PDA

View Full Version : Document Title - benifit user or SEO?



Daf
Mar 17th, 2009, 10:19 PM
Hi all,

When titling a document ...

I would like to get some opinions on this ... should the document title be worded with the bookmark/browser page or tab title in mind - as in short and descriptive - or configured to [hopefully] help with SEO - long, mostly mimicking the meta description tag?

I told a dentist friend I would try to help him get [at least] on the 1st page of results for area dentists. As I peek around the code of the sites that are at the top of the organic results I see that their document titles are similar to their meta description tags.

Of course all of that would never fit on a FF tab or bookmark....

I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions. :thumbsup:

brazenskies
Mar 17th, 2009, 10:50 PM
Your title should be an accurate title for the content of the page!

Daf
Mar 17th, 2009, 11:04 PM
I tend to agree. So there is no SEO value in hijacking that bit?

Thanks!

bazz
Mar 17th, 2009, 11:56 PM
I have read here numerous times that there is an seo advatnatge in good use of that tag. but 'good use' is the key. put the wording in <h1> tags but, I think, keep it concise and true to the page content.

bazz

Daf
Mar 18th, 2009, 01:40 PM
Thanks - I'll look for some more in depth seo information and sort through it. :thumbsup:

abduraooft
Mar 18th, 2009, 01:45 PM
or configured to [hopefully] help with SEO - long, mostly mimicking the meta description tag? Are talking about keyword stuffing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword_stuffing)?

Google's Webmaster guidelines (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769) will help you to understand google's policies.

BoldUlysses
Mar 18th, 2009, 04:32 PM
This page (http://boagworld.com/podcast/podcast_51_better_google_listi/) recommends making the title as descriptive as possible, but from a design standpoint I just can't bring myself to stuff it as full as I've seen others do. It just looks ugly in peoples' bookmarks. If I bookmark a site I find it much more appealing to revisit if it's descriptive but short enough to not require an ellipsis somewhere in the title in order to fit in the menu/bookmark bar. It just looks neater and (in my mind) makes the site seem more put-together. For example, on CF I would definitely put this


<title>CodingForums.com</title>

instead of this


<title>CodingForums.com- Web coding and development forums. Get help on JavaScript, PHP, CSS, XML, mySQL, ASP, and more!</title>

Again, that's just my personal preference. I know that might cost me a little when it comes to SEO, but with a semantically-coded, frequently-updated content-rich site I figure I can make up for it.

abduraooft
Mar 18th, 2009, 04:46 PM
I would definitely put this

<title>CodingForums.com</title>
instead of this

<title>CodingForums.com- Web coding and development forums. Get help on JavaScript, PHP, CSS, XML, mySQL, ASP, and more!</title>
That's just the title of CF's home page. All the other pages have very optimised titles. Say for this particular page

<title> Document Title - benifit user or SEO? - CodingForums.com</title>
Now just check google with the main keywords => Document+Title+user+SEO (http://www.google.com/search?q=Document+Title+user+SEO) and see the benefit. A page made by your approach might need wait infinitely to come over this CF link, as per the current page ranking scheme of google, for the above keywords.

BoldUlysses
Mar 18th, 2009, 05:16 PM
That's just the title of CF's home page. All the other pages have very optimised titles.

Be that as it may, home pages of sites are probably the most common thing I bookmark and revisit for updated content, as opposed to obscure bits of information represented by individual pages.


A page made by your approach might need wait infinitely to come over this CF link, as per the current page ranking scheme of google, for the above keywords.

Infinitely? By that reasoning scheme a "placeholder" page with no other virtues except a descriptive title would always outrank a frequently-updated, quality site with a more concise title. I know I'm taking a hit SEO-wise with my approach, but I would hope Google isn't that dumb to lean so heavily on title keywords.

abduraooft
Mar 18th, 2009, 05:27 PM
but I would hope Google isn't that dumb to lean so heavily on title keywords. I don't mean the title only, but Afaik, if we have a good title with relevant keywords, for a good semantic document, featuring the same keywords, then it'd be the best.

Infinitely? lol, I don't have that kind of patience to wait and see. :)

psw
Mar 18th, 2009, 08:54 PM
I'd have to agree with the majority of the replies. There is nothing wrong with getting some SEO into your title, just make sure it's relevant.

bazz
Mar 19th, 2009, 02:44 AM
I agree with the sentiment of this post


Now just check google with the main keywords => Document+Title+user+SEO and see the benefit (of this page). A page made by your approach might need wait infinitely to come over this CF link, as per the current page ranking scheme of google, for the above keywords.


Sadly, I have an issue with the seo concept. A good page rank should be determined by such important issues such as
'recently updated content',
'page content relative to meta content',
'domain name relative to business name or page content.'

Sadly goolge has messed this up.


bazz

alemoine85
Mar 19th, 2009, 06:10 AM
Yeah it dosent hurt to have the title match the content