Title Attribute Control Test

[fathom]

Title Attribute

Premise: Google states that 100 variables are considered for ordered rankings - If true is Title Attribute one or merely for usability - let's find out.

Hypothesis

The title attribute [title=""] is known to offer usability value for humans viewing a web page. To date, limited knowledge is known to suggest that the title attribute offers value to enhance ranked results. This test series intents to provide observations beyond theory or spectulation in order to have a reference for conclusions..

Test Series

Six independent tests each using a set of two control pages will be conducted. One page of the set will use title attributes in all 'point-to' links towards the page, the second page will use links with no title attributes in all 'point-to' links towards the page.

Controlled Variables

All pages will use Acirehp as the targeted keyword [S- pherica backwards] and where applicable using 's' for plural [Acirehps]. Neither currently return any results.

To establish a quality baseline all set pages will have Acirehp as the title element, and 6 times in the body text all positioned in the exact same character position from top left. All link anchors to the page sets will use Acirehp as the anchor.

Page body text [and source code] will have the exact number of characters with only the general body text being unique to avoid duplicate content penalties.

Each page set will be on different domains, different hosts, IPs, and each at different general levels of authority in order to predetermine which set will [should] rank above the others of lesser overall authority.

Both pages of a set with have main navigational links towards them [site wide] to provide a fair quality control margin without negative bias.


Series #1

Link Anchors & Attributes identical text

Series #2

Link Anchors as singular word / Attributes as its plural [testing stemming value]

Series #3

Image Anchors & Attributes identical text

Series #4

Image Anchors as singular word / Attributes as its plural [testing stemming value] As with Series #1 where the text anchor does not have 's' the alt="" attribute does not have it either.

Series #5

Identical to #1 however, in order to remove the chance that 'link position' may bias the 'point-to' links with a page top prominence inducing a false observation - Series #5 reverses the link order.

Series #6

Identical to #3 however, in order to remove the chance that 'link position' may bias the 'point-to' links with a page top prominence or left on page prominence inducing a false observation - Series #6 reverses the link order.

Test Duration: While fresh results will appear within 48 hours - would expect 6 months [approximately 2 PR updates] would be needed to effectively make informed observations.

Pre-Test Conclusions:

Series #2 and #4 are believe to be the most promising as out of ranked results of 12, noting terms Acirehp and Acirehps no results are returned by Google and 'Acirehps' will be in no other element or attribute but the title attribute. As the title attribute is a support tool 'if used in ordered rankings' it is likely weighted only as a supplementary to other variables.... meaning if used independent of visible elements to 'spam' results a nil is returned.

However, it is the authors belief that Title Attribute weighs in on relevancy issues. When use in conjunction with other elements (other variables) positive enhanced return can be observed.

Major consideration - Most often when a singular occurrance is tested for observation a nil is return noting 'inconclusive' not because there is no effect but because the level of effect is so small the ability to make detectable observations is difficult in real-time, real world results.

This is no different than attempting to observe the effect of a single low quality link [PR1 - PR3 from pages that have 20+ links. There 'IS' an effect - we simply cannot easily see it.

However, if you have 500 such links - observations are noticable - as with this control test - links to the control set pages are between 100 - 500 and in the range of PR4 - PR6.

Experiment Specifics

To avoid content duplication each page will contain consecutive text copy from an unpublished article 'THE EXECUTIVE MONKEY: Considerations for Burnout in the Workplace By Kelly McCullough to facilitate unique page content at a 1500 characer level per body text per page. Within the text copy Acirehp will reside; being the frist word of copy and last plus four additional times.

One addition consideration: in all likelihood ranked results of the control set pages will appear as a listing and indent for queries Acirehp. Without title attribute have any optimization value there should be a random placement for which page becomes the listing.

The most interest part of this control will be if the stem query of Acirehps returns any results - as it stands - if title attributes has any optimization value - 2 results should return.

NOTE: domain name will not be link to - to avoid tainting results - they will appear soon enough

This thread [and one other also use the keywords so should add additional results for the query without negatively affecting the return.

[orion]

Excellent procedural for an initial test. I encourage this type of experiments.

