Meta Keywords: The SEO Relic Still Wasting Marketing Time

Meta keywords are HTML tag attributes that once allowed webmasters to tell search engines what a page was about. Google stopped using them as a ranking signal in 2009, and every major search engine has since followed. They have no meaningful effect on search visibility today.

And yet, in 2024, marketing teams still ask about them. Agencies still get briefed on them. Some SEO tools still surface them in audits as if they matter. The persistence of meta keywords in marketing conversations is a useful case study in how the industry clings to rituals long after the logic behind them has expired.

What Are Meta Keywords and Why Do People Still Ask About Them?

The meta keywords tag sits in the HTML head of a webpage and looks something like this: <meta name="keywords" content="running shoes, trail running, best running shoes">. In the early days of search, engines used this tag as a shortcut to understand page content. Webmasters filled it in, search engines read it, rankings were influenced.

Then people started abusing it. Keyword stuffing became rampant. Competitors would stuff rival brand names into their meta keywords to siphon traffic. The signal became so polluted that search engines quietly stopped trusting it. Google’s Matt Cutts confirmed publicly in 2009 that Google did not use the meta keywords tag in web ranking. Bing followed with a similar position. Yahoo, which had been the last significant holdout, eventually fell in line.

So why does the question keep coming up? A few reasons. First, older SEO documentation still circulates online, and some of it predates 2009. Second, some CMS platforms and SEO plugins still include a meta keywords field, which implies it must serve some purpose. Third, marketing teams inherit processes from predecessors who built checklists in a different era and never revisited them. The field is still there, so someone fills it in, and the habit perpetuates itself.

I have sat in enough agency audits and client onboarding sessions to know that meta keywords come up more often than they should. Usually it is a junior team member who has read something outdated, or a client stakeholder who has been told by a previous agency that meta keywords are part of “on-page SEO hygiene.” The phrase sounds credible. It is not.

Does Any Search Engine Still Use Meta Keywords?

Google: no. Bing: no, and Bing has explicitly said that using meta keywords can actually be a negative signal, because it associates the practice with spam. Yandex, the dominant Russian search engine, has historically been more opaque about its signals, though there is no credible evidence it weights meta keywords in any meaningful way. Baidu, which dominates search in China, has similarly moved on.

The one partial exception worth noting is internal site search. Some website search tools, particularly older enterprise CMS platforms, use meta keywords to power on-site search results. If your organisation runs a large content library with an internal search function built on legacy infrastructure, meta keywords might have a narrow use case there. But that is a very specific, very narrow scenario, and it has nothing to do with organic search performance.

There is also a secondary consideration around competitor intelligence. Because meta keywords are visible in page source code, some SEO practitioners used to scrape competitor meta keywords to understand their targeting strategy. That was more useful when meta keywords reflected genuine strategic intent. Today, most sophisticated sites either leave the field blank or populate it inconsistently, which makes it a poor intelligence source.

If you want to understand what terms a competitor is targeting, look at their title tags, their H1s, their content structure, and the anchor text of their internal links. That is where keyword strategy actually lives in 2024.

Where Keyword Strategy Actually Belongs

Dismissing meta keywords is not the same as dismissing keyword strategy. Keywords matter enormously. They are how you understand what your audience is looking for, how you structure content, how you prioritise topics, and how you align your site architecture with search intent. The mistake is confusing a specific deprecated HTML tag with the broader discipline of keyword research and application.

Effective keyword strategy shows up in several places that search engines do use. Title tags are still one of the strongest on-page signals. H1 and H2 headings structure content in a way that both users and crawlers can parse. The first 100 words of a page carry disproportionate weight in establishing topical relevance. URL structure, when clean and descriptive, reinforces the signal. Internal linking with relevant anchor text distributes topical authority across a site.

