Last modified: 2009-07-19 17:08:55 UTC
This results in meta tags similar to those for the [[Wikipedia]] article: <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="Anarchism,As We May Think,August,Britannica,Bomis,Babylon 5,Copyleft,CamelCase,Clifford Adams,Denis Diderot" /> As can be seen, nearly the entire alphabet has been ignored. A proper list should be selected from all letters of the alphabet. As a consequence of this poor ordering, the keywords will generally not be especially relevant to the article, except by the chance that the most relevant links occur between "a" and "d" or so. This undoubtably greatly skews search engine results (thus "major" severity). Most of the keywords have only a tenuous connection to the article anyway. The keywords for ''Wikipedia'' include three relevant keywords ([[Britannica]], [[Bomis]], and [[copyleft]]), a misrepresentation ([[CamelCase]]), some terms of vague significance ([[anarchism]], [[As We May Think]], [[Clifford Adams]], and [[Denis Diderot]]), and total rubbish ([[August]], [[Babylon 5]]). Clearly this is an area with much room for improvement.
How is this related to bug 6?
I'm pretty sure it's not.
Perhaps it would make more sense just to use the first links in the order they appear on the page: links in the introductory paragraph of an article are more likely to be relevant to the topic of the article. This would certainly be easy enough: select first X internal links from the page; alphabetise; shove in the meta tag.
Obsoleted; link-based meta keywords have been removed per bug 19761.