One thing to add could be a comparison component, free from noise and as follow

1. a control set
2. a training set

Then apply the exact procedure to 1 and 2. The training set shoudl be conducted using TREC sample/data. (chekc NIST organization). The control set could be a series of documents and the training set could be a series of terms or passages. Combination of these are also possible, but done properly. Still your exp so far is a good start and you are thinking right.

Cheers

Orion

[qwerty]

I'll be watching. As I wrote in the other thread, I don't believe title attributes get indexed, but I'm certainly open to seeing some empirical evidence.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Very good work! I am looking forward to the results ...

noting terms Acirehp and Acirehps no results are returned by Google

Well, except at least one, that willl soon show up, to "clutter" the results: This page :)

[greenleaves]

Great to see this experiment. I'm gonna be waiting to see the results. I personally think the title IS considered by the SEs, but as pointed out, I think it will only be a very small effect.

[fathom]

Excellent procedural for an initial test. I encourage this type of experiments.

One thing to add could be a comparison component, free from noise and as follow

1. a control set
2. a training set

Then apply the exact procedure to 1 and 2. The training set shoudl be conducted using TREC sample/data. (chekc NIST organization). The control set could be a series of documents and the training set could be a series of terms or passages. Combination of these are also possible, but done properly. Still your exp so far is a good start and you are thinking right.

Cheers

Orion

Good points there orion.

I believe this specific attribute is worthy - since it is a bonafide usability best practice... which make the potential for SEO far more appealing.

[fathom]

Well, except at least one, that willl soon show up, to "clutter" the results: This page :)

Had thought of that... if for acirehps and this page ranks below either control set - well that will truly open the debate up to what is actually occurring! ;)

[GoLinks]

Very interesting experiment, I'll be watching for progression,
would you monitor Google only or other SE as well?

[fathom]

Well it's pretty easy to monitor all, Google will likely show tomorrow early AM, MSN not too far behind.

[orion]

One thing occurs me you could include in the experiment is a method for separating the effect of uniqueness of terms, which depending upon results should convince others of the merits ot your exp.

Term uniqueness shows in SERPS via the IDF term

IDF=log(D/d) = inverse document frequency

D=database size
d=documents containing the term

For uncommon terms, IDF is high since d is very low (few documents use the term) For very uncommon and invented terms, this effect is too way omnipresent and too strong, introducing bias.

This causes almost any document containing the term to show in the top results when the term is queried. The effect should occur regardless of anything you do to a document; hence causing spurious ranking results.

You may want to device controls to remove this effect.

Still, your work could inspire others to do more experimentation.

Orion

[orion]

The effect of term uniqueness that affect inverse documents frequencies (IDF) is not limited to single terms. It can also be induced with very unique phrases (and that probably few will search for or care of, anyway). It could also be induced with special delimiters as well.

If you elect to use phrases, you may want to avoid such type of phrases as well, otherwise this effect will mask the effect/observable you intent to measure. Overall the described uniqueness effect is easy to spot since IDF is very high and d (number of search results) is very small.

This is one of many reasons of why absolute ranking results are often questionable. To me, being #5 out of 40,000 is not the same as being #8 out of 7,000,000.


About your hypothesis


Hypothesis

The title attribute [title=""] is known to offer usability value for humans viewing a web page. To date, limited knowledge is known to suggest that the title attribute offers value to enhance ranked results. This test series intents to provide observations beyond theory or spectulation in order to have a reference for conclusions..


Note. I’m not trying to open a textbook now. My intention is to encourage, not discourage, experimentation among seos/sems. I do believe your experiment should inspire others. More initiatives in all fields of search engine experimentation is needed and your exp is a positive step in the right direction. I honestly hope others follow into your steps.

Having taught at 2- and 4- year colleges I know how hard it feels at times when experiments are conducted in a science/computer lab setting. (In our case -as IRs/seos/sems-, the lab setting could be taken for the entire Web).

You may want to reword the above hypothesis, as hypotheses are formulated based on initial observables, not designed to provide observations. You may also want to write a null hypothesis (H0).

Null hypotheses (H0) are normally formulated and then prove or disproved. H0 should be an assertive statement based on observables. For instance, a null hypothesis is something like this

H0=”There is no correlation between X and Y”.

Note that H0 is stated as a negative. Then the experiment statistical analysis should prove or disprove H0 at a given confidence level. If neither, then one may want to think about using bigger sample data, more replicates, reducing the confidence level or about reformulating a different experiment altogether.

