Is keyword or actual blog title better for Wordpress SEO title?

Does this apply to landing pages too or only blogs please? I've always thought best to have top 2 keywords if possible with a separator in between for titles.

Hey guys, wondering if adding a kw which will bring people to my blog which relates to the blog topic itself will be better than adding my service kw? So instead of:

How to protect your pc from Hacking | Affordable Computer Repair Services

Maybe it should be something like

How to protect your pc from Hacking | Pc Hacking Prevention

If it were YOU guys, how would you handle the title-Blog kw issue please?

Actually, even characters is a bit misleading, although the consensus is somewhere between 50 and 60. It's actually the amount of space that is available for a title to appear in its entirety in the search results and that is defined by the number of pixels, which is about 600.

A capital "W" takes up more space than a small "i", so there really isn't a definite amount of characters. You can use the MOZ Title Tag tool to test if your title tag will fit in the 600 pixel limit.

I'm not sure how much stock I would put into the unproven "Google loves fresh content" notion, unless you are a current events/news type of website.

Figure out what phrases you want to rank for and then select the best page on the site that already exists and optimize it for that phrase or create a new one for that keyword phrase. It really doesn't matter if it is a blog page, a content page, a product page or a service page and it certainly doesn't matter how "fresh" it is.

I second that and, from private discussions, know that he knows that too now: one of his main competitors' website name is a main keyword. And they got themselves mentioned on some news websites, and even got editorial (inside articles) links, for their main keyword... because, drum roll, their business name/ website name is their main keyword.

This is an interesting question... and I am not sure i would have a definitive yes it will help, or no it would not help type answer.

I would suggest the Golden Rule for SEO is things are ranked Top to Bottom and left to Right.

Links at the top of the page carry more weight ( in terms of passing juice as an example ) than links towards the bottom of the page.

In theory what is happening is they are Onpage distributing juice down the page with the links. The lower on the page a topic is, the less value that is place on that specific topic... so they are linking from the top and distributing lower.

I am guessing to some extent - SOME - this may work... not sure I would call it best practice.. but by no means would this be considered worst practice.

My Theory in practice would be a piece such as this with links to pages of the individual topics / sub topics. Something like click here for a more in depth information about topic. Keeping the concept of deeper down the page the less value the link has... on each of those topic specific pages I would have a link at the TOP back to the primary page.

To make this clearer.

You have the primary page Dry Vs Steam with links within the content to secondary content; Advantages of dry and Advantage of Steam. With links at the top of the page back to the Primary Article and then on this pages sub topics I would then have links to further content

The sub sub content; Improved heart health, Therapeutic Benefits, Improved mental health I would be linking on the top of the page to the related sub content and NOT to the primary content.

This structure in terms of SEO does a few things... it creates DEPTH. Google looks at this and says hey, this site not only covers the topic, this topic is discussed 3 layers deep. You are also loosely integrating what in SEO is called SILO structure ( the bottom pages passing links ( Juice ) towards a top page. You are also extending and focusing the keyword string.

Which do you think has more ability to rank? a single page covering a topic, or a series of 7, 8 10 pages of content all pointing back to the primary topic page?

I personally would suggest the link block is a cheat to actually doing the work... and YES you see them all over the place... but the reality is, if someone is searching "Does a Dry Sauna improve heart health" if they fall on a page like you have shared.. sure the internal page linking helps... BUT what happens if you actually have a specific page related to that specific topic? <-- THIS, in my opinion is what Google wants to see.

There are probably more possibilities for negative than positive. You went to that page, you clicked the link to read the part you were interested in and then what? went back to search? time on page would be minimal... depending on the length of content you read, it might even count as a bounce.

Google can only control Google ( for the most part ) so the back and forth interaction between Google and a page from a serp is very measurable for them. It is my thought that what happens after returning to a serp is what matters most. Does the end user click another link ( not good ) Does the end user type in a related by context search term ( not good ) does an end user search something totally different ( a good thing )

If you just so happened to click on an article on some random page without a search... none of this matters - in theory - BUT if the website is using Google Analytics, I think these things matter to some degree - probably far less than the back and forth with the actual search and results.

