New Title Tag For Organic Results

[SemAdvance]

I would like to get some more opinions on another experiment I have undertaken.

I want to see if getting more clicks on my organic search result, will get my # 1 position back from Forbes.com for the term 'richest women'.

So I went in last week and made some changes to the title tag on my index page to draw some attention to the SERP result and get some clicks!!!!

Here is the title in the Google SERPs

@|@ -->> Richest Women Top 10 Rich Womem --Click This Link!!!!!
Offers Top 10 Richest Women Worldwide Forbes Magazine Verified Rich Women Information Resource.
@|@ -->> Richest Women Top 10 Rich Womem --Click This Link!!!!! - 12k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


I hope others will try this and let others know the results as well.

A special acknowledgement to BlueHatSEO for this hack.

You can read the whole story along with the actual images on my search marketing blog ! mediaviper.com

Peace

[Webnauts]

I was just wondering how a screen reader user would like that. But thats business.

[SemAdvance]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I was just wondering how a screen reader user would like that. But thats business.

I thought of a lot of issues more related to SEO side effects.

Had not thought of the speech readers...

After some other views in another forum I edited the title yet again to read

<title>Richest Women Top 10 Rich Womem<-<--Click This Link!!!!!</title>

I think this looks a lot better and will look better on the SERP page and probably draw more clicks.

Thank you for the input....

[4bidden]

Interesting....

But you might want to spell women right in the title

[bj]

I bet you'll be #1 for the search terms "@|@ -->>" and "womem"

[DrK]

I assume the typo is intended: 'womem' -or?

[Dinghus]

Hey, whatever (pretty much) that gets traffic to your site.

[rickvidallon]

@|@ - search on Google turns up nothing, nada, zip, zppo, goose-egg.

[SemAdvance]

Originally Posted by rickvidallon

@|@ - search on Google turns up nothing, nada, zip, zppo, goose-egg.

Right because the bots don't read these characters thereby I am not reducing my title weight or density in their usage.

It should be noted I corrected the spelling (Thank you Jeremy & Bj) of the obvious typo...hasn't worked as intended anyway.

I also removed the @|@ -->> part as mentioned earlier... I think that was a bit overboard.

New title looks like so

<title>Richest Women Top 10 Rich Women<-<--Click This Link!!!!!></title>

[chrisJumbo]

I tend to ignore sites with "special" characters. They either look spammy or like someone made an error and there are plenty of sites that don't look like they will be fraught with error.

I am curious what kind of experience you have though. So please post back whether it helped or not.

[davss]

it might take up to three months to see any changes on SEs...

If you intend to play around with it I'd suggest a line in your metadata:

<meta name="revisit-after" content="1 day">

I searched in google.com for "richest women" and came up as the fist link.


Ciao
David

[Peter (IMC)]

I never understand why a reasonable technique needs to be abused like that.

if you'd simply did something like:

>> Richest Women Top 10 Rich Women

Probably Google won't make a problem out of it. Many people use some special characters to make their titles look nicer. But overdoing the way you do, is asking Google to take you out. Literally asking for it!

Do you think Google wants it serps to look like that?

[rickvidallon]

This is kinda related to title tag and SEO. I have always maintained 60 characters in my title tags. I am wondering at what point extending a title tag description helps or hurts SERPs? I know this would also depend on page content and other factors.

Anyone have any feedback or experience with short or lengthy title tags?

Also does it matter if you use a space, comma or dashes in the tag?

Example;
Green Onions, Big Green Onions, Green Onions in Virginia
Green Onions - Big Green Onions - Green Onions in Virginia
Green Onions Big Green Onions Green Onions in Virginia

Thanks,
Rick

[activeco]

Yes, you're already 1st now.
But probably your blog and this thread helped too.

[bj]

Right because the bots don't read these characters thereby I am not reducing my title weight or density in their usage.

Well, I learned something new today, though I think this could be a useless piece of info.

[stuart888]

Those techniques don't work, looks like spam and people can see it. Your url is list for people to see in the search results, and people look at that before clicking. Keep the title tag real to the message and related to your url.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by davss

If you intend to play around with it I'd suggest a line in your metadata:

<meta name="revisit-after" content="1 day">

That is non-sense. Sorry.

Google says about that:

Originally Posted by Google

More pages use the completely worthless <meta name="revisit-after"> than use the <em> element!

