Lewis - I should probably go read the source article before I post a comment, but I for one really hate to see the witty headers go. Obviously, if the point is to get found in a search engine, it doesn't pay to be cute, but perhaps something that combines a literal headline with something a bit more creative would work.

Maureen,

I think we can be both witty and add touches of literal meaning within our headlines.

On my blog I use tags to extend my headlines. Since writing extended headlines and adding tags, my daily visitor count has tripled.

For me, it is more important to capture readers than to be witty. But both are possible for those wanting to spend extra time with their posts.

Lewis -- I came *this close* to changing the headline of this post to "It's the Headline, Stupid (Especially When Writing for a Web Audience) and Most Especially When You Want the Wonderfully Talented and Smart Search Engine Folks Who Work at Google and Yahoo and the Like to Rank Your Post (Free Sex!)"

(OK -- so it's not descriptive at all. But I thought it might draw some attention.)

I have a love-hate relationship with this issue. On the one hand, I know Lewis is correct: Direct and literal wins the search engine game, which ultimately brings you more readers. My problem with that strategy is... it's just not fun.

Ann,

Thank you for stopping yourself from using that headline.

You are right! It is harder to write a headline for the web and still attract readers. The good thing for you is that you run multiple posts so only one headline a day needs to get the search engine running. Assuming readers who find MP, view the other posts.

Lewis this is an issue I'm really trying to focus on this year in my blogging. I think the perfect headline is one that gets the reader's attention, gives them an actual idea of what the post/article is about, yet still makes Google happy. Very hard to do. I think if push comes to shove, write for your audience, not Google.

This is something I've resisted myself. I think I'd rather get my readers interested and curious about the content of the post than worry about the SEO algorithms. But I do use tagging too, so perhaps that helps. I'll think about making colons my friends and adding subtitles to clarify the cryptic and witty headlines. It's definitely a balancing act.

Mack and Nedra,

I agree: We should write first for our readers. However, I want to reach new readers, as well, so I pay attention to search engines and to Digg. This makes headline writing more difficult, but not impossible. I do think we can achieve both objectives.

Great post and resource (just read the piece Lewis). I'm guilty of witty (will likely always be) but I'll work to get a bit more point across in my headlines...but for my audience (not Google). Perhaps I should care more about rankings, eh?

I freely admit I've always been a sucker for a catchy headline - descriptive or not - and I wouldn't be upset about its lack of descriptiveness as long as there was a point to it. Still, as long as Google search uses algorithms that take account of headlines, it must be considered before deciding on one.

BTW -- dontcha love the CNET headline of the story Lewis references:

"Newspapers search for Web headline magic."

Yawn. Doesn't get much more straightforward than THAT...does it? (I am sure there was an editor there somewhere just itching to label it something entirely more creative and interesting....)

Ann,

I read CNET everyday, and their headlines stink. But headline writing seems a lost art based on my experiences with several daily newspapers.

I'm torn on this subject too, and usually opt for the headline that tells the story.

But i also make a point of SEO in my posts and I think that makes a big difference in rankings.

And tags help, but I'm not 100% sure how much.

This blog doesn't use them at all, and yet it's had a meteoric rise because of good, varied, and frequently updated content.

And, of course, our great editor. :>)