Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
How would you compare all three?
Also any opinions on:
"My_Page_Title" vs "My-Page-Title" vs "My Page Title"?
Another point is brand awareness by having it on there. As in Wikipedia style titles. Is it worth it?
I assume that Google is smart enough to not dilute the other words in the title with words that are in every title. If they are able to differentiate the navigation on a site, don't you think they could spot branding.
But if having the brand in the title helps click-through, then I feel it should come first. If it hurts, then leave it out. If the domain owner's ego requires the brand, then include it anyway just to keep the peace -- but place it last where it will probably be truncated anyway.
I'll type "My New Page Ourdomain" and it usually brings it up.
Up 'til now I'd say its fine, but we're at 1/4th listings in Google thanks to the latest nonsense. My # 1 pages still have that format, others don't.
I don't see any reason to do _ or - in titles at all? Not from a user perspective or SEO, although naming that page "my-new-page.html" is supposed to be the better choice.
<title>Exact Topic of That Page</title>
<description>A few phrases to give the user a better idea what the page is about, blah blah. Example.com</description>
Our domain is 10 characters - very specific name - I think it helps in "branding" our site...
In my opinion, puting the domain name in the title of every page of the site is a little obsessive.. but if the domain name is the "main keyword" (and something every specific) - then yes, it's plausable.
In my opinion, puting the domain name in the title of every page of the site is a little obsessive..
Then you don't understand what branding is really about.
If your site is just another one of hundreds like it, branding probably isn't that big of a deal. If your site is a major player in your field, then branding is vital! You are trading in your reputation at least as much as you are trading in a specific title.
If you are shopping for an item, and one of the top results is from amazon, seeing that "AMAZON.COM" at the beginning of the title in the SERPs is a major indicator of what you will find. Whether you love them or hate them, determines if you are going to click on the link, not what the rest of the title says.
In the case of my review site, it has such a good reputation in the industry, having our site name show up is more likely to draw in a reader than having yet another title that exactly matches tje search term.
There's no need for the domain name in the title. Anyone who knows their way around the internet can see the domain name in the URL, and shoving it into the title as well just makes you look desperate.
The title is supposed to be there to identify the content on the particular page, and that should be the focus.
Brand is a part of the content and content image.
Hey, whatever works, eh? If your "brand" is that tenuous, maybe you need it. Or maybe you need a different product that doesn't require such desperate measures ;-)
Hey, whatever works, eh? If your "brand" is that tenuous, maybe you need it. Or maybe you need a different product that doesn't require such desperate measures ;-)
Stefan, that seems like an unnecessarily provocative statement. A simple search for site:google.com. site:yahoo.com, or site;amazon.com will show that mega-companies take care to brand their page titles. Hardly a sign of "tenuous" brands.
Hey, whatever works, eh? If your "brand" is that tenuous, maybe you need it. Or maybe you need a different product that doesn't require such desperate measures ;-)
lol - I doubt any company can create an instant brand. If my brand is weak then yes such things can help. If it is strong then anything to make it stronger.
HGTV, BBC, CNN, Wiki, YouTube, NFL, ESPN etc.
These companies take care of their brand and use it whenever possible. Notice the trend in that they all have their brands in the page title. Those brands do stand out when looking over results.
People who search are aware that those who have names in the title are somewhat an authority, are already known, or "trusted". Before you say it...not all searchers use that as an indicator -- nor does it "seal the deal". Yet it is a real likely indicator as that is what is normally seen by average surfer. This is because it is done by known companies familiar to them (such as the ones listed above) and less likely to occur lower quality sites.
The game is not just about trying to capture search engine traffic and selling the traffic. The game is to build a brand to when people thing of a category...your company is the first thing they think about. Your brand is an asset that always needs cultivated. Putting your brand in a title is just a part in the whole scheme of things.
Or maybe you need a different product that doesn't require such desperate measures ;-)
You have to have product to back a brand and a brand to back a product. If you don't then you do not stand much of a chance to survive. Especially when the first competitor that comes along and is able to brand better, well...they will sink you.
