3 ms·

Writing HTML Title Tags for Humans, Google & Bing

21 points by InfinityX0 16y ago

codingthewheel 16y ago
"I generally enjoy John Gruber’s writings, but today he’s dishing out SEO advice about HTML title tags. Some of it is bad advice." Here's a piece of good advice. When you post in response to someone else's posting, have the courtesy to link to them, rather than simply calling them out. http://daringfireball.net/2010/12/title_junk http://daringfireball.net/2010/12/title_junk FTFY
sullivandanny 16y ago
Here's a piece of good advice. Before declaring that someone hasn't linked out, double-check. Because, I did: "In John Gruber’s article today, Title Junk, he gets upset about title tags that produce a bad display or readability situation." The link is in there in the words "Title Junk." I even specifically called the article out by its name and used anchor text to it. I wanted the link to be next to John's first quote in the story.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  Ohh, wow, you're actually here. Save for aesthetics, what exactly is wrong with the msnbc.com titles?
  - sullivandanny 16y ago
    Like I said, if MSNBC likes them, and they're working for MSNBC, it's hard for outsiders to be damning them. Still, I'd agree they probably should shorten the title to be focused around two or three key terms they want to be found more. I think it would be a more attractive headline that would encourage clickthrough.
- codingthewheel 16y ago
  The link is buried beneath about two feet of content and would require you to read every word of the article to even know it's there. Honest placement for this link would have been top of the fold, when you first mention Gruber...but you (correctly) surmised that might take some steam away from your own posting...so you buried it. No need to get angry and downvote; there's a reason why places like the NYT, SEOLand, etc., are so stingy with their links.
  - sullivandanny 16y ago
    I put it further in the article because I thought it made sense for people to actually read the article rather than immediately click out -- and to have the link where I first started quoting John on a first reference. I did indeed debate whether to put the link right in the lead. I did indeed not want people to immediately click out to read and potentially not read what I wrote. There was no "dishonesty" in doing that. The point of writing something is for people to actually read it. You've got three main people who will read the article. First, most of my own readers, who probably don't know John and don't particularly worry about what he has to say on the SEO front. The don't need a link to his article right from the opening. They came to read what our authors have to say on a topic. Second, people who eventually will find this article years from now to learn about HTML title tags. At the time they come, the particular debate on this day won't matter. The advice, however, will. I actually debated whether I should even mention John's article in the opening for that reason, so as not to potentially date a future resource. Third, people who may have read John's article and then somehow learned of my article. They aren't looking for a link right in the opening -- they read the article. To make up for it being further down, to emphasize it more, I deliberately chose to link using the title of his article, rather than say from something like "write" or "post." In terms of being "stingy" with links, Search Engine Land links out all the time. All the time. My article contains seven external links. The internal links to our own articles also contain external links. If you're being downvoted, it's because you came in with an inaccurate comment and yourself got all angry about it. You missed the link, probably because you didn't bother to actually read the article, rather than it being so invisible as you'd like to make it out to be. Then, in your rush to condemn me, you didn't even bother to viewsource to double check that there was a link there, something that would have taken all of about five seconds to do. When I pointed out your mistake, rather than apologize, say "oops, I missed it" and maybe suggest it could be more visible, you got even more defensive about it. You were wrong in your comment. You still haven't bothered to apologize for being wrong. Instead, you compound the error with allegations that my site is link "stingy" and that I somehow have "dishonest" link placement (if I were really trying to be "dishonest" from an SEO perspective, I'd have nofollowed the link). I'm sorry I parroted your tone. That got to me, the attitude you displayed. I should have simply responded that yes, there was a link in the story. Now I've added a further one right in the lead of the story, which perhaps you'll find more reassuring. Of course, Google seems to give anchor text credit to the first reference of a link, so that means John's article is now likely to be relevant for the word "dishing" rather than "Title Junk," but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost on you.

21 points by InfinityX0 16y ago

"I generally enjoy John Gruber’s writings, but today he’s dishing out SEO advice about HTML title tags. Some of it is bad advice." Here's a piece of good advice. When you post in response to someone else's posting, have the courtesy to link to them, rather than simply calling them out. http://daringfireball.net/2010/12/title_junk http://daringfireball.net/2010/12/title_junk FTFY

sullivandanny 16y ago

Here's a piece of good advice. Before declaring that someone hasn't linked out, double-check. Because, I did: "In John Gruber’s article today, Title Junk, he gets upset about title tags that produce a bad display or readability situation." The link is in there in the words "Title Junk." I even specifically called the article out by its name and used anchor text to it. I wanted the link to be next to John's first quote in the story.

Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
Ohh, wow, you're actually here. Save for aesthetics, what exactly is wrong with the msnbc.com titles?
- sullivandanny 16y ago
  Like I said, if MSNBC likes them, and they're working for MSNBC, it's hard for outsiders to be damning them. Still, I'd agree they probably should shorten the title to be focused around two or three key terms they want to be found more. I think it would be a more attractive headline that would encourage clickthrough.
codingthewheel 16y ago
The link is buried beneath about two feet of content and would require you to read every word of the article to even know it's there. Honest placement for this link would have been top of the fold, when you first mention Gruber...but you (correctly) surmised that might take some steam away from your own posting...so you buried it. No need to get angry and downvote; there's a reason why places like the NYT, SEOLand, etc., are so stingy with their links.
- sullivandanny 16y ago
  I put it further in the article because I thought it made sense for people to actually read the article rather than immediately click out -- and to have the link where I first started quoting John on a first reference. I did indeed debate whether to put the link right in the lead. I did indeed not want people to immediately click out to read and potentially not read what I wrote. There was no "dishonesty" in doing that. The point of writing something is for people to actually read it. You've got three main people who will read the article. First, most of my own readers, who probably don't know John and don't particularly worry about what he has to say on the SEO front. The don't need a link to his article right from the opening. They came to read what our authors have to say on a topic. Second, people who eventually will find this article years from now to learn about HTML title tags. At the time they come, the particular debate on this day won't matter. The advice, however, will. I actually debated whether I should even mention John's article in the opening for that reason, so as not to potentially date a future resource. Third, people who may have read John's article and then somehow learned of my article. They aren't looking for a link right in the opening -- they read the article. To make up for it being further down, to emphasize it more, I deliberately chose to link using the title of his article, rather than say from something like "write" or "post." In terms of being "stingy" with links, Search Engine Land links out all the time. All the time. My article contains seven external links. The internal links to our own articles also contain external links. If you're being downvoted, it's because you came in with an inaccurate comment and yourself got all angry about it. You missed the link, probably because you didn't bother to actually read the article, rather than it being so invisible as you'd like to make it out to be. Then, in your rush to condemn me, you didn't even bother to viewsource to double check that there was a link there, something that would have taken all of about five seconds to do. When I pointed out your mistake, rather than apologize, say "oops, I missed it" and maybe suggest it could be more visible, you got even more defensive about it. You were wrong in your comment. You still haven't bothered to apologize for being wrong. Instead, you compound the error with allegations that my site is link "stingy" and that I somehow have "dishonest" link placement (if I were really trying to be "dishonest" from an SEO perspective, I'd have nofollowed the link). I'm sorry I parroted your tone. That got to me, the attitude you displayed. I should have simply responded that yes, there was a link in the story. Now I've added a further one right in the lead of the story, which perhaps you'll find more reassuring. Of course, Google seems to give anchor text credit to the first reference of a link, so that means John's article is now likely to be relevant for the word "dishing" rather than "Title Junk," but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost on you.