Changing headlines
From today users of the 91Èȱ¬ News website will start to see a slight change in some of our headlines on stories.
In some cases these will be longer than they are now, to allow us to spell out in more detail what and who the story is about. This is so that people using search engines to look for the story can find it more easily.
That's probably enough detail for anyone who's read this far. But if not, and you'd like to know more about why we are doing this, please read on...
The practice of "search engine optimisation" - making content in such a way that it is easily retrieved via search engines - is an important area for us and for others across the web.
A growing number of users come to stories on the 91Èȱ¬ site from places other than our own front page - for example search engines, other sites, personal recommendations, Twitter or RSS feeds.
So our developers have done a bit of work to allow journalists the scope to create two headlines for a story if they want to - a short one which appears on the front page and our other website indexes, and a longer one which will appear on the story page itself and in search engine results.
The front page headlines will remain limited to between 31 and 33 characters and will continue to appear on Ceefax and Digital Text, as they do now, along with the top four paragraphs of each story.
The space constraints on those platforms mean that on the website the headlines have always been short - which, it has to be said, also has its merits, making them easy to scan and fit into lists. They will also continue to appear on mobiles.
The new longer headlines will be up to 55 characters (with spaces) and will aim to include any key words which we might expect a search engine user to type in when searching for news about that particular topic.
So, for example, the difference between a longer and shorter headline version might be as simple as: "Queen's speech: Brown draws election battle lines" instead of "Brown draws election battle lines". Or "Possible counter-bid for Cadbury" might become "Ferrero and Hershey in possible counter-bid for Cadbury".
It'll also be easier for journalists to include full names eg "Janet Jackson blames doctor for Michael's death" instead of "Doctor 'responsible' says Jackson".
None of this should affect the way you can use the site once you are here, but hopefully it will make it easier to find our stories if you are somewhere else.
Steve Herrmann is editor of the .
Comment number 1.
At 19th Nov 2009, Briantist wrote:Ah, but ...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Nov 2009, Green Soap wrote:Compare
Murderer of have-a-go hero jailed
with
Man jailed after father killed defending his neighbour
I'd take the first, less long-winded version every time.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 19th Nov 2009, _Ewan_ wrote:And I'd go for the longer, less tabloid-y one.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th Nov 2009, Green Soap wrote:Also
Record October rate for UK public sector borrowing
and
Rise in public sector borrowing
They are two completely different meanings for the same story.
What is the record? Is it a good, or bad one. The second headline gives that, the first doesn't.
Just get to the point in the headline, and leave the information for the story.
This just seems to me to be a grab for overseas readers, who get adverts, and therefore revenue for the 91Èȱ¬, and not a benefit for the Licence payer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 20th Nov 2009, Briantist wrote:Steve Herrmann: I think the idea should have really been to ASK if the people who use the website like this as an idea.
The idea of a blog is to FLOAT and idea first, see what gets thrown at it and then proceed from there.
Fait acomplis come over very, very badly.
I presume the 91Èȱ¬ has some research done to show that headlines are too short?
Have you leant NOTHING from Twitter? LESS IS MORE!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 20th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#5. At 00:36am on 20 Nov 2009, Briantist wrote:
"Steve Herrmann: I think the idea should have really been to ASK if the people who use the website like this as an idea...//.. I presume the 91Èȱ¬ has some research done to show that headlines are too short?"
I wonder how many who have read this blog actually understood what the blog was saying, very few judging by the comments left...
"Have you leant NOTHING from Twitter? LESS IS MORE!"
Not were web search optimisation is concerned!
As long as the 'longer headline' doesn't actually end up being less accurate due to being needlessly padded out, take the example used in the mast head image, the short title to the H1N1 article is actually the more accurate, the longer headline is totally meaningless as the phrase "young children" means different things to different folks - to some a 'young child' is a pre-schooler (in the UK that means a child below the age of four and half), to others a child of 10 years is still a 'young child', the phrase "Under-fives" gives a far more accurate account of the government announcement, the only problem I see with the headline is that it's so accurate one hardly has to read the actual text of the article!...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 20th Nov 2009, Briantist wrote:Boilerplated "I wonder how many who have read this blog actually understood what the blog was saying, very few judging by the comments left..."
Good point. This page needs Tweeting!
