81–85 of 85 posts
Trading an SEO advantage for a string to look better in the title bar and in bookmarks seems like a dumb trade.
Unless you (Gruber) care prominently about Apple/Google and other places with enough inbound link equity that your marginal SEO increase is minuscule and marginal UX*appreciation gain is large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how far will you go to screw up your users' experience? Where's the limit?
Forgive me if my sarcasm detector is broken here, but... really ? It's a page title. It's not a harbinger of horrible UX.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, he just looked around at a few major website homepages, and used them as examples of decent titles. Gruber’s example did a fine job illustrating his point, I thought – I just found it interesting that even Apple, a company known for its fastidious care for such trivial details, has inconsistent titles across its sprawling website(s), and found the inconsistencies themselves interesting, because they illustrate sl…
This is evidence that Apple is not focused on web based organic growth. And why would/should they? They have great marketing... mostly from the consumer.
It is amazingly annoying to users, but the fact remains that crudding up the title tag does actually provide tangible SEO benefits.
> the fact remains that crudding up the title tag does actually provide tangible SEO benefits. Source/study?
It's a little TLDR, but the point above is spelled out near the end in the final "conclusion". Cheers.
Surely, this man has investigated known facts about SEO before making this lengthy blog post about it. Surely?
The domain name alone will give you more then enough to go on regarding searchability for the name of your site. Several studies have shown that putting the branding last achieves better results for relevant searches than putting it first.