But here is the bigger question as a site designer... what is the intent of the page you are building? Just information? or is there other preferred outcomes? If you are selling stuff from this page and people click a link read what is of interest and then bounce off and leave in 30 seconds or less... is the page doing its job?

What Google does or does not do is to some extent of no concern. 1000 visitors a month and no sales vs 10 a month and 5 sales.

These examples you are presenting is what I would call "intent" based content.. the issue with each and every one of the 3 pages you have presented, is they are not linking to a deeper dive in terms of content on each specific topic. The page you read today, if after reading the few paragraphs is said "Read a more in depth article on this subject click here" would you have?

The art of SEO in relation to Content has been lost... its more about getting a page to rank for as many keywords as possible... but as you are suggesting in doing so, the whole idea of a website is just thrown out the door... the Effort of SEO has to translate to a Conversion... thats why this forum is here... thats why people work tirelessly at building a site.. and everyone is so obsessed with "Traffic" in general that they have no clue that there is a difference between "traffic" and "traffic that converts"

A shotgun article that has a bunch of links to all kinds of different topics... is not going to a conversion... But using this method, and linking to a further in depth article ( that in theory should rank well ) and offering a solution to the problem ( dizziness ) would you have thought about buying the product?

SEO is a means to an End...it doesnt stop at getting Traffic... it stops at converting traffic

SEO is getting them there and CRO ( Conversion Rate Optimization ) is converting them once they are there. You simply cant have one without there other.

Hope that Helps!

I could see that as being a solution, yes.

Not that its wrong to be focused on On-page, and Off-page SEO, but these are the after thoughts to the real meat and potatoes of SEO, and that is structure.

A basic rule of thumb is your navigation should play out in the reverse order of good structure. Looking at DABK's post and images the points closest to the center of the circle would be topics or links in a main navigation bar, and and as you go down each layer would be a suub topic, and then a sub - sub topic etc. You should be able to click on the primary topic in your navigation and get all the way to the furthest outside layer

I am a firm believer in File Name, URL, and then the Alt tag. In my more commerce related endeavors I will use Meta tags for product images.

Alt tags are interesting. My son as an example will "listen" to a page ( Microsoft will read the page aloud ). Watching this behavior in him, we have changed the structure of the Alt tag - well how we write them. They should be descriptive - how you would want them read aloud to understand what the image is.

Microsoft will read aloud the alt tag ( that is what it is there for ) and it says "A photo" So if the image is a black bear in an open meadow...you want text that looks like "of a black bear in a meadow on a sunny day" - remember Microsoft inserts "A photo" and then putting this together you end up with Microsoft saying "A photo of a black bear in a meadow on a sunny day"

So to get a bit more technical with photos and specifically the placement... you want the photo and its alt text to be in immediate proximity to text that has context to the image. My formula for this is to run a Headline H1 or H2 or H3 and follow that up with an image and then the surrounding text in context to the image.

virus removal services New York - a layered pile of words related to computer virus problems people in New York might use, including phishing, infected, hacked, firewall, malware.

We are talking about an image URL? that would not be what I would suggest.

You are going to keep all of your images in an "image folder ( /image ) and then maybe a location identifier ( /image/new-york ) and then maybe a specific geographical location ( /image/new-your/brooklyn ) and then the image itself ( /image/new-york/brooklyn/virus-removal.jpg )

BUT it very much depends on the Primary URL <your-url> .com if that has any of your primary keywords in it, I would drop that section. say you have "New York" in your primary URL, I would the use ( image/brooklyn/virusremoval.jpg )

You don't want to be keyword loading the URL's google aint to fond of that - stackiing the same term in there more than once

Hope that Helps!

URL's have stopped giving you a boost in SERP's a long time ago.


Don't spend so much time on that.