Comments on: Worst SEO Title Ever

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:42:51 +0000

SEO is the bane of my existence. Curse you, Google.

By: Computerklaus

Computerklaus — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:28:40 +0000

sorry for typing like a hog

By: Computerklaus

Computerklaus — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:16:31 +0000

This ntitle got you people on this page how long? how many accesse did you get just ’cause of this? The title, despite of being “unusal” got what it wantet. Buzz

cheers

By: Jacques

Jacques — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:42:36 +0000

This was just an announcement – it doesn’t even need to be archived, as now that those features have been added, it’s history. Old news.
The title was (is?) good as they reached some milestone. They could remove the whole post for that matter, so why bother about a good SEO-title?

By: James Cordeiro

James Cordeiro — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:01:59 +0000

Michael, if your trying to say that Title’s do not matter in search results “keywords in title are irrelevant: – for some reason you must have ate the wrong cereal and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is not a single query you can perform on search engines in which title does not have an effect. Please, find me one. (real word, real query).

As my G+ post said though AJ Kohn, I still completely disagree that Google needs to optimize there title, there is no need – they are not target search traffic now or in the future for that post. As for searching G+ Features, the most relevant results are what Google is providing. The most relevant and top quality are news heavy sites.! Google does not need to provide the information, it can be provided by anyone. Google+ is a social network, driven by the users, talked about by the users, and the news is done by the users. Google, just delivers the initial message and the users are happily able to carry the rest of the message using there own opinions and evaluations. For the Google Blog, if I were running Google I would also not optimize it. To many other target market and target audience are able to do it for me. Business wise, spend money elsewhere and let the users do the work.

By: AJ Kohn

AJ Kohn — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:40:16 +0000

They’re Google, but that doesn’t make them omniscient.

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:04:54 +0000

The value of the title is not defined by the keywords. The value of the words are defined by the page they are on.

You MAKE the keywords more valuable. The keywords do NOT make your site more valuable.

Hence — keywords in title are irrelevant unless you’re doing a Q-and-A chaser site. (I feel no shame in admitting to using that technique, but well-written titles don’t have to follow keyword research.)

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:42:39 +0000

Dude. They’re Google…

By: AJ Kohn

AJ Kohn — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:26:46 +0000

True Ed, they might not need search traffic to their main blog, but there are plenty of smaller satellite blogs (which are also poorly optimized) that could actually benefit from search traffic. Something like the Google Testing Blog which actually has some decent titles, but doesn't have any sharing capability. But as I've said, it's more about connecting with those who are seeing out your content and ensuring that your message reaches them with a minimum of editorial filters. It's as much about controlling your message and brand as it is about traffic.

By: M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:11:32 +0000

I seriously doubt Google needs search traffic to their blog.