For example, if I want to test whether there is a correlation between the title attribute of a given tag(s) and SERPS for several replicates and at a given confidence level (e.g., at a 90%-95% level;see t-test tables) I would state something like this

H0=”There is no correlation between the title attribute and SERPS”

Then, if and only if the results disprove H0, I would probably have a good case; i.e. that there is a correlation between title attributes and SERPS (or SERPS improvement). Then I’m in a position of making other stat tests, this time for inference and prediction.


Orion

[fathom]

Google started indexing but most of the control pages have not been included as yet.

I would think once they are most of the 'link from' pages will be dropped from results.

Interesting enough both pages of the control set on spherica are indexed with no results appearing for 's' from the 'phrase.html' page.

But let wait and see. I would expect to see 'only' the most relevant pages from a domain to appear in either case.

[Dave Hawley]

Isn't this the sort of thing SEO professionals would do all the time? In other words, surely the answer is already known?

[fathom]

Hey 'brand does work'!

Over 200 queries for acirehp @ spherica in the last hour! :D

[fathom]

Notes:

4 of the control sets appear as title="" as listing, no attribute as indent.

1 control set showing reverse [interesting that the no attribute page didn't snippet the listing description as the other 9 pages did - but still early]. This is text links denoting stemming with 's' in attribute (Series #2).

1 control set not showing control pages as yet (Series #5).

No control results showing for stemming value.

[andrewgoodman]

I'm no scientist, but:

Given that SEO 101 would likely involve such tests, especially where the #1 truth-in-labeling attribute, the title tag, is concerned... wouldn't you think that a search engine company would by now anticipate this, and make it more difficult to run this kind of experiment? By making the independent impact of the title tag per se a non issue (a red herring), and substituting a different sort of multivariate test which *involves* the title tag?

Eg. :

- Does the title tag appear to significantly match the rest of the findable text content on the page? If so, allow it to carry x weight. If not, give it (less) weight.

- Does the title tag appear to significantly match any of the anchor or surrounding text of incoming links? If so, pay attention to text in tag. If not, give it less weight.

Something like that.

I am saying there are probably ways to make this more complicated, and more difficult to run controlled experiments, by testing for relationships, not just for static qualities.

And another possible bit of fun might be a commerciality filter:

- On a scale, how commercial does the text in the title tag (or for that matter, the rest of the page) appear to be? Are there strong matches with popular, expensive AdWords keywords? If those words are worth more than $2/click, rank the page lower.

I realize I'm not making a whole lot of sense, but throw this out there for the sake of argument: what flaws might there be in a simple experimental design, if one assumes that Google is already assuming you know how to run simple experiments and adds complexity to prevent this?

[andrewgoodman]

Again, completely hypothetical, but let's say Google includes in Algo du Jour a requirement that pages meet fourteen tests of authenticity:

- Title is confirmed in meaning by at least two other elements on page

- Due to recent spam, keyword density on query should not exceed x (extremely high number)

- At least two of the links pointing to the site on which this page is hosted are PR 5 or higher

- no instance of deceptive practice Q

- no instance of deceptive practice W

- no mention anywhere on site of blacklisted company from list maintained by Google

- page does not mention anything to do with reciprocal linking or other farming related info

- page has been in the index for at least three months

- page has not received more than one spam report

- and several other things

If the fourteen (hypothetical) tests are not satisfied, the page is considered a potential crap page. Non-crap pages rank highest for query, and all crap pages are ranked with a significant degree of randomness introduced to foil optimizers.

If no non-crap pages exist (i.e. all pages on that query fail to meet at least some tests), the least crappy pages do rank better in general, but on the whole, a significant degree of randomness is introduced to foil optimizers.

Well, that might be too complicated for Google, but if I were them, that's the kind of thing I'd be trying to do, since everyone and his uncle would be trying to reverse-engineer me to find out simple stuff like how important a title tag is. I would want to make it nearly impossible to determine the independent impact of any element at any given point in time.

[fathom]

I'm no scientist, but:

Given that SEO 101 would likely involve such tests, especially where the #1 truth-in-labeling attribute, the title tag, is concerned...