See here: Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics: Metadata

[google junky]

Your domain is richestwomen.info

1. There is really nothing on google for the .com version of that name "richestwomen". 5 pages with no descriptions with the urls.
2. There is no site with the .net version of that name "richestwomen"

I see this as a no-brainer that you would be near the top having the domain of the same search phrase in the title and any other repetitive places in the page you have placed it.

I'm not sure you have enough Google ads on your page though LOL

[Matteo]

What entices me to click on a title tag is pertanent information.
Information that I have been looking for. I wade through dozens of emails that say "LOOK HERE:" "CLICK HERE" and with each punch of the delete key my animosity for such schlocmeisters grows exponentially. My first reaction to your your title tag was a red light.....phish food. My second reaction was a glowing ember of anger. My very last reaction would be to click on that link. Mind you, I am not the type who will be searching for the world's richest women, so it may not matter at all.

[MarcGrobman]

I agree with matteo. That looks like a spammy entry and i'd be less likely to click it. You can be enticing without the schlock value. (The forbes headline actually does it well. It is creative but to the point).

And it seems a little grey to me. I don't think Google wants their results filled with "click me" stuff and they could quash it.

[john@kapoo]

Hi there

As already mentioned by several in this thread - Your original tester title tag just looks way too spammy... In fact, looking at my junk email folder now, it looks very generic to some of the spam I currently have sitting in there, desperately trying to sell me viagra or... extenders. Keyword - "desperate".

<title>@|@ --> > Richest Women Top 10 Rich Women --Click This Link!!!!!</title>

Your new title tag is now less intrusive than the above, but I hope people do not try and follow in your footsteps with trying to be 'eye-catching' with special characters all over the place, because it would just be so hideous to see search results with all this in... Oh and not to mention if everyone does it, it isn't exactly eye catching anymore.

When creating title tags, I tend to keep them short as possible and to the point:

<title>Section Name | Sub-Section Name | URL (If keywords in it or name of site)</title>

J.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Matteo

I wade through dozens of emails that say "LOOK HERE:" "CLICK HERE" and with each punch of the delete key my animosity for such schlocmeisters grows exponentially.

Most of us here have built-in animosity for such things.
But as the world has been proving all the time, the average Joe is an idiot.
And that's where most of the politics and businesses are aiming: at the average imbecile.

[trouble133]

SEO now is all about getting rid of phrases such as "click here" and "read more" and is trying to be more contextual and relevant to what the page is about. The meta description tag is really where you want to get your "call to action" inserted.

I personally wouldn't click on your ad, as it does look spammy, I have to agree with the others. I feel, you may have a good result for a couple of weeks but eventually your listing is going to fade.

Has your traffic increased significantly? And I don't mean the traffic referred from this thread!

[SemAdvance]

Thank you all for the wonderful heart felt replies. I love the passion that some of the posts are written with even though they are not happy passions.

PeterIMC -What Google wants? Hmm a concern of mine for clients to some extent yes I do care what they want.

In this particular case no I do not care what Google wants, the title tag is used on other search engines than Google and I tell everyone to build their business regardless of what Google has to say.

If we take that course text link ads will need to close down as Google the chief link seller does not want anyone else to buy or sell links.

You can fall in line with Googles wants, I seize the day and fight against the Do No Evil Empire lol

I do like the subtle nature of your arrows ....can I use that on another site???

I admit wholeheartedly that the first title reaked of spam...again this is a tactic I used on craigslist several years ago when I was running lead gen campaigns for contractors, and it worked well to seperate my titles from the other clutter there! I made almost $100.00 a day with it so it does work.

Marc, I doubt Google can kick me out of the organic results for this. Their robot cannot see it, and even if it could what engineer thinks as insanely as myself???

They would have to write it into the algorithm and doing so would be hard because I can use any call to action I want or any of the various symbols on the keyboard which they are not going to write out of the algo.

They could hand ban me but that would just feed a fire they don't need, that would be treading on some grounds of censorship, freedom of speech?? I am not sure. I do not see it in their TOS that I cannot add strong calls to action to the title tag.

Someone mentioned to put the call to action in the description tag...I do that for clients

My thinking is the description tag is under the title...

Lazy people probably do not read the description so I can grab them with the title. Density at the end of the title tag is too low to do any good for SERP results.

Also the call to action is in the end of the description tag and other not so lazy people will not read there so the title tag call to action grabs them too.

I can also leave another strong call to action in the description as well for those who are slightly immune to advertising and skip the title tag.

