ClassicPress PetitionsClassicPress Petitions
This is a read-only archive. Post or comment on the live version of this page on our forums.

apply categories/tags to pages

4 months ago · classyMan

same as Category Tag Pages

i'm guessing this could be valuable to many users while costing very little in code


I'm already doign this on my website with a plugin. I have tags on my static pages.
If this get included in the core it would be better to have an options to hide the tags if you want in order not to spoil the look of the page.
I have tags even on my home page because they help a lot for the SEO but they are not visible.

Simply Computing

I'm not sure why this isn't the default setting. Why are tags important for posts but not for pages? It makes more sense to me have them available for both.


It has to be as a default setting and tags are the most useful feature of SEO but tthey should be hidden because as the tags pile up in time- particularly in large websites- they occupy a lot of space and look awful. And then you have to place them on a side bar widget and eventually spoil the side bar with a huge list of key words that force you to scroll for the end of your days.
It is like having a phone catalogue on your pages and posts either on the bottom or on the side bar widgets.
I never understood why the tags are visible. Nobody clicks on the tags to search for a particular subject. This is covered by the categories. The tags are key words for SEO. They are there for the search engines not for the visitors of a web site.

Code Potent

My thinking on why there aren't taxonomies for pages is this.

Pages are intended to be content items that change little over time, if ever – About Us, Privacy Policy, Cart, for examples. These types of content don't really need a taxonomy. They are intended to be evergreen and are often linked from every page (such as in the footer).

Posts, on the other hand, are intended to be a revolving type of content – out with the old, in with the new – which means there would naturally be a lot more posts than pages and, thus, there would be more of a need to taxonomize posts, rather than pages.

I think there could be some cases where site owners could benefit from taxonomized pages, but, they're probably in the vast minority (and I'd wonder if CP was even the right tool for the job if that were the case.)

The best determination on whether to use categories or tags will solely depend on the content; categories are hierarchical, tags are not. So, if you have content that needs subcategories, use categories...if you don't need subcategories, then use tags or categories. There's probably very few (I can't think of any) good reasons to use both and, in fact, the mess that it usually creates is bad for SEO.

I've written a guide to understanding categories/tags in ClassicPress, if you're interested.


@Code Potent
The catebories and the tags as far as I have figured out by now have different purposes. The categories are for visitors of a website. The tags are for essensial for SEO use.
The categories give a very general and vague description for the search engines to know what the content is all about.

In my website for instance all of the pages that I present my artwors are categories by themselves, as they contain a gallery with artworks that belong on the same category and they are titled accordingly too.
So adding categories for the pages that are categories by themselves made things more complicated but not any better. That is the reason why I don't have categories on my website.
But as the galleries have to be by default on pages and not on posts, the tags are inevitably needed in order to help the search engines to figure out what each page is all about.
It took me btw quite some time to figure out this thing I mean that it was beneficial for my SEO to get rid of the categories and make categories the static pages with the galleries and tag the static pages.
It made the menu and the website's navigation easier and made the website more compact because I removed elements that they were not actually needed.
Anyway... regardless of how someone is using the categories,the tags are useful either way for SEO on both pages and posts because the search engines are not so clever to figure out by themselves what the content of a page or post is all about. They need the tags to do so and if the tags are well made with the proper keywords and the images are also properly titled there is no need for SEO plugins.

Code Potent


Tags are no more beneficial for SEO than categories. You can use categories or tags (or both) and get the same SEO result. The only practical difference between categories and tags is that categories are hierarchical, and tags are not. That's it. Search engines don't care whether you're using categories or tags because it doesn't make any difference.

Search engines (particularly Google) are exceptionally savvy at figuring out the content and context of a page, regardless of whether you've used categories, tags, or nothing at all.

The idea that using tags negates the need for an SEO plugin is incorrect. SEO plugins do far more than group your posts together. If someone is only using tags for SEO, their site's SEO will be severely lacking.

Anyway, to me, tags are a thing of yesteryear. They were a just a neat, new way to showcase categorical content (think tag-clouds), without having to change anything about how categories (taxonomy) worked. They served the same purpose, just, looked nicer on screen. I can't even recall the last time I saw a tag-cloud now that I think about it.

For exceptionally large sites that have a lot of varied content, using both categories and tags may be beneficial (to users)...but, search engines aren't going to give/take points for using one or the other (or neither or both). For sites that have little content or very narrow content, tags (and even categories) are a completely unnecessary layer of extra work that provide little-to-no SEO benefit.