Well I guess we should first address the 'slang' use of TITLE TAG

<META NAME="DC.Title" CONTENT="This is a title tag">
<meta name="Title" content="This is a title tag">
<meta http-equiv="Title" content="This is a title tag">

<title>This is a title element</title>

<a title="this is a title attribute inside of a link element" href="">Anchor Text</a>

I know you know this andrewgoodman and so do many others but we often slang the 'title' and new members will be confused.

wouldn't you think that a search engine company would by now anticipate this, and make it more difficult to run this kind of experiment? By making the independent impact of the title tag per se a non issue (a red herring), and substituting a different sort of multivariate test which *involves* the title tag?

Eg. :

- Does the title tag appear to significantly match the rest of the findable text content on the page? If so, allow it to carry x weight. If not, give it (less) weight.

Well sure it is possible but at the same time what makes this any different from searching and adapting to 'limited competitive terms' and adding content pages that capture a few once only query?

I guess my question back on this - 'if I told no one, and monitoring results internally only' - could Google automatically [or any search engine] determine the difference between 'acirehp' as a test of some type or a new product/service establshed as a brand?

- Does the title tag appear to significantly match any of the anchor or surrounding text of incoming links? If so, pay attention to text in tag. If not, give it less weight.

Something like that.

I am saying there are probably ways to make this more complicated, and more difficult to run controlled experiments, by testing for relationships, not just for static qualities.

And another possible bit of fun might be a commerciality filter:

- On a scale, how commercial does the text in the title tag (or for that matter, the rest of the page) appear to be? Are there strong matches with popular, expensive AdWords keywords? If those words are worth more than $2/click, rank the page lower.

I realize I'm not making a whole lot of sense, but throw this out there for the sake of argument: what flaws might there be in a simple experimental design, if one assumes that Google is already assuming you know how to run simple experiments and adds complexity to prevent this?

Interesting enough - I come from a complementing environment that helps.

In submarines when you couldn't actually see what was coming at you - you relied on compounding evidence:

1. if it talks like a whale

2. response like a whale

3. moves like a whale

4. and pings like a whale

It usually is a whale...

But was wrong a few times!!! :D

[Dave Hawley]

I realize I'm not making a whole lot of sense...On the contary, your post makes the most sense, to me at least.

I'm still astouded with all the SEO professional here the answer is not aleady known. Kind of makes me lose faith in the whole industry.

[fathom]

Well, that might be too complicated for Google, but if I were them, that's the kind of thing I'd be trying to do, since everyone and his uncle would be trying to reverse-engineer me to find out simple stuff like how important a title tag is. I would want to make it nearly impossible to determine the independent impact of any element at any given point in time.

Agree to alot of this and one reason why I forced relevancy through many different 'known variables' via title element, on-page text, file name, links to page, etc. and didn't rely on title attribute on the page itself.

[kenpomachine]

Someone asked for empirical evidence. Well, we had this site with a certain page not showing in one of the desired keywords, due to it not appearing anywere in the page. Well, I modified the title of the page to have the keywords in it, and voilà, from not appearing in the first 200 results we've gone to being 21 and now 5... and that keyword is a highly disputed one.

That was the only modification done on the page, so I suppose that title is certainly valuable for SERP results, at least in Spain.

FWIW, this isn't the first time this kind of optimizitation has worked fine for me.

[qwerty]

It looks like you're referring to the title tag (what appears in the title bar of the browser) and not the title attribute of a link (e.g. <a href="URL" title="some text">). I don't think anyone here would argue about whether the title tag was useful for SEO. I consider it the most important single element on the page.

[kenpomachine]

My mistake, guess I skimmed the text too much :(

[projectphp]

I'm still astouded with all the SEO professional here the answer is not aleady known
I am astounded that anyone believes, truly believes, that the answer is constant. I have tested all manner of SEO related issues, and quite frankly, the answers to many change regularly. What is indexed, when, why etc. There are so many indexing quirks (including HTML errors causing issues etc) that no one SEO can know them all.

So, it isn't that SEOs don't know, it is that someone new has decided to challenge accepted wisdom, that a lot of us have tested previously. And good on Fathom. I don't personally see how it will change a lot of what I personally do, but good on Fathom nonetheless!!!

[Dave Hawley]

If the answer is not constant then surely the whole exercise is fruitless? Also, what were the results from prior identical tests?

Personally, I think andrewgoodman hit the nail on the head.