For all of you here who aver you would not click the SERP listing...you are not the target market fortunately, and when we advertise for our clients, partners, or ourselves, we have to step outside ourselves so to speak, and become the target consumer, to determine what will work best.

Bj stay tuned long enough and I'll likely have something you'll be able to learn that is useful....

trouble, I'll pull the server stats and post them soon.

Thank you all again,

Peace

[jordanmcclements]

Webnauts - you're right...

'revisit-after' - Ha ha he he he

LOL

(Sorry I dont mean to be rude - but I learnt the history of this false attribute from one of the excellent podcasts from Beginning SEO Podcast)..

[incrediblehelp]

I played with these special characters sometime ago. I found that they neither hurt or helped you pages ranking algorithmically. With that being said if a Google editor/engineer were to see this type of title by hand I guessing your should suffer some sort of demotion. No proof of this, just a guess.

Sure these special characters can create a call to action, somewhat...but don't we feel that better copy writing in the title would do better?

[Peter (IMC)]

PeterIMC -What Google wants? Hmm a concern of mine for clients to some extent yes I do care what they want.

In this particular case no I do not care what Google wants, the title tag is used on other search engines than Google and I tell everyone to build their business regardless of what Google has to say.

If we take that course text link ads will need to close down as Google the chief link seller does not want anyone else to buy or sell links.

You can fall in line with Googles wants, I seize the day and fight against the Do No Evil Empire lol

When I ask if it is what Google wants I do not mean that you should follow their guidelines because they say so. When you say you don't care about what Google wants, you´re not being honest to yourself.

Google shouldn't and doesn't care about what you want. They do care about what they consider good SERP's. If somebody decides to make spammy titles then they probably don't like that because it reduces the quality of their results. At least that's how I would look at it if I were them.

So they certainly are going to consider dropping your rankings for doing something like this. At this point, you will care a lot about what they want. So be honest to your self and don't fool yourself by saying you don't care about what they want.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

When I ask if it is what Google wants I do not mean that you should follow their guidelines because they say so. When you say you don't care about what Google wants, you´re not being honest to yourself.

Google shouldn't and doesn't care about what you want. They do care about what they consider good SERP's. If somebody decides to make spammy titles then they probably don't like that because it reduces the quality of their results. At least that's how I would look at it if I were them.

So they certainly are going to consider dropping your rankings for doing something like this. At this point, you will care a lot about what they want. So be honest to your self and don't fool yourself by saying you don't care about what they want.

I would like to support Peters post here with a video of Matt Cutts:
WebProNews Video Blog » Blog Archive » SMX: Google’s Matt Cutts on their Webmaster Guidelines

[datajam]

Please allow me it provide my simple opinion . . .

None of us should care what Google wants. None of us should allow Google or anyone else dictate the structure, content, or design of our web sites. Googles failure should not be the reason for people to spend millions of dollars to please their SERP's. When the masses quit chasing what makes Google happy, maybe Google and all the other Search Engines will develop a methodology to index the Internet responsibly.

Search Engines should bear the responsibility of indexing the Internet as is. The idea that individual web sites should have to do anything to be realistically indexed is ridiculous and an offense to the world. Google and others have done nothing but broaden the playing field that the Internet promised to reduce.

Anyone that doesn't care about Google's needs, is on the right track.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by datajam

Please allow me it provide my simple opinion . . .

Let me tell mine too.

Originally Posted by datajam

None of us should care what Google wants.

And Google should not care what you want.

Originally Posted by datajam

None of us should allow Google or anyone else dictate the structure, content, or design of our web sites.

Not Google or anybody else dictates the structure, content, or design of our web sites. You are the same free to have all that like you want, and Google has the right to include you in their site (index) or not. It is so simple.

Originally Posted by datajam

Googles failure should not be the reason for people to spend millions of dollars to please their SERP's.

People who invest millions do that, as they are convinced that they will have a return for their investment (ROI). If you not, you do not have to invest. It is so simple.

Originally Posted by datajam

When the masses quit chasing what makes Google happy, maybe Google and all the other Search Engines will develop a methodology to index the Internet responsibly.

Google is working hard to develop a methology to index the Internet responsibly, In which century are you living? Are you really sure that you are up-to-date?

Originally Posted by datajam

Search Engines should bear the responsibility of indexing the Internet as is.

What? Search Engines should support spam sites, placing them in the same pot with high quality web sites? LOL? That is the funniest statement I heard in my whole career. LOL

Originally Posted by datajam

The idea that individual web sites should have to do anything to be realistically indexed is ridiculous and an offense to the world.

