Should you really limit the length of title tags to 60 characters?

Why does this statement challenge a well-established SEO rule?

For years, the industry has hammered home the famous rule of 60 characters maximum for title tags. This recommendation stemmed from a simple observation: beyond that, Google truncates the display in the SERPs with ellipses. The logic seemed irrefutable — if the title gets cut off, why bother writing what won't be seen?

Gary Illyes breaks this dogma by asserting that there is value in exceeding this display limit. Practically, this means that Google reads and considers the entire title, even the invisible part. The engine does not stop at what it shows to the user — it analyzes the complete title to understand the topic of the page and determine its relevance to queries.

What is the difference between display and indexing of the title?

The display in snippets responds to user interface constraints: readability, available space on desktop and mobile, variable length depending on character width. Google dynamically adjusts this truncation — a title with "i" and "l" takes up less space than a title packed with "W" and "M".

Indexing, on the other hand, works differently. The engine parses the HTML code, extracts the <title> tag in full, and integrates it into its semantic understanding system. A 120-character title that specifies "complete guide 2023 with case studies, templates, and checklist" provides more signal than a generic 50-character title. The fact that "templates and checklist" is visually truncated does not prevent Google from knowing that the page contains those resources.

Where is the balance between accuracy and readability?

Gary Illyes intentionally gives no precise number. Neither a lower limit nor a higher ceiling. His advice boils down to two words: "precise and relevant." This is frustrating for those looking for a simple rule, but it aligns with Google's current approach that rejects binary metrics.

In practice, a 200-character title resembles spam more than precision. A 40-character title on a complex technical page likely misses the opportunity to qualify the content. The balance lies somewhere between these extremes, but varies depending on the type of page: an e-commerce product page tolerates a longer title (with brand, model, color, size) than a blog article where the hook is paramount.

• Google reads and indexes the entire title tag, even beyond the visible display area
• The ~60 character limit pertains to SERP display, not the engine's semantic analysis
• A longer title can provide more relevance signal if every word is justified
• The absence of a strict limit does not mean writing titles of 150 words
• The priority remains accuracy of the title in relation to the actual content of the page

Is this position consistent with field observations?

Yes, and it is one of the rare cases where Google’s official discourse aligns with what A/B tests have shown for a long time. Dozens of experiments have compared optimized short titles versus longer, more descriptive titles. The result: on long-tail queries and specialized content, the lengthened titles often outperformed, despite visual truncation.

The problem is that the industry has confused CTR optimization with ranking optimization. A short and punchy title can indeed improve the click-through rate when the page is already ranked. But to rank on specific queries, a title containing the semantic nuances of the content sends a stronger signal to the engine. Google has never stated that only the first 60 characters mattered for ranking — that idea was an extrapolation.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

Gary Illyes remains intentionally vague on thresholds. "There is value" does not mean "value is linear." A relevant 80-character title likely brings more value than a 50-character generic title. A 180-character title stuffed with keywords will look like keyword stuffing, even if Google technically reads it entirely. [To be verified]: is there a point of diminishing returns where additional signals become negligible or counterproductive?

Second nuance: display impacts user experience, thus indirectly affects SEO. A clumsily truncated title ("Buy black men's running shoes tai...") degrades CTR, which can harm behavioral signals. A long title should therefore be structured to keep the visible part intelligible and engaging, even if the rest provides additional context.

In what situations does this freedom on length pose problems?

On sites with automated templates generating thousands of titles, there is a temptation to stack all available attributes: category + subcategory + brand + model + color + size + promotion + delivery. The result: unreadable and repetitive titles of 140 characters. Google can then decide to rewrite them entirely, and that's when you lose control.

A frequently observed case: Google replaces a title that is too long with an H1 or a snippet of text that seems more relevant for the query. Paradoxically, wanting to say too much can lead to losing control entirely. The absence of a strict limit does not exempt one from editorial logic.

What should you do practically with this information?

Start by auditing your current titles: how many are less than 50 characters? How many exceed 70? For those that are short, ask yourself if they could be enriched with useful qualifiers (year, format, level, location, type) without falling into stuffing. For those that are long, ensure that each word adds meaning — if you can remove three words without losing information, they were superfluous.

Next, structure your titles with a priority logic. Place the main keywords and the hook in the first 55 characters — that’s the visible area on most devices. Use the following part to add semantic specifications: context, qualifiers, differentiation. For example: "Advanced technical SEO training — 12 modules, certificate, lifetime access." The first 35 characters grab attention, and the rest reinforce relevance.

What mistakes should be avoided now that we know there’s no strict limit?

Error #1: thinking you are allowed to write complete sentences in the title. A 180-character title with subject-verb-complement is always a bad idea. Google values precision, not prose. A good title remains a structured sequence of keywords, not an article introduction.

Error #2: duplicating content between the title and meta description thinking it maximizes impact. If your title is 95 characters and your description uses the same terms, you miss the opportunity to cover more semantic ground. Title and description should be complementary, not redundant.

How to ensure your titles take advantage of this flexibility without degrading the experience?

Test the actual display in SERPs using simulation tools like Portent's SERP Snippet Optimizer or Mangools' SERP Preview Tool. Check that truncation occurs at an acceptable point — avoid cuts in the middle of a word or just before key information.

Measure the impact on CTR with server-side A/B tests if your traffic volume allows it. Change titles on a sample of similar pages, wait 2-3 weeks to smooth variations, compare organic CTR in Search Console. If the CTR drops despite a longer and more precise title, it indicates that truncation harms attractiveness — adjust the structure.

• Place main keywords in the first 55 characters to ensure visibility
• Enhance the subsequent part with relevant semantic qualifiers (format, level, year, specificity)
• Avoid repetition between title and meta description — aim for complementarity
• Test mobile display as a priority, where space is even more constrained
• Regularly audit titles rewritten automatically by Google in the SERPs (Search Console > Performance > filter by page)
• Limit special characters and symbols that take up more visual space than classic letters