I have no objection to the 91Èȱ¬ trying to get more Googlejuice, but this might be at a loss of usability.
It is more important to be well indexed or be easy to use? For one thing, the "Reading Score" (206.85-(0.846*S)-(1.015*W)) goes up with the long winded headlines, which makes them harder for poor readers.
The above blog post doesn't justify the changes balancing these two factors.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 20th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:re comments @ #7:
Sorry "Briantist", you still don't seem to understand what is/has been done, sigh...
Anyway, we are not all Twits [1], more people do NOT use Twitter than do.
[1] 'Twit', those who use products from Twitter Inc.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 20th Nov 2009, Green Soap wrote:Oops, its another one that's less descriptive, despite being longer.
Your stories: Cockermouth floods
or
Eyewitness: Cockermouth floods
So your stories could be your Aunties half brother 3 times removed telling you about the flood, or, it could be seen by yourself.
Little more thought required to justify this change for journalistic reasons, and a comment to the commercial implications would not go amiss.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 20th Nov 2009, Nancy Brown wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 20th Nov 2009, dotconnect wrote:This seems reasonable to me.
No doubt sometimes, the journalists (or headline writers) will get it wrong. But broadly, I see no problem here. If anything, I'm happier with slightly longer and less tabloidy headlines.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 20th Nov 2009, adr3988 wrote:Is there any progress on the news RSS/Atom feeds' titles changing from the even-shorter and less informative version to either of these longer forms? I ask as both the 33- and 55-character titles convey far more of what the story is about than the oft 3-word/15-character titles.
For instance, an article in my feeds today has the title 'Puzzling choices', but upon opening the article on the website this expands to 'EU foreign head dismisses critics'. The ultra-short tile conveys nothing about the story, and is as useful as a title to me as the article's ID - '8370191'.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 20th Nov 2009, SSnotbanned wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 22nd Nov 2009, macalban wrote:Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 22nd Nov 2009, macalban wrote:Is this the right place to suggest that the writer of the headline,
"Nick Clegg says poll shows next election not 'shoo-in'", should
visit the ITV Teletext or just go to Google and key in "Shoe-in"
for the correct spelling and understanding of this term ?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 22nd Nov 2009, Optimist wrote:#15. macalban wrote:
"Is this the right place to suggest that the writer of the headline,
"Nick Clegg says poll shows next election not 'shoo-in'", should
visit the ITV Teletext or just go to Google and key in "Shoe-in"
for the correct spelling and understanding of this term?"
Actually, "shoo-in" is the correct spelling.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 23rd Nov 2009, bill wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 23rd Nov 2009, Keith wrote:It looks like this change has caused the news radar to break. As of posting it's latest headline is from 4 days ago.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 23rd Nov 2009, SSnotbanned wrote:I've just(again*) Googled ''Changing headlines''.......
*because my first comment apparently broke house rules.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 23rd Nov 2009, Optimist wrote:#19. SSnotbanned wrote:
"I've just(again*) Googled ''Changing headlines''..."
So you've Googled "Changing headlines". And? What's your point?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 23rd Nov 2009, Kate wrote:I would have thought that a website like the bbc would have had enough authority with the search engines to not need to make such a dramatic change. However, I remember reading about this happening in the New York times a while back ( so it's likely that it will have an impact on most newspapers over the next few years.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 23rd Nov 2009, Peter wrote:As long as we still get headlines from the 91Èȱ¬ like "Moorcock set for Doctor Who story" ( then I'll be happy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 23rd Nov 2009, SSnotbanned wrote:#20
Owing to an abnormality in the system, I(''SSnotbanned'') am also #13''you''.Since my point apparently ''broke house rules'' I can only leave you to work it out for yourself.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 23rd Nov 2009, Optimist wrote:#21. Kate wrote:
"I would have thought that a website like the bbc would have had enough authority with the search engines to not need to make such a dramatic change..."
I don't think it's an issue of "authority"; it's a simple matter of improving a user's chances of finding a story on the 91Èȱ¬'s website via a search engine while retaining necessarily brief (and, unfortunately, often meaningless) headlines on the main news page.
Nor do I really think that introducing slightly longer headlines on the story page itself is such a dramatic change.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 23rd Nov 2009, Optimist wrote:#23. SSnotbanned wrote:
"Since my point apparently ''broke house rules'' I can only leave you to work it out for yourself."