None of this is new. The fundamentals of on-page SEO have been relatively stable for years. What changes is the sophistication of how search engines interpret those signals. Google’s understanding of natural language has improved significantly, which means exact-match keyword repetition matters less than it once did, and genuine topical depth matters more. Writing for humans, with appropriate keyword signals embedded naturally, is not a compromise between SEO and readability. It is what good SEO looks like now.

If you are building or refining a keyword strategy, the work happens in tools like Semrush or Ahrefs, in audience research, in understanding search intent behind queries, and in mapping those insights to your content architecture. Resources like Semrush’s analysis of growth-focused keyword approaches illustrate how keyword thinking connects to broader commercial outcomes, not just traffic volume.

The meta keywords tag is not part of that work. It never was, even when it was technically active. It was always a shortcut that the industry outgrew.

For more on how keyword strategy connects to broader go-to-market thinking, the Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy hub covers how search, content, and channel decisions fit together as part of a coherent commercial approach.

The Bigger Problem: Optimising for Process Instead of Outcomes

I spent a chunk of my agency career watching teams build elaborate SEO processes that were internally coherent but commercially disconnected. Every field in the CMS was filled in. Every checklist item was ticked. Meta keywords included. The audits looked clean. The traffic did not move.

The meta keywords question is a symptom of something more corrosive: the tendency to treat marketing as a compliance exercise rather than a commercial one. When a team asks “should we fill in the meta keywords field?” they are usually not asking because they have a hypothesis about how it will affect rankings. They are asking because the field is there, and leaving it blank feels like an error of omission.

That instinct, to fill in every field, to follow every template, to never leave a box unchecked, is understandable. It feels like diligence. But it is a form of risk aversion that crowds out actual thinking. The question worth asking is not “did we complete the process?” but “will this action produce a better outcome?” Applied to meta keywords, the answer is almost always no.

Early in my career, I overvalued this kind of process compliance. I thought rigorous execution of established frameworks was the job. It took a few years of managing P&Ls and seeing which activities actually moved revenue to understand that the frameworks were maps, not territory. Some of the map was outdated. Some of it was drawn by people with different objectives. The job was to figure out which parts of the map were still accurate, and which parts you needed to redraw.

Meta keywords are a section of the map that should have been crossed out fifteen years ago. The fact that it has not been, in many organisations, says something about how rarely marketing teams audit their own assumptions.

What SEO Audit Tools Get Wrong About Meta Keywords

Some SEO audit platforms still flag missing or thin meta keywords as an issue. I have seen this cause genuine confusion in client teams, because the tool is authoritative in their minds, and if the tool says there is a problem, there must be a problem.

There are a few explanations for why tools do this. Some are simply outdated and have not removed legacy checks from their audit frameworks. Some include meta keyword checks because their user base expects them, and removing the check would generate support tickets from users who believe they need it. Some surface the check as a low-priority informational item, which gets misread as a genuine issue by teams who do not distinguish between severity levels.

The practical implication is that you should not treat any audit tool as a definitive authority on what matters. Tools are useful for surfacing technical issues at scale: broken links, crawl errors, slow page speeds, missing canonical tags, duplicate content signals. These are real problems with real consequences. A missing meta keywords tag is not in that category.

When I was running agency operations and we were onboarding new clients, one of the first things we did was calibrate which audit signals were worth acting on and which were noise. Teams that lacked that calibration would spend hours fixing things that had no commercial relevance, while actual problems sat unaddressed. The meta keywords field was a reliable indicator of whether a team had done that calibration or not. If they were still populating it religiously, it usually meant the rest of their SEO process needed a closer look too.

Platforms like Crazy Egg’s growth-focused content are more useful when they help teams prioritise effort against outcomes rather than against checklist completeness. That is the standard worth holding your tools to.

Meta Keywords vs. Meta Descriptions: An Important Distinction

One source of confusion worth clearing up: meta keywords and meta descriptions are different tags with very different statuses in modern SEO.