I am not advocating that a site MUST do this but pointing out as an option and reasons for the option.
Hardly. Unless the brand is already known, it just looks amaturish, like "hey, I'm important, really."
Titles are for content of pages, not a redundancy users couldn't care less about. If your URL is totally unrelated, you may want to brand in the title, but you only have so much real estate to hook a searcher and repeating the URL is a poor choice.
On top of that, repetitive titles can get you in trouble with Google, so there is another practical reason to avoid it.
Using titles properly has seo benefits, marketing benefits, and avoids possible engine screw ups. Again if your URL has no brand value since you can't turn back the clock and make it so, you could waste the space, but otherwise the reasons to not be boring, repetitive and redundant are the same as they are in the rest of life.
"People who search are aware that those who have names in the title are somewhat an authority"Hardly. Unless the brand is already known, it just looks amaturish, like "hey, I'm important, really."
Depends on the actual title/description along with the brand name will help determine the amateurishness or not. If a website is poorly written many time the titles and descriptions will follow. Despite brand name or not. It must all be considered as a whole.
Also the quoted statement is out of context as I stated a reason: (what is funny I even stated "before you say it" which I knew someone would)
People who search are aware that those who have names in the title are somewhat an authority, are already known, or "trusted". Before you say it...not all searchers use that as an indicator -- nor does it "seal the deal". Yet it is a real likely indicator as that is what is normally seen by average surfer. This is because it is done by known companies familiar to them (such as the ones listed above) and less likely to occur lower quality sites."
Humans are habitual. They associate things in their mind. Many times so often it becomes hard-wired. Brands work that way and so do SERP and browsing behaviors. Many top brands put their brand name in the title. People know they are authority, single them out, and associate such company branding with "quality".
URL's can look amateurish I will give you that. There is a difference between brand name and a regular URL or even company name that has no branding value. If you have a proper name such as ESPN, Wikipedia, MSN, etc. - proper names carry much more brand value. Putting red-widgets-r-us-where-you-will-find-red-widgets.com is a bit over the top and there isn't much brand value. So yes, you are right, discretion is much needed.
On top of that, repetitive titles can get you in trouble with Google, so there is another practical reason to avoid it.
This is one aspect that would make me want to avoid. Yet why do big brands get to put their brands in? This is WELL worth bringing up and discussed.
Using titles properly has seo benefits, marketing benefits, and avoids possible engine screw ups. Again if your URL has no brand value since you can't turn back the clock and make it so, you could waste the space, but otherwise the reasons to not be boring, repetitive and redundant are the same as they are in the rest of life.
Yes titles have marketing, seo, as well as brand benefits. Each has a purpose. To be able to do all three is a skill worth pursuing but you don't have to do all three at the same time. Nor do you have to repeat on style like - BRAND NAME at the end of a title.
Title tag - shown in serps: "7 Amazing Tips To Make Your Own Perfect Widgets. A BRANDNAME exclusive!"
Title tag: "We Discovered An Amazing Widget Only A Few People Know About." (Questions in a reader's mind - Who is We and what is the discovery - they will look at brand/authorship when they first arrive)
Title tag: "BRANDNAME Has Found The Most Perfect Widget! It Even Scrubs Your Butt!"
Also you can link to the page internally with a different anchor than used in the title. Using brand name over and over again in on-site anchors is a bit amateurish in my opinion. So I prefer to split page titles. Use a secondary for on page or an internal "link to" title.
Secondary Title/Link-to: Discover This Amazing Widget Only A Few People Know About.
Secondary Title/Link-to: "The Most Perfect Widget That Even Scrubs Your Butt!"
Secondary Title/Link-to: "7 Amazing Tips To Make Your Own Perfect Widgets."
SERPS example:
A casual surfer does a search for a widget and browses around the SERPS. Let's say they saw your title and visited. Later returns and searched big G again with a similar term yet different. They see your brand in title. They are familiar with it. Now if they enjoyed their first visit...they associate that experience with your brand and your chances increase for a click over the weak titles above and below. I know. I do it all the time. If I recognize a site brand I tend to visit first...that is I know the site and I know if it is safe, enjoyable, and gives me what I want.
