Great info, Karen! Thanks for doing the test and sharing the results. It’s disappointing that Substack doesn’t include tags in long form posts in searches and browsing, but not surprising. I’ve done a little testing myself using search and what stood out was the search got hits if the search keyword was in the title, the pub’s name, or the pub’s short description. My takeaway was forget tags (unless you want to group your own posts, and I do, so I use them for that reason), and instead, be strategic about your pub’s short description. I haven’t tweaked mine yet, but I will once my content broadens.
Your efforts to test tagging strategy is commendable. Some may call out you research design, but anecdotal data has value. So kudos to you and your investment of time.
Yes, as a scientist, my experimental design here is a bit cringe-inducing. If you know someone who can do this experiment properly with 30+ replicates for statistical robustness and proper controls, let me know!
Quite interesting, though I can’t say it’s surprising. I think it’s probably still worthwhile using tags, but it’s unlikely to yield any noticeable results.
I have been tagging all my posts, many are the same throughout the publications, and others are special to me and my specific pub... I often use special tags to create sections on my front page, so that certain posts and niches are highlighted on their own.
So, I'm a little confused - we should not bother using tags? If so, why is that category there do you think? I've been using them since I began my Stack almost 2 years ago-- bummer. Any input will be appreciated. Thanks.
Hi Jeanine, tags are not completely useless. They can be quite useful, as I explain in my original post. They just don’t seem to achieve the radical increases in traffic and views that other creators claim.
Tagging generates a special web page in your publication which displays posts containing the tag
Tags allow you to group your posts on your Substack homepage.
Tags might help Substack and search engines understand what your publication is about, but for me that didn’t improve performance.
Here’s a link to my original post where I show what tags can actually do.
Have you filtered out your own internal traffic on Google Analytics? If the spike was on a a day you were doing a lot of work on the publication, it doing be you. (Assuming it's page views, not users)
Thanks, C, but even on a big work day I don’t generate 3K views! And I was actually out of town for a family Easter event that day. More likely that it coincided with a high-performing LinkedIn post.
Thank you for this! It may be the former digital-first, SEO-trained editor in me, but I thought tags were supposed to be specific to the content. For example, “midlife” “menopause” “strength training” for a post about the importance of resistance training in perimenopause and beyond…rather than macro topics that describe my stack. But no?
Liz, I agree, micro tags make way more sense than macro topic tags. Tagging in Substack is useful for organising your own posts and micro topic tags make sense for this.
However, the gurus who were claiming Substack tags would skyrocket discoverability were promoting a strategy of using macrotopic tags, so that’s what I tested.
But I’m with you, Liz, microtopic tags seem much more sensible to me and I will continue to use those to organise my content and (perhaps) assist with SEO.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiment of the subject of tags. I had absolutely no idea that it will decrease the views and followers. Good to know, thanks for the stats
Really interesting post, Karen. I usually include tags from the perspective that it helps people find what interests them. Probably not hurting me but probably not helping either. hmm.
Thanks for taking a look at this so empirically, Karen. And somehow you got through that whole post without once saying "I told you so!"
Great info, Karen! Thanks for doing the test and sharing the results. It’s disappointing that Substack doesn’t include tags in long form posts in searches and browsing, but not surprising. I’ve done a little testing myself using search and what stood out was the search got hits if the search keyword was in the title, the pub’s name, or the pub’s short description. My takeaway was forget tags (unless you want to group your own posts, and I do, so I use them for that reason), and instead, be strategic about your pub’s short description. I haven’t tweaked mine yet, but I will once my content broadens.
It seems the benefit to tags is only as an organizational tool, with many potential uses.
Your efforts to test tagging strategy is commendable. Some may call out you research design, but anecdotal data has value. So kudos to you and your investment of time.
Yes, as a scientist, my experimental design here is a bit cringe-inducing. If you know someone who can do this experiment properly with 30+ replicates for statistical robustness and proper controls, let me know!
Directional data still has value!
Quite interesting, though I can’t say it’s surprising. I think it’s probably still worthwhile using tags, but it’s unlikely to yield any noticeable results.
I have been tagging all my posts, many are the same throughout the publications, and others are special to me and my specific pub... I often use special tags to create sections on my front page, so that certain posts and niches are highlighted on their own.
HI Karen,
So, I'm a little confused - we should not bother using tags? If so, why is that category there do you think? I've been using them since I began my Stack almost 2 years ago-- bummer. Any input will be appreciated. Thanks.
Hi Jeanine, tags are not completely useless. They can be quite useful, as I explain in my original post. They just don’t seem to achieve the radical increases in traffic and views that other creators claim.
Tagging generates a special web page in your publication which displays posts containing the tag
Tags allow you to group your posts on your Substack homepage.
Tags might help Substack and search engines understand what your publication is about, but for me that didn’t improve performance.
Here’s a link to my original post where I show what tags can actually do.
Have you filtered out your own internal traffic on Google Analytics? If the spike was on a a day you were doing a lot of work on the publication, it doing be you. (Assuming it's page views, not users)
Thanks, C, but even on a big work day I don’t generate 3K views! And I was actually out of town for a family Easter event that day. More likely that it coincided with a high-performing LinkedIn post.
Ok 3K would be crazy 😂
Thank you for this! It may be the former digital-first, SEO-trained editor in me, but I thought tags were supposed to be specific to the content. For example, “midlife” “menopause” “strength training” for a post about the importance of resistance training in perimenopause and beyond…rather than macro topics that describe my stack. But no?
Liz, I agree, micro tags make way more sense than macro topic tags. Tagging in Substack is useful for organising your own posts and micro topic tags make sense for this.
However, the gurus who were claiming Substack tags would skyrocket discoverability were promoting a strategy of using macrotopic tags, so that’s what I tested.
But I’m with you, Liz, microtopic tags seem much more sensible to me and I will continue to use those to organise my content and (perhaps) assist with SEO.
Thank you Karen, this is all super helpful!
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiment of the subject of tags. I had absolutely no idea that it will decrease the views and followers. Good to know, thanks for the stats
Arp no! Views decreased WHILE I was tagging, not necessarily BECAUSE I was tagging. Correlation is not causation.
The point is that tagging didn't seem to have any big positive impact overall.
The decreases are probably due to other factors, unrelated to tagging.
I love tags : it is for me a kind of index for my Readers and myself. I am sad if it causes ↘️
Really interesting post, Karen. I usually include tags from the perspective that it helps people find what interests them. Probably not hurting me but probably not helping either. hmm.