[user24]

> But the point of SEO is to make content accessible in the long-tail

It shouldn't be the job of editors to second guess search engines. A search engine that doesn't give you my article about the home team winning the superbowl because I titled it "YES! FINALLY!" is a poor search engine (all other things being equal).

The point is that content is compromised by the all-too-widespread practice of making sure our content is accessible to machines first, and humans second.

If the home team win the superbowl, I want to say "YES! FINALLY!" without fear of losing audience.

In today's internet, I have to say "Home team win Superbowl 2013 sports news football usa teams stats"

[danso]

You can do both, of course, with the use of metatags.

But that point aside, it is the editor's job to second guess things, as you say. By writing a headline, an editor is implicitly saying, just in case you don't get to reading every story on this page, here's a 10 to 100 word summary of what it's about. The difference here is the medium...the print page makes it easy to convey meaning through design and photos. A search engine does not. And unless you want your search result pages to look like Myspace, I think it's important for the metadata to convey actual meaning that doesn't require the context (I.e. Buying a back issue of the newspaper) for it to make sense

[user24]

> You can do both, of course, with the use of metatags.

says who? How do you know how Google works? Do they pay attention to metatags any more? Even if we knew they did, the rest of the algorithm is deliberately mysterious to the point that if Site A is ranking higher than Site B, and Site A happens to have more descriptive titles, Site B will start copying that style in the name of "SEO" and you're back to square one. Metatags indeed.

> it is the editor's job to second guess things

That's not what I said. I said it's not the job of editors to second guess search engines.

I think the theory of headlines goes far beyond "here's a summary".