I hear what is being said about "if it looks like a Whale, talks like a Whale.........." etc but only applies to something, or an object of pyhsical size where there is nobody trying to mislead you.

I believe one could very well lead themsleves up the garden path and Google could be paving the way.

[fathom]

And good on Fathom. I don't personally see how it will change a lot of what I personally do, but good on Fathom nonetheless!!!

:D There some interesting 'side tidbits' if you look a little closer!

[fathom]

If the answer is not constant then surely the whole exercise is fruitless? Also, what were the results from prior identical tests?

Well the answer to good ranks don't remain constant - so is this fruitless as well?

I don't believe 'identical tests where every conducted - not on the chosen domains, words, and the reason why I actually added this was others in a previous thread commented on 'on-page' considerations - this focuses on 'off-page' factors.

Personally, I think andrewgoodman hit the nail on the head.

I hear what is being said about "if it looks like a Whale, talks like a Whale.........." etc but only applies to something, or an object of pyhsical size where there is nobody trying to mislead you.

I believe one could very well lead themsleves up the garden path and Google could be paving the way.

Sure thing - and there are still SEOs promoting Meta Keyword and SE submissions where both at one time were valuable considerations and they are well past the garden path, in the lake and still haven't notice their head is underwater. :confused:

[Dave Hawley]

To me, the Title, Alt Meta tags etc are the sort of things one should use regardless. It's often best to reverse the question and ask ourseleves "why wouldn't I use this"? The answer is very often..."no reason".

Sooooo, regardless of the outcome (which may or may not be conclusive) I say one should use them. I cannot see, if the test comes back negative, any reason to not use them anyway?

Also, I *think* it was Jill Whalen, that has stated that the Title attribute is NOT used for ranking. This was based on one placing some unique text in a link Title, waiting, then searching for the unique text and seeing if the page is anywhere in the SERPs. As it wasn't in the SERPs it was concluded that Google do not use it. Personally I believe this is flawed for a at least 2 reasons.

1) Google may only consider it when/if the text matches some on-page text.

2) It's an assumption that if the page doesn't show it's not being used when it could be that it simply isn't enough on it's own.


Personally, I would say Google only uses it in consideration to the page being linked to and not the page the link is on. However, this is only based on common sense in lack of any conclusive proof. IMO, as Google is likely 10 steps ahead of any SEO 'tests', asking oneself, "now if I were Google would I do this?", is often the best way.

[qwerty]

To me, the Title, Alt Meta tags etc are the sort of things one should use regardless. It's often best to reverse the question and ask ourseleves "why wouldn't I use this"? The answer is very often..."no reason".

Sooooo, regardless of the outcome (which may or may not be conclusive) I say one should use them. I cannot see, if the test comes back negative, any reason to not use them anyway?
But using something and using it from an optimization/ranking perspective aren't necessarily the same thing. How many people on this forum use alt attributes on image links as a way to stick in keywords, rather than a way to describe images (or at least make sure their description of the image makes use of the keywords). In other words, SEOs will put an alt attribute on a non-linked image, but since it doesn't contribute to ranking, we won't look for ways to make it fit in with our optimization plan. We'll use it exclusively for the purpose it was designed for: describing an image for users who don't see it.

The same is probably true for title attributes. If we were to find out that they can be used to boost rankings, those of us who already use them may just make some changes to the way we use them.

Personally, I would say Google only uses it in consideration to the page being linked to and not the page the link is on.
Of course, the title attribute can be added to almost any HTML element, not just links. Are you suggesting that if the search engine uses it at all, it's only on links (like alt attributes)?

[Dave Hawley]

As Google are looking for sites that are relevant only to humans, I would say using Title, Alt etc is considered most/only when written naturaly as apposed to a string of keywords.

Are you suggesting that if the search engine uses it at all, it's only on links (like alt attributes)?If there are 2 pages, page "A" and Page "B". Page "A" links to page "B" and makes use of the Title attribute. I'm saying that Google would use (for ranking) the Title attribute text only for page "B" ranking and ignore it totally for page "A".

[fathom]

To me, the Title, Alt Meta tags etc are the sort of things one should use regardless.

"YES" 100% AGREE

[qwerty]

Yes, I understand that point. I'm just asking if page C contains a table with a title attribute, or a non-linked image with one (both of which can be beneficial to users) would those be given any attention by a search engine, or are you saying that the only title attribute a search engine would consider would be one on a link?