-----------------------
Nice to discuss this. Again I am not arguing for or against just clarifying that there is no set way but as steveb hinted on...there are the aspects of SEO and marketing to also consider with your titles. And to add to that it depends on your purpose also.
Secondary title can be used on-site anchor texts as well as your h1 title of the page. An article would be a good example. Or you can set up a third; one for anchor, one for page title, one for on-page h1 title. As long as it makes sense to your visitors whichever path they follow to the page.
When I am surfing I blank out domain names in titles because they are of no real interest to me at that stage. I am looking for information and the domain name in the title does not provide this.
Brand names at the beginning of TITLE are also not user-friendly because they make scanning search results more difficult by forcing you to visually skip over the domain name to read the rest of the title.
If people recognize and trust your brand, having your brand name in the TITLE probably improves CTR, but I would position the brand name at the end, unless you're talking about the home page, in which case the domain name should come first.
However, trying to brand a new site using TITLE elements is like paying for a commercial that runs on a channel with no viewers. Branding via title works best when your site comes up high on thousands of SERPs (imdb, for example, coming up high every time you run a query on an actor's name).
As long as you have your business name on the page in strategic places, like in the copyright statement, then you shouldn't need to include it in the title, especially if you have it in your domain name.
If you want it in the title to further branding then I would put your main keywords for that page first and the business name on the end.
I was checking several directories yesterday and how they were indexed in Google and as I recall the ones with unique titles on every page full of keywords were indexed much better than ones with business names first and then keywords.
After the top 5 I find that injecting marketing copy with keywords can separate a listing from immediately surrounding listings and boost visitor count.
Marketing centric copy can be as simple as one word. Would you rather click on Car Seat Covers in position 13 or on Wicked Car Seat Covers in position 15?
As for including your brand in the title. If your's is a known brand then you probably should include it. I cannot imaging Tide detergent not including Tide in their Title. However, if your brand is not generally recognized then it may not add value of your listing and that same space may be better served with a compelling word or two.
One option is to include your brand at the begining of your description tag. For example,
Haliburton ¦ Providers of engineering and construction.
As with anything SEM related, individual results will vary. The important thing is to be honest with yourself when assessing your strengths and to use them to your advantage.
Marketing centric copy can be as simple as one word. Would you rather click on Car Seat Covers in position 13 or on Wicked Car Seat Covers in position 15?
The thing is that no one is going to click on the 15th results. They will go for #1 which most likely will have "Car Seat Covers". One of the reason why they are there is because of that KW dense title. I agree with you that is important to write appealing titles but it is even more important to rank #1... Finding the right balance between both is the key.
<title>Red Widgets - ______</title>
It should also depend on the length of the domain name. If the site name is rather long, you push out the rest of the title so it's truncated (or if you put the site name after, it's not seen); unless, of course, your title is very short. But in that case you could lose out on rich keywords in your title.
I had a respected fellow member look at a site I run a while back and was given the advice that I should drop the phrase: "Welcome to mysite .com -red-widget.html" in favor of just 'red-widget.html' in the title.
"Welcome" in the title tag is so tacky. It's a 90s thing, right up there with, and only just one step below, "Untitled document."
I don't know that branding happens in the titles. I do the branding on the pages. The home page is the only page that needs the site title/domain name.
I have seen no research or data on the merits of titles with site names, but as Google develops its appetite for unique content, I lean towards no site name in the title except for the home page.
I also think you can create much cleaner-looking titles without site names in them. It looks more professional--and that has to be good for branding. I like anchor text which perfectly matches page titles. But I can't put the site name in every anchor text link.
I don't know if anyone else does this, but I often clip bookmarks with weak titles and "Welcome" nonsense.
One thing to consider is how likely visitors are to search your site (site:yourdomain...) If every page has the site title in it, esp. first, it gets annoying quickly. I don't know about you, but I want only the topic title, clean, crisp, descriptive, full (not truncated).
p/g
P.S. This site doesn't have its title/dn on every page and it's a very good, very well-known brand.