I would say you idea is ridiculous and offensive for the world, when you are propagating that Made for AdSense or other spammy sites should be treated equally.

Originally Posted by datajam

Google and others have done nothing but broaden the playing field that the Internet promised to reduce.

Is this a joke again? I really hope so.

Originally Posted by datajam

Anyone that doesn't care about Google's needs, is on the right track.

On the right track not to be indexed in Googles search results. There you are absolutely right!

By the way just a question if you don't mind now. Do you probably have problems being indexed or ranked high in Google? From your preaching I cannot imagine anything else. Or did I miss something?

[john@kapoo]

Originally Posted by datajam

None of us should care what Google wants. None of us should allow Google or anyone else dictate the structure, content, or design of our web sites.
Anyone that doesn't care about Google's needs, is on the right track.

IMHO; If Google is a dictatorship, then count me in! Seriously though, Google isn't where it is today by dictating to the online world - They merely create rules/guidelines and thousands of factors for each one of us that SEOs sites to take in to consideration.

My question to you is this - Without Google putting such things in place - where would we be? The search engine would become a total sham and I for one would not use it as the top search results would be a mass of BlackHat SEO garbage. And hey, how could you possibly find the best Google knocking threads?

We, as the online community put Google where it is today as we are the customers whom use their services - *If* Google ever becomes this... "dictatorship" that you speak of, I do also believe this will be the day they slip off of the SEO planet. SO, until then - Happy SEO'ing.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I played with these special characters sometime ago. I found that they neither hurt or helped you pages ranking algorithmically. With that being said if a Google editor/engineer were to see this type of title by hand I guessing your should suffer some sort of demotion. No proof of this, just a guess.

Sure these special characters can create a call to action, somewhat...but don't we feel that better copy writing in the title would do better?

It's nice to have this thread because it makes you think about what factors are involved in the decision to click on a link in a SERP. I realized that when I go through the results, my main interest are the snippets, because it gives me an idea of what I can find in the page after I click.

I don't know if I am an example of the average searcher, but the bolded words in the SERPs (of Google) are an important atractor when people go through the results. With Google's way to create snippets the snippets contain generally the most bolded words.

So kind of leads you to believe that the titles aren't that important. Hence the observation that different titles don't significantly affect the CTR.

[perry321]

<title>Richest Women Top 10 Rich Womem<-<--Click This Link!!!!!</title>

That would have me NOT clicking on it. The exclamation points alone would have me passing on it.

Sorry.

I don't look at is as spam, because it is not. Of course not. But you need to give readers a REASON to click on it. "Why should I click that link?"

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by perry321

I don't look at is as spam, because it is not. Of course not. But you need to give readers a REASON to click on it. "Why should I click that link?"

Is this <-<--Click This Link!!!!! a reason for you to click on the link? Strange. Sorry...

[perry321]

lol nope, it's not.

Not to be insulting to him, but that is pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, I'll click on it because it is telling me to.

Tell me WHY I should click on it. What makes your version different from the others.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by perry321

lol nope, it's not.

Not to be insulting to him, but that is pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, I'll click on it because it is telling me to.

Tell me WHY I should click on it. What makes your version different from the others.

So if I had a title tag telling you to jump in a river, would you do that too?

[Peter (IMC)]

Webnauts and Perry,

I think you 2 are completely missing each others points,.

One of you 2 is being sarcastic and the other isn't getting it..

Looks like you both are actually in complete agreement!

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Is this <-<--Click This Link!!!!! a reason for you to click on the link? Strange. Sorry...

I would bet most searchers are not sophisticated or jaded enough to be offended by the call to click. And I would not be surprised if it increased traffic ... do keep us updated, please.

Seems to be a little bit of confusion here about whether you were playing with the @|@ characters or the 'call to action."

My hat's off to you for a provocative thread! We don't always agree on SEO, but I do respect and admire your presence and style.

Cheers, MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Webnauts and Perry,

I think you 2 are completely missing each others points,.

One of you 2 is being sarcastic and the other isn't getting it..

Looks like you both are actually in complete agreement!

Got you! LOL

Sorry Perry.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

My hat's off to you for a provocative thread! We don't always agree on SEO, but I do respect and admire your presence and style.

Maybe I have that opinion, as I am longer an accessibilty & usability expert as an SEO, and "click here" is a taboo there.

[datajam]

Yes, I'm afraid you missed the point entirely!

[4bidden]

Interesting to see he is back at #1 over the Forbes article though.