And I wasn't referring to a string of keywords. I was saying that people who are optimizing a page for a given keyword phrase are going to make an effort to get that phrase into the alt of a link pointing to that page. For example, the "Home" button on a site about Beethoven would be given an alt of "Home: information about Beethoven" rather than "Home".

[Dave Hawley]

Yes, I understand that point. I'm just asking if page C contains a table with a title attribute, or a non-linked image with one (both of which can be beneficial to users) would those be given any attention by a search engine, or are you saying that the only title attribute a search engine would consider would be one on a link?Arrh Ok. Well I of course don't know for a fact. But in lack of any proof, common sense would say it would only be used for links. In the case of non-linked images, I would assume it is used for the housing page. For linked images, for the page being linked to.

However, as I have said, there is no reason not to use any of them for their intended purpose.

[fathom]

From w3C

This attribute (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.4.3) offers advisory information about the element for which it is set.

W3C commonly uses examples for illustration - in this case a link element however it 'is' but an example and not a finite list.

Title attribute can be used in 'any element' and in other sections of the standard e.g. an image map (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.6) the title atrtribute is specified.

[qwerty]

Just to clarify: according to the W3C's index of attributes (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/attributes.html) the title attribute can be used for All elements but BASE, BASEFONT, HEAD, HTML, META, PARAM, SCRIPT, TITLE

[fathom]

Just to clarify: according to the W3C's index of attributes (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/attributes.html) the title attribute can be used for

Thanks querty - never thought to grab that page.

[Mike]

any results yet fathom?

[fathom]

sure but meaningless right now as these are fresh results.

Fresh pages get a bump depending on when pages are crawled, and are not representative of normal ordered rankings and likely not subject to the same algorithm.

[Voasi]

So...regarding this test and this search done at Google - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=Acirehp

Am I to believe (and for everyone else's knowledge) that the title attribute does help between 2 identical pages?

[fathom]

So...regarding this test and this search done at Google - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=Acirehp

Am I to believe (and for everyone else's knowledge) that the title attribute does help between 2 identical pages?

Nothing yet to suggest anything - after an update will help... to give some strong conclusions.

[xan]

Far as I'm concerend, meta tags are not used full stop.

There are to be honest well well over 100 variables used by Google, smaller systems use more than 100 already, and they have less data to sort. Nothing is constant as everything continuously readjusts itself everytime the environment changes. Otherwise its already outdated and therefore more inaccurate than is acceptable.

I am not entirely sure what is trying to be understood, but I look forward to reading more :)

[qwerty]

This test isn't about meta tags. It's about whether the title attribute of a text link adds any weight to the algorithmic relevance of the target page.

[xan]

Aaaah, I see, sorry for being slow, thank you qwerty.

The algo won't change, just the weights. Algorithms are always relevant, at least I should hope so! I don't know about other SE's and systems, but I use text links to identify the subjects the links say they go to, and then I'll check that page, and if its not relevant, I'll raise an error. Its not a penalty as such, its just a "can't be trusted - is wrong" thing. Other links get checked for validity, then moving on to the next batch and so on.All this does is give a vague picture of how the landscape looks. Then we have to dig on down.

[stereodee]

So, what is the result of this experiment?

[traian]

man,
one year and so, but no results :) just kidding.

Still, did your test ended, or still testing?:)

Cheers

[orion]

The only recent algorithm I'm aware of incorporating title attributes is due to Baeza-Yates, the WLR Algorithm (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2704&highlight=baeza)

All others systems I'm familiar with removes all attributes during the document linearization process. This is done to make a representation of the document. Some retain comments in the img alt attributes.

So, if a system does document linearization in this way, then more likely this experiment will not improve relevancy.


Orion

[traian]

As far as it concerns me, the title has influence in google serps, not only for ranking purposes, but more effectivly from marketing POV.

Traian

[Robert_Charlton]

As far as it concerns me, the title has influence in google serps, not only for ranking purposes, but more effectivly from marketing POV.

Traian

Traian - The discussion is about the title attribute of a link tag, not the title element that sits in the head section of a page and appears in the serps.

[traian]

You are right. it's the attribute not the title tag. Anyway, seems good to have this one also for the text-to speech browers software. :)