[rfc-i] Abstract for search engines
julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Wed, 24 February 2016 06:44 UTC
From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:44:11 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] Abstract for search engines
In-Reply-To: <20160224034853.31119.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20160224034853.31119.qmail@ary.lan>
Message-ID: <56CD513B.4010109@gmx.de>
On 2016-02-24 04:48, John Levine wrote: > In article <56CC1730.8030202 at gmx.de> you write: >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-html-rfc-02#section-2> has: >> >>> o The abstract must be marked up or tagged in a way that popular >>> search engines will extract it as a summary. >> >> ...which is a good requirement (I asked for it :-). Back then, HTML's >> description meta tag seemed to work, but that doesn't seem to be the >> case anymore. Does anybody know what needs to be done nowadays? > > The search engine that people care about seems to be Google Scholar. They Actually, that's very incorrect. What most of the potential readers of IETF specs care about is Google. > say you need meta tags at least for authors, title, and date, and it'll > find the abstract in the HTML text: > > https://scholar.google.com/intl/us/scholar/inclusion.html#indexing > > If the abstract is short, you could put in in the description > meta-tag, but long descriptions are likely to be ignored as SEO spam. And that's what I'm currently doing, but it doesn't affect Google results (anymore; at least the abstract used to be found). Best regards, Julian
- [rfc-i] Abstract for search engines Julian Reschke
- [rfc-i] Abstract for search engines John Levine
- [rfc-i] Abstract for search engines Julian Reschke