If you can't make your point without breaking the rules of the forum then I doubt that it's important.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 23rd Nov 2009, dotconnect wrote:Glad I'm not the only one who has absolutely no idea what SSnotbanned is on about.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 23rd Nov 2009, melchizidech wrote:Changing headlines indeed Ed!As in removing the Comments from your climategate article,naughty,naughty!Have a lovely,warm,snug evening.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 24th Nov 2009, mgmurphy wrote:I would rather have the longer titles, I'd take the easier search-able stories.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 24th Nov 2009, SSnotbanned wrote:#25 rbs-temp.
#26 dotconnect
My point concerned the 91Èȱ¬ pandering to Google to get their ''headlines'' onto page 1 of a Google Search. I suggested that this was the real reason for enabling online users to ''find the story more easily''.
I also suggested that this was a step towards Product Placement on programmes and receiving increased advertising income on web content.
If I am addressing anyone in particular I usually signpost their comment number or name.
Accessing my e-mail account, the 91Èȱ¬ has said the reason for removal of the above is that I am ''off-topic''
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 24th Nov 2009, chrismcc wrote:"children under the age of five are to offered..." - reckon you should have used an example without a typo in it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 24th Nov 2009, Monjo wrote:Just wish the 91Èȱ¬ stopped the American use of the comma in headlines and instead used an ampersand (&) to mean 'and'. Longer headlines are much better for the story's page. Short headlines for where space is limited.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 25th Nov 2009, Jake Hadlee wrote:As a professional SEO expert it all seems a bit unnecessary really. The general SEO for the 91Èȱ¬ News website is so strong that the longer headlines will have minimal impact on search results to say the least. Far more important would be to ensure the body text contained as many relevant search terms as possible while maintaining a clear, user-friendly writing style, with the headlines supporting the main keywords but importantly also working as headlines.
Remember, showing up in the search results is only half the battle (possibly less than half) Getting people to click is what matters. If I'm presented with two headlines - one from the 91Èȱ¬ and one from, say, CNN - on the same subject, I will click the most compelling one. I can't help but think that the shorter and punchier the headline, the more compelling it will be.
You're also dealing in live searching, which for a news story from a leading media source is best handled (in Google at least) by the News Results, which tend to use other criteria for deciding on placement. For instance, a search today for "bank overdraft charges" does not show the 91Èȱ¬'s long-headlined story anywhere on the first page of news results, but in second place is "FTSE 100: Lloyds Banking Group profit taking starts".
This latter story only mentions the Supreme Court case in passing, but it is from the FT - which has more credibility with Google on banking stories than the 91Èȱ¬. No headline in the world will change that.
In fact, the top related search result on this subject for the 91Èȱ¬ is for a short-headlined video story 'Bank charged me nearly £3,000 for overdraft'. Probably because it will have been linked to far more than the main story. This ably demonstrates that more text in a headline is no substitute for other, more effective, SEO techniques - and that what is lost (good headlines) far outweighs what is gained (minimal SEO).
Yes, as mentioned, the NYT tried it - no, it didn't work for them either except in increasing visibility of archived stories, which isn't really what it's about for live search.
The first and most important target for any SEO text should always be the human reader - the one who decides what to search for, and what to click.
Ultimately, even if it worked, Google aims to reward good writing on the web, and if long-winded headlines start to reap rewards over well written ones, I think we can forecast an algorithmical tweak or two that addresses this down the line.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 25th Nov 2009, dotconnect wrote:Interesting stuff Jake.
You missed out a sentence at the end though:
"That'll be £4,800 please"
;)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 11th Dec 2009, Jessica wrote:I had to read this article twice to really understand why you are doing this. I think limiting he title under 32 characters is great. After reading your article, I quickly did Google mobile search and indeed the titles appear much shorter there. Longer titles seem to get cut off.
You guys do an amazing job not only reporting good news but also presenting it very appropriately.
~~
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 15th Dec 2009, Someone wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 21st Jan 2010, Craig Smith wrote:@SSnotbanned - I have to agree with you about 91Èȱ¬ pandering to Google's requirements with respect to SEO. Unfortunately this is a reality now for all content providers considering Google is the primary search vehicle for most Internet users.