The meta description is the short text that appears beneath your page title in search results. Google does not use it as a direct ranking signal, but it has a meaningful indirect effect. A well-written meta description improves click-through rate, which affects how much traffic a ranking position actually delivers. It also sets expectations for the reader, which influences bounce behaviour and time-on-page. Writing strong meta descriptions is worth doing, not because it will lift your rankings, but because it affects the return you get from whatever ranking you have already earned.

Meta keywords, by contrast, are invisible to users and ignored by search engines. They affect nothing. The two tags share a name prefix and a location in the HTML head, which is probably part of why they get conflated. But treating them as equivalent is a mistake. One is a useful communication tool with real-world consequences. The other is an artefact.

If you are going to spend time on meta tags, spend it on descriptions. Write them specifically for each page. Match the intent of the query you are targeting. Make the value of clicking through clear. That is time well spent. Populating meta keywords is not.

What to Do Instead: Where Keyword Effort Actually Pays Off

If you have been spending time on meta keywords, or managing a team that has, the redirect is straightforward. Here is where keyword thinking produces real returns.

Title tag optimisation. This is the single highest-leverage on-page SEO task. Title tags influence rankings, and they are the first thing a user reads in search results. They should be specific, front-load the primary keyword, and give a clear signal of what the page contains. Most sites have significant room to improve here.

Content structure and heading hierarchy. H1 and H2 tags are how you signal topical structure to both users and search engines. Keyword-informed headings, written naturally, help a page rank for a cluster of related queries rather than a single exact match. This is where the work of keyword research translates into content architecture.

Internal linking strategy. How you link between pages, and what anchor text you use, shapes how search engines understand the relationships between your content. A coherent internal linking strategy distributes authority and signals topical depth. Most sites underinvest here relative to the returns it can generate.

Search intent alignment. This is less about specific keywords and more about understanding what a user actually wants when they type a query. Informational intent, navigational intent, and transactional intent require different content formats and different conversion approaches. Misaligning content type with intent is one of the most common reasons pages rank but do not convert.

Technical SEO fundamentals. Page speed, mobile usability, crawlability, structured data, canonical tags. These are the areas where technical debt accumulates and where fixing real problems produces real gains. None of this is glamorous, but it is where the work is.

The growing complexity of go-to-market execution means teams have less margin to waste on activities that do not move outcomes. Keyword strategy, applied in the right places, is one of the highest-return activities in organic marketing. Applied in the wrong place, like a deprecated HTML tag, it is just process theatre.

The Broader Lesson: Audit Your Assumptions Regularly

Marketing moves fast enough that things which were true five years ago are not necessarily true today. The meta keywords case is an extreme example because the tag became irrelevant fifteen years ago, but the pattern repeats across the industry at shorter intervals. Attribution models that made sense before iOS privacy changes. Social tactics that worked before algorithm shifts. Content formats that drove traffic before AI-generated summaries changed SERP behaviour. The landscape changes, and teams that do not audit their assumptions get left optimising for a world that no longer exists.

I saw this play out repeatedly during my time judging the Effie Awards. Some of the weakest entries were from brands that had clearly found something that worked once and then repeated it without questioning whether the conditions that made it work still held. The strongest entries were from teams that had a clear model of why something should work, tested it against current conditions, and adjusted when the evidence pointed somewhere different.

That discipline, of testing your assumptions rather than just executing your process, is what separates teams that improve from teams that plateau. Meta keywords is a small example, but it is a revealing one. If a team is still treating them as a meaningful SEO task, it is worth asking what else in their process has not been revisited since 2009.

Effective go-to-market strategy requires the same discipline at a larger scale. The Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy hub covers how to build approaches that stay commercially grounded rather than drifting into process compliance, from channel selection to measurement to audience strategy.

The point is not to be contrarian about established practice. Most fundamentals are fundamental for good reasons. The point is to know why you are doing what you are doing, and to be willing to stop doing things whose rationale has expired. Meta keywords expired a long time ago. Let them go.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions