My score was originally 84, and after just a few minor changes it is currently at 93. As soon as I can get the authorization codes from my old domain registrar & transfer them, then renew them with my current webhosting company…my score should be up above 95!

Thanks again!

Dharmesh: thanks a ton for coding this page, it’s great. Are you going to monetize it with ads or with registration fees? Or are you going to leave it free?

K: I just checked your site & it looks like you haven’t installed the plugin for sitemaps yet. If this helps, here’s the link to the plugin. It’s in beta stage 7, but I’ve been using it for months with no problems.

Dharmesh.. thanks for sharing that. Its refreshing to hear someone saying things as it is than just touting every feature of their product.

Chris, I am fixing that right after replying to all the comments. Great score.. I’ll see if mine gets better after fixing couple of easy ones.

Mathew.. good to see you here! hope you got your redirect fixed now..

looks like my redirect isnt there anymore for some odd reason

K mate, you need a sitemap right now-just get that plugin and you’ll be off and running, most of my posts get indexed by Google in hours because of it.

1. Meta-data keywords are not nearly as important any more like they used to be (it is suspected that Google doesn’t use them at all). Yahoo! and others likely still do look at them, but weight them relatively low.

2. Common consensus seems to be that variations of words don’t automatically get picked up (so you should specify common variations right within the meta-data).

But, this is just one guy’s opinion.

Thanks for the speedy response, Dharmesh!

Plus, this tool is really helpful for beginners and experts alike to take a quick look at these metrics.

ps: Your comment was in the moderation queue and just released it.

I’m not sure how many Metawords is too many. I’ll definitely ping you if I find out about it this weekend. Cheers!

Rene! It was Kyle who actually wrote about this.. so thanks to him!

Rob O.: Website Grader is indeed being a bit conservative when it comes to recommendations (like the number of keywords in the meta-data). However, in my mind, for things that are easy to fix, it’s not worth the risk of being penalized by Google.

For example, if there’s even a small chance that Google will use the number of keywords in the meta-data as a “signal” that a certain site is a spam site (i.e. “Made For AdSense”) with very little content of value, there’s very little upside to taking this risk. You’re better off reducing the number of keywords.

We’re constantly improving the tool, so feel free to revisit and let me know if you have any ideas for improvement.

It’s the first page checker I’ve run that has had a problem with the number (20) of META keywords. Does this seem like too much or is Website Grader just being a little too conservative?