The irony, of course, is that a "Ronseal headline" isn’t one.

Some useful advice on how to make news websites more search-friendly.

Good practice guidelines for writing headlines and teasers for web stories.

Brian Cubbison of the Syrcuse Post-Standard takes up my challenge for an American journalist to respond to the Iain Martin’s criticism of American headline style. Must read, funny stuff.

Why do some British journalists think their way is the only way? Waiting for an American hack’s followup about Fleet Street’s gratuitous puns and inaccuracies for effect …

Err… isn’t the point that it arguably infringes the rights of teens who are *not* in gangs?

Not news, but worth repeating: "pithy, witty and provocative headlines–the pride of many an editor–are often useless and even counterproductive in getting the Web page ranked high in search engines."

Move over Britney Spears, you don’t top the most-read lists everywhere. The top story for 2007 on FT.com was an interview in which the US comptroller general drew parallels between the contemporary United States and the Roman empire.

Neil McIntosh: The report of the NUJ multimedia commission "shows a level of understanding completely absent from much of what the union has had to say about the web to date, and is a signficant step forward."

"What surprises me most though is that the Monty I knew spent as brief a time he as could actually writing anything. His ambition was to get into the editors chair as fast as possible - and he chose the fastest route. Subbing."

"[S]ubs will have to change … If Arianna Huffington was right when she described news media as having attention deficit disorder while the blogosphere was obsessive-compulsive, then we need some more obsessives around the place to keep the place tidy."

"[Usability guru Jakob Nielsen]’s thesis is that the passive voice — which is usually frowned upon by people who love good prose -— enables headline writers to "front-load" their heds with the key concepts from the story."

"Welcome to Guardian America, where programs are programmes and the Defense Department is, yes, the defence department. Inigo Thomas elegantly explains why"