@Jake Hadlee - disagree with you on this. Search engines are becoming increasingly sensitive to the content in the page headline and despite 91Èȱ¬ having its pages ranked highly as a reputed source, matching additional keywords as Steve suggest will get 91Èȱ¬ increased returns on search result pages.
--
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 28th Jan 2010, Karen wrote:re: ginger-feathered dinosaurs
The type of feather along the back is not Mohican but Mohawk after the native American tribe of that name who wore their hair only in a stripe along the head from front to back. This was generally to show how fierce the warriors were. The Mohicans are a tribe from Connecticut who generally gamble and play the stockmarket!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 4th Feb 2010, david wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 9th Feb 2010, Ian Hosier wrote:This comment is not about this item in particular, but about the International edition of the 91Èȱ¬ News website generally.
I am a Brit, living in Asia.
I recall seeing a few months ago a 'blog' from one of the senior 91Èȱ¬ News website staff, advising of various 'improvements' to the International version.
One stated change was especially welcome to me, namely the plan to prevent the appearance of apparently-accessible video (or other) items that were not actually available outside of the UK.
I am an avid sports fan, and it is often hard to get access here in Asia to rugby and cricket broadcasts, or even video highlights.
So, when I see them offered on the 91Èȱ¬ site, I often click on them - only to find the item comes up with 'not available in your region' tag.
I had understood that the International version of the 91Èȱ¬ News site would not be carrying such 'unavailable' items - and so would save me time trying fruitlessly to log into them.
However, having tried to watch various highlights of the weekend's 6 Nations rugby, I find that nothing has changed - the 'not available in your region' tag appearing with monotonous regularity.
When will the change be effected?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 15th Feb 2010, BluesBerry wrote:I've always had trouble getting the information I wanted using your search engine, but maybe now things will look up.
I remember searching "economy, derivatives" and getting "derivative companies fail". I wasn't worried about the companies; I was worried about countries.
Maybe I lack the ability to select good search words. Maybe it's not your search engine at all. Regardless, thanks for trying to help me out.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 17th Feb 2010, David Hayter wrote:This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 25th Feb 2010, biffagriffa wrote:Why can't we comment on the Men At Work- I come from a land down under claim? As a competent musician personally I think that Larrakin "music" are simply a business enterprise exploiting the talents of real musicians (and not the other way round).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 8th Mar 2010, Sergio Indiene wrote:They've employed a solid SEO format. Much like where they've maximized the use of keywords and keyphrases. This is by far one of the best on-page SEO works I've seen. This would not only help in search volumes but also give readers a format that is both convenient and concise.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 21st Mar 2010, Arfah Husaifah wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 6th Apr 2010, Man Ray wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 13th Apr 2010, anokhi wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 11th May 2010, Jon wrote:I think people need to understand this SEO is not 'pandering to google' but 'pandering to searchers'.
As an SEO Expert [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] who has done this kind of training with journalists (mainly print journalists) The concept of more plain spoken, vebose, less cryptic title for any piece of writing, simply allows people looking for it to find it via a search engine.
Journalists have traditionally been trained not to 'give the goods away' in the headline, and use the headline as a hook that may or may not contain the salient details of the article.
Also clever title writing often uses word plays and the like, which may be vibrant and meaningful in context or on the site, but thoroughy confuse people looking for the information out of context on a search. engine.
I thoroughly commend the 91Èȱ¬ for this approach. Even though it potentially makes it harder for me to compete against their site for 1000's of different terms.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 9th Jul 2010, Kashell Llewelyn wrote:I'd have to agree with you Jon, seeing as how many people has a misconstrued idea on how SEO works, they forget the fact that it was develop in order to better the online community, by placing the users first and providing them with quality content. You've also mentioned wordplay, which is often mistaken for keyword stuffing. Going through countless articles online, I saw a bunch of headlines that have an insane amount of keywords to the extent that humans can't understand the very essence of their titles, and the same could be said for their topics. I'm very much glad that 91Èȱ¬ has shifted to a much "User" friendly format. In my years of experience as a , site aesthetics is part of information exchange, wherein a much clearer and convenient presentation of information will attract users to read on and visit more often.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 22nd Jul 2010, John wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)