Why SEOmoz says to keep title tag not more than 65 character?
-
Why SEOmoz says to keep title tag not more than 65 characters?
I have this question that what is the disadvantage if my meta title is 150 character? Why everyone focus in keeping it short ?
If i put all my important keywords in starting of title tag say in first 65 characters and keep the title 100-150 character how can it hurt my website? Google will consider 65 character, right but it won’t penalize me for having 110 character then please explain Why we focus so much…
I know i used too many why just to tell i am nt a lawyer just trying to act like one , just kidding.
-
I have heard that Google does indeed use characters after the 65 character display limit in its ranking algorithms. Is this true and does it therefore make sense to have title tags longer than 65 characters, so long as the first 65 characters (or 60 in many cases) are a complete thought on their own?
Here is a page describing this strategy:
-
The Title tag will help you rank but it's also very important for direct users as with a "spamy" look with a very long staffed title tag user will / can wander.
Related with the SEO factor, with many words within the title tag the keyword power will be diluted.
Personally I keep everything as short as possible but in some cases when the title is dynamic (post name or whatever) if it looks right then you can let it slide (see thetitle of this page - is 70+ but it looks right.. right ? :))
I am curious about what other people feel about this ...
-
I'm no expert but my tuppeny's worth:
Re: the meta "description" tag, it's because if it's ridiculously long it gets truncated on a Google Serps page with ellipsis (...) There is one school of thought that actually favours this on the grounds that it supposedly encourages "curiousity value" click through, eg "This website shows you how to make $1million just by...[ABRUPT STOP]
Re: Title tag, a similar argument applies, although (& I stand to be corrected) the rule of thumb is anything over about 80 chars begins to look spammy, as does repeating any one word in the title tag more than twice.
-
Simple, Google will only display 65 characters in the SERPs pages and you need to craft your titles for the maximum benefit which includes getting click throughs.
Also If you have 100 - 150 characters then each word is diluted in strength (to a degree) and if it needs to be that long then your page isn't as focused as it could be, you may be better off with 2 pages targeting different aspects of the keywords.
Keywords at the beginning of a title tag are currently thought to be useful - http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#ranking-factors
However correlation data shows keywords in title may actually have a negative correlation to ranking - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-vs-bing-correlation-analysis-of-ranking-elements - (On Page Keyword Usage section)
You won't really be penalized for it, but it's certainly not best practise.
-
Shashank,
Google and most other search engines only display a max of between 65/70 characters in the SERP. You've got that much space to get your keyword in there and maybe a call to action (although you can further target this in your description where you get a max of 155 charcters before the cut off).
You've also got to ask yourself if you put a 150 character title tag how it will benefit your site, if at all
Also, don't forget that the title/description are used to improve CTR too (and not just for rankings) so having a spammy looking Title with 3 keywords put in the displayed character length with no consideration for human readability will have a negative affect on your CTR.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is it possible that Google would disregard canonical tag?
Hi all, I was wondering if it is possible for Google to diregard the canonical tag, if for example they decide it is wrongly put based on behavioural data. On the Natviscript Blog's individual blog posts there is a canonical tag for the www.nativescript.org/blog/details (printscreen - http://prntscr.com/e8kz5k). In my opinion it should not be there, and I've put request to our Engineering team for removal some time ago. Interestingly, all blog posts are indexed and got decent amount of organic traffic despite the tag. What do you think? Could it be that Google would disregard the tag based on usage data from let's say GA? Thanks, Lily
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lgrozeva0 -
Titles and Metas disappeared?? Help please!
Hi everyone, Had a bit of a concern today, my weekly report has come through and my crawl issues have skyrockets by over 400! It says my metas and titles are missing but when I check through the site manually they seem to all still be there, I'm getting the same problem when I use screaming frog to crawl the site. I would really appreciate an explanation from someone as to why this is happening as I am quite confused about the situation. Thank you people Charlie Our website is www.homelogic.co.uk 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MintySEO0 -
Duplicate Title tags even with rel=canonical
Hello, We were having duplicate content in our blog (a replica of each post automatically was done by the CMS), until we recently implemented a rel=canonical tag to all the duplicate posts (some 5 weeks ago). So far, no duplicate content were been found, but we are still getting duplicate title tags, though the rel=canonical is present. Any idea why is this the case and what can we do to solve it? Thanks in advance for your help. Tej Luchmun
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | luxresorts0 -
Does the order matter for a rel="alternate" tag
Hi! We just launched our new mobile site and I am trying to get the rel="alternate" tags put on the desktop site. The specs had the tags formatted like this: They ended up like this: My developer is telling me the order does not matter. Can anyone confirm? Does the order matter? Thank You!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shop.nordstrom0 -
Why is Google rewriting titles with the brandname @ the front followed with a conon " : " i.e. > Brandname: the rest of the title
Example: https://www.google.nl/search?q=providercheck.nl&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&ei=9xUCUuH6DYPePYHSgKgJ&fp=96e0b845c2047734&q=www.providercheck.nl&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&spell=1&ved=0CC4QBSgA Look @ the first result: www.providercheck.nl
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Zanox0 -
Canonical tags required when redirecting?
Hello, My client bought a new domain and he wants it to be the main domain of his company. His current domain though has been online for 10 years and ranks pretty well on a few keywords. I feel it is necessary to redirect the old domain to the new one to take advantage of its ranking and avoid any broken links. The sites are exactly the same. Same sections and same content. Is it necessary to place canonical tags on one of the sites to avoid duplicate content/sites? Any thoughts? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eblan0 -
SEOMoz and Facebook Graph Search
Are SEOMoz looking to integrate Facebook Graph Search (the web search section) into the product? At the moment we can measure and track rankings for Google, Bing/Yahoo, but not Facebook graph search. What are the general thoughts among the community? Do you think it will be adopted as a real search engine? I'm not overly concerned - I reckon it will take a lot to change people behaviour and have them moving away from the other search engines. It's throwing up some interesting results though in searches!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | littlesthobo0 -
Original Source and Canonical tags
We've been using canonical links to protect site SEO for contributor content and requiring canonical of our partners (as well as tagging internal duplicate content with canonical). Most other media sites have been doing the same but this is a moving target. I'm now hearing that the original source tag is now a better option. Special focus for us is placement on google news. Any guidance?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jbertfield0