Unfamiliar Meta Description Tags
-
I'm working with a client who uses a CMS which loads meta tags into their site through its backend. On-page I see this in the source:
-
Hi There
Any luck with this? What CMS are you using? Most CMS's allow editing of this sort of thing. If not, as others have suggested you could see if the descriptions show up in something like Screaming Frog or even just a simple header checker like http://urivalet.com/
-
When you say you see that on-page, do you mean when you look at the source inside the CMS, or on the actual webpage?
If it is the CMS, I agree, don't worry about it. When I first started with the CMS I am using now, I got very upset when I saw image links that looked like this: src="~/media/46166ADB93F248DDB7AF5C6CC8BD479C.ashx
I wanted easy-to-read links with appropriate keywords!
After wasting most of a day working on "fixing" them, I found out that once you get to the actual live webpage, everything looked fine. So I had to spend the better part of another day changing them back. [That is what you get for messing with objects.]
-
Mike, the added id=ctl08_hm content is appended by the CMS it seems. It's not a choice made by the client or myself
-
Hello,
You should still be able to access the page to figure out the meta description that has been officially entered. Also, was that an example? Why would your meta description be id=ctl08_hm?
Thanks,
- Mike
-
As far as you also include the name="description" and its value in the "content" attribute, having an ID on a Meta Tag won't probably avoid it from being correctly read by Google althought it is not W3C compliant. According to HTML specification, the meta element cannot have that ID attribute: The only valid attributes for meta tags are:
- name = name [CS]
This attribute identifies a property name. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute. - content = cdata [CS]
This attribute specifies a property's value. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute. - scheme = cdata [CS]
This attribute names a scheme to be used to interpret the property's value (see the section on profiles for details). - http-equiv = name [CI]
This attribute may be used in place of the name attribute. HTTP servers use this attribute to gather information for HTTP response message headers.
Also, you can include:
lang (language information), dir (text direction)Do you know why do you include that ID and how to remove it if it has no use?
- name = name [CS]
-
It looks like the added portion is going to prevent recognition for the overall meta description tag. Is this a custom tag being used to identify products / pages internally to the CMS? For meta description, you'll want to use the syntax:
-
Hi there
I would search the page in Google and see if the meta description is reflection. I would also make sure that ScreamingFrog is seeing those as well.
I have had clients that used this and it worked, so I wouldn't be too concerned. But I would definitely search and see if it appears. If it doesn't, I would go with the standard method of implementation.
Hope this helps! Good luck!
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
"No Meta Description Tag"
Google is not showing Meta Description for the Keyword Rankings of my website in the SERPs. All of my Keywords Ranking are coming with just two fields. Which are just 1. Title Tag & 2. Page URL. The description tag is missing in it. Here is a proof Kindly advice please.
Technical SEO | | seobac1 -
Meta Descriptions
Hi All, Just a quick question regarding Meta Descriptions, I am currently looking at a site where an awful lot of the Meta descriptions are similar (not 100% duplicated). The reason being is that the site contains a lot of the same products, but different weights. For example a 500g, 1kg & 2kg version of the same product. Therefore the Metas are same, apart from the weight that's being discussed. In my opinion the duplication is probably a little too close. Do you think in this circumstance its better to have no Meta descriptions defined at all? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | CarlWint0 -
Very strange: META descriptions not showing
Hello, Since Panda 4.0 has been launched, all of my optimized META description have been gone in Google.
Technical SEO | | MarcelMoz
A while ago, I posted a question about this problem here: http://moz.com/community/q/all-meta-descriptions-gone. I know about Google's own will to decide which META description will be shown. And also about unique content of the descriptions. All pages did have an optimized description before Panda 4.0 and there were no troubles at all, what tells me there is something else going on. I tested some things: Rewrote 50 descriptions to very uinique ones, only five got indexed. This tells me that duplicate content of the descriptions is not the problem (they have never been 100% duplicate, product type was a variable which was always different for each page). Removed cache in GWT and fetched again as Google, didn't help. I checked the pages I tested and they all have been indexed again without showing the optimized descriptions. More information: The first time I changed some META descriptions and fetched the pages again in GWT, Google picked up my new META descriptions and showed them. A few days later, most of them disappeared again (so Google is aware of the description but seems to ignore it). Some pages show the optimized description when I change my search query (only a few, mostly the optimized description never got shown) Technique is ok. Source code shows the right optimized description. META robots isn't blocking anything except NOODP/NOYDIR (always has blocked those). Websites using the exact same CMS, website template, META descriptions (style and build-up), do not have these problems I compared elements like place of description in source code, usage of meta robots, og:description, crawl-delay in robots.txt, and special characters in descriptions between websites that are showing optimized vs. website that don't show optimized descriptions. I can't find any connection. Something I noticed is a change is my Robots.txt file: my webmaster has added the following command:
Crawl-delay: 2 May this have to do with my problem? I guess it doens't. I did some research and there are more websites that are suffering this problem beside mine. This tells me it must be Google (and so Panda 4.0) that is responsible for this change. I realy want my optimized descriptions back. Does anybody have an idea what to do?
Thanks in advance. Marcel0 -
Need for a modified meta-description every page for paginated content?
I'm currently working on a site, where there url structure which is something like: www.domain.com/catagory?page=4. With ~15 results per page. The pages all canonical to www.domain.com/catagory, with rel next and rel prev to www.domain.com/catagory?page=5 and www.domain.com/catagory?page=3 Webmaster tools flags these all as duplicate meta descriptions, So I wondered if there is value in appending the page number to the end of the description, (as we have with the title for the same reason) or if I am using a sub-optimal url structure. Any advice?
Technical SEO | | My-Favourite-Holiday-Cottages0 -
Canoical tags how do i use them
Hi i have this coming up on the report for my url www.in2town.co.uk but i am not sure how to use the canonical tag. I am using joomla and would be grateful if anyone could please give me advice on how to use this. Canonical URL Tag Usage Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>0</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.</dd> <dd>many thanks for your help
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-184886
</dd> </dl>0 -
Google description showing latest post excerpt
In doing a search for our website, The Tech Block, I realized that our description is not showing what we have in our Yoast settings, but rather the content from the slider: http://d.pr/i/kGjB What can I do to fix this?
Technical SEO | | ttb0 -
Best Implementation of a Title Tag
If My Targeted keyword are: Mussoorie Hotels Hotels in Mussoorie Mussoorie Resorts Resorts in Mussoorie What of the below 3 will be the best Title Tag After Panda and Penguine ? Hotels and Resorts in Mussoorie Mussoorie Hotels | Mussoorie Resorts | Luxury Budget & Economical Accommodation in Mussoorie Mussoorie Hotels, Mussoorie Resorts, Hotels in Mussoorie, Resorts in Musoorie please suggest!
Technical SEO | | WildHawk0 -
Img before or after h1 tag?
I like images to align right at top of content page. img tag before h1 tag looks better on page, but wondering if h1 tag before img tag is preferred by spider. Irrelevant? or possibly matters? thanks for any thoughts.
Technical SEO | | jotham2
All about Stuff or All about Stuff or even
All about Stuff0