums it up.

I've got some submitters that seem to just slap sites together that don't take the time to put in meta, alt, or title tags and have been thinking of starting to require at least alt and title tags.

Seems like its not much different from not using properly formed HTML or skipping basic, required code tags. The ALT and META tags are theoretically optional I believe, but the title tag is basic W3C required. Bad coding is bad coding.

Maybe send the page through http://validator.w3.org/ and see how loudly it complains and then reject them for not meeting basic HTML code compatibility?

I dont think i have ever put any meta tags in a free site, but i always put alt and title tags in. At the very least title tags should be manditoty.

I'm anal about meta tags. I put them on every page I create.

From what I can see about Google, meta tags don't mean a lot. The title is crucial though and the alt tags are almost as important, IMHO. I guess you could make it a requirement but that just makes it one more thing to check.

How does that influence the LL? I mean the missing alt, meta and title? Does it make a difference to the LL, by being considered a bad site and the LL linking to it? I am really curious about this.

no title tag is a delete here, the other meta's I dont care about

no title tag = no relevance, the title tag is the most important tag on any site, thrown together free sites with no title tag does no one any good IMO

properly built free sites with atleast a title tag helps a LL cause of relevance...

alt tags on images with what we build dont hold as much weight as they did before IMO

but i still use them to make the page/site more relevant for the spiders

Google gives the free site SE ranking. If the free site is bad then it gets bad ranking. The free site points to your link list. If you have a lot of bad free sites then Google discounts your link list.

Another way to say it is, "guilt by association" or "living in a bad [Internet] neighbourhood". Link quantity is number 1 but link quality is important too. SEO experts, please correct me if I am wrong.

As a free site submitter some years ago i tried free sites with and without that stuff, as a free site submitter i didnt care because all i care wa getting listed and my traffic from the linksites, as a linksite owner i can imaging some when they use the title tag, well thats for me, because i use detail pages on my linksite and my script pick up the title of the free site and the detail pages, also show in google and other ses with the title which they use in their html, so for me as an LL owner title tag for for free sites will be more important then meta and keywords and all

I'm referring to the title text on links, not the page title.

ah oke i am sorry, my bad, well i dont think that is a problem for a linksite owner, i have never heard some ll owner before about the tags things on links, i know ll owners have problems with keywords and title things in their html and the description of the free site (which will be on all the lls they submit too) what is very bad for ses (because of some ses will see as duplicate stuf), btw i have never use title things on links when i made free sites(i found it to much work), well i dont think thats any problem for a linksite owner and you shouldnt worrie about it.

I suppose it's going to depend on one's view of link lists and free sites, as in, are they completely separate entities, or does one take into consideration the inherent relationship of the two? I assume that many free site submitters see link lists as free traffic while not understanding that their accepted sites become part of the reason as to why the link lists have traffic to give in the first place.

Obviously, Google doesn't rank a free site based on strict HTML composed of numbered, untagged images and untitled links. (Who the hell wants to rank well for "36.jpg"? - though I do grasp the efficiency in numbered images.) The title tag places a keyword value on the page being linked to, much like the name of the page itself. Submitters should realize that it's better for themselves, as well as the link lists which they submit to, to make proper use of meta, title, and alt tags. It's truly mutually beneficial.

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not they should be required, nor do I have a right to such an opinion, since my reviewing has been very, very sporadic lately. The sun has been shining.
|couch|

Are you looking to do this because you feel there is inherent value to your site and the free site in having these or is it that you are seeing these things missing from sites that you consider slapped together and so will not list them?

Anyone creating a page without the ALT tags has obviously never developed anything and notible size or complexity and is more than likely an amateur.
This standard of coding says alot about who your dealing with because its Coding 101.
Skipping ALT tags ≠ designer/developer

I always take the time to put alt, title, and meta tags on everything I build so I guess I just expect the same from others.

I notice that from these same submitters their site title and description seems to also be lazily written and I usually end up rewriting them in my admin although the sites themselves are fine.

I get more submits then I need so maybe I'm trying to decide if I should tighten up my rules on this or not.

I’m an amateur but from what I’ve heard search engines pay very little attention to meta tags nowdays because of previous spamming or stuffing of keywords that were not useful to the page at hand. They still look at the description meta tag to use it when the page is listed in the search engine but other meta tags probably won’t help with ranking. The title tag is one of the more important tags. I still try to use meta tags, alt tags, and title tags but as far as title tags on links go, I didn’t realize they were so important.

If I was getting to many submits I would tighten up on the content quality after all do your surfers care about tages and metas?

Saying that poor descriptions and especially site titles do not indicate someone who is taking a lot of care with what they are making.

Quality of content on sites submitted to my LL theses days is really all pretty decent.

I'm not really sure if listing sites that don't have decent anchor text helps, hurts, or has no effect on my LL but it would seem that at very least it doesn't help.

In my opinion in the long term a verified site i.e. with Meta’s and alts will do better in the search engines so listing only sites like that would be good for you.

I base this on something Matt Cutts said about wishing they could use good coding as a guide to a sites quality but they couldn’t as they kept seeing so many very high quality content sites with poor coding.

Now I am noticing more of these high quality sites being redesigned with verified code (I know I am a geek), a great example of this is www.bbb.co.uk. The homepage and iplayer pages are new with verified coding but the older radio, sports etc pages are still all 'a mess'. If more and more get designed to standards why wouldn't google and other SE's start using it as a tick in the good box for all sites?

I always use meta tags in my freesites for seo resons, but Its not something I demand in my link list. list. But I must say I dont like sites with no title tag, its like come on make some effort, in those cases the site to be accepted must be very well designed or with great content.

I always use meta tags, but not to the extent I should. This thread has been great!! I have used a lot of the reminders on my latest sites.

The alt tags on the gallery images was something I used to day way back when but stopped because I felt it was rather redundant. Am I to describe every picture I link? Perhaps I would feel different if I was working on the website for my high school's art collection. Of course, I would be using every single tag possible to pass the information on about these paintings. But... we are talking porn here.

I know when I first learned HTML by doing, there was little if any emphasis on the title tag. The emphasis was on doing pages with as few characters as possible and still have them legible to all browsers. (I think I still hold a record of 5 linked information packed pages with few graphics in under 250K. They said it couldn't be done, and I had to do it!) Sites built with FrontPage still make me shudder at all of the excess code.

Maybe the code isn't perfect, but if the site looks great with good content, and it is reasonably correct, should that not be enough? How many errors will you accept before you turn your back on someone promising who is at least trying to submit a product that is always improving?