

Writing HTML Title Tags for Humans, Google & Bing - InfinityX0
http://searchengineland.com/writing-html-title-tags-humans-google-bing-59384

======
sullivandanny
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.

~~~
codingthewheel
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
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.

~~~
codingthewheel
Look, I don't want to get into some online vendetta over this. My God. I
thought you wrote a good article. I upvoted the thing. I'm even upvoting this
comment where you basically take me, one of your loyal readers, apart. It was
at 4, now it's at 5 - that was me. So much for your "anger" argument.

The larger point here, and your correct response, was simply "who cares?" If
you're going to take the time to write a 12-paragraph explanation of every
article you write, to every reader, troll, and conspicuous other who has a
bone to pick with you, then I don't know how you manage to get any writing
done at all.

And lastly, this little bit of ad hominem...

 _but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost
on you._

...is just in poor taste. Never in a million years would I say this to a
reader.

------
codingthewheel
"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>

FTFY

