Re: MetaNamesRank

I'm really embarrassed to say this may have been a page caching issue.  The
results appear to have changed.

Sorry, everyone.

Deane



On 9/10/06, Cas Tuyn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think it works in 2.4.3 what we're using.
>
> I use
>
> MetaNamesRank 10 title
> MetaNamesRank 8 description
> MetaNamesRank 6 h1 h2 h3
>
> in an effort to promote structured html files over office and PDF
> documents which tend to be much longer than the average html document,
> but so far the office and PDF docs keep occupying the top ranks of the
> SERP.
>
> Cas
>
>
> On 9/10/06, Deane Barker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Did MetaNamesRank ever get implemented?  I've searched for this answer,
> but
> > I can't find a definitive yes or no anywhere in the list.
> >
> > I ask because I have indexed my content with MetaNamesRank enabled and
> > without, and the search result ordering doesn't change at all.
> >
> > Here's what I'm using:
> >
> > MetaNamesRank 3 swishtitle
> > MetaNamesRank 0 swishdefault
> > MetaNamesRank 4 keywords
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Deane
> >
> >
> >
> > *********************************************************************
> > Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
> > this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
> > to a plain text message.
> > *********************************************************************
> >
>
>
> --
> Bookmark  http://kayakfun.info/salsagids/  voor de beste salsafeestjes!
>
>



*********************************************************************
Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
to a plain text message.
*********************************************************************