Replace title commas ( , ) with dash ( - ) and ( | ) May cause Drop in Google?

Recently , last week , i replace in all my titles the commas , with dashes - and | .

But today i notice massive drop on my main keywords ! !

This is maybe of the REPLACE i made on my title commas ? or maybe just an update of Google’s algorythm and soon my results will come back ?

[FONT=verdana]Nobody can answer this for sure, but I think it is highly unlikely that simply changing commas to dashes or pipes would cause a “massive drop” in your rankings.

But why not test it for yourself? Change some of the pages back again, and see what happens.

Mike[/FONT]

Thank you for your quick responce .

Shold i wait another day to see if my results back to normal or to reolace them straight away .

I cant understand the drop i had as this one was the only change i have done the last 10 days .

[FONT=verdana]There’s no point in waiting. Put the titles to back to what they were before, and then see what happens. Personally, I don’t think it will make any difference, but it should still be the first thing to try.

I cant understand the drop i had as this one was the only change i have done the last 10 days .

Much of the time, sudden drops (or rises) in rankings are not caused by changes you make to the site. They might be caused by changes to external links, or changes to Google’s algorithms, or the arrival of new competitors, or many other factors. That’s why I think the changes you made to your titles are not likely to be significant. It’s more likely that the drop you saw is caused by factors outside your control.

Mike

[/FONT]

I get the impression that the Googled old page is no longer available and the new page takes time before it is discovered and added to the Google index.

Maybe try this although all your pages should have a caononical link

// Old “comma” with New “dashes” page



<link href="http://www.yoursite.com/new-page-with-commas.html" rel="canonical" />


Google will hopefully acknowledge the canonical link and update their database.

Google “canonical headers” for further information.

Shold i wait another day to see if my results back to normal or to reolace them straight away .

I would wait far longer than a day to expect any changes to be noticed.

I’ve never used canonical links but aren’t they for sets of pages that are the same? The purpose would be totell SE to only index one of them since they are similar. In this case, the old page is gone so what good is the canonical link?

I’ve changed titles in the past and had a temporary drop in rankings. I would recommend making the title change and getting your titles the way you want them. Even though your pages may shift around a little as google adjusts from the change, you shouldn’t have to worry about any big changes if you’re only changing symbols around.

[FONT=verdana]I agree with WebEminence. Canonical tags are not appropriate in this case. I can see no point at all in creating a second set of pages and setting a canonical link from one to the other.

Either put the titles back to where they were before, and leave it at that. Or, better, remove all unecessary punctuation from the titles (commas, dashes, whatever). But don’t confuse the issue by creating a whole new set of pages.

Mike[/FONT]

Hi There,

Yes, special characters in tags or even in URL’s wastes character space. We can use a proper and natural sentence by utilizing character space. It is also readable and makes more sense.

Google has been doing alot of updates lately and alot of sites are bouncing all over the place. I have had sites on page 11 disappear all together and reappear 24 hours later. I had a site drop from page 8 to page 22 and back to page 10 all in a weeks time. Sometimes you have to wait it out and see what happens.

Yes and I have also noticed that Google does not have a sense of humour or has taken umbrage about my jokes to penguins :slight_smile:

Yes, I have noticed exactly the same thing. It’s google making updates and sites are bouncing all over the place… It’s really annoying sometimes.
<snip>