Incorrect Spelling Indexed In Meta Info - Can't Change It
-
Hi,It would be great if a member of the community could help me to resolve this issue.Google is indexing an incorrect spelling on of our key pages and we can't identify the reason why.- The page in question: https://newbridgesilverware.com/jewelleryAs you can see from the attached image, the Meta Title is rendered to contain the keyword "jewelry" (the American spelling.) We want this to read as "jewellery" - the British-English spelling. Yet in the page source the word is given in the meta title as "jewellery". Nowhere in the page source or on the page itself does the American spelling appear - yet Google still renders it in the Meta Title.Can anyone identify why this is happening and offer any possible solutions?Much appreciated
-
Hi John,
could you please give us a feedback and tell if any of the suggestions the community offered to you was of help?
Thank you.
-
Did you implemented the hreflang annotation using the sitemaps.xml methodology?
I'm asking because in this page https://newbridgesilverware.com/jewellery I don't see any hreflang in the code.
Another question... you're talking about a version for UK/IE and one version for the US, but I see only one site and sub folders like it could be /us/ for the United States ecommerce version.
So... are you dynamically changing the content (included meta titles) depending on user IP?
Because if it is so, then the hreflang doesn't work at all and you should, instead, check out this help page by Google https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6144055?hl=en, which is about Locale-aware crawling by Googlebot.
However, to be totally sincere, that Google is advising in red in that same page this: We continue to support and recommend using separate locale URL configurations and annotating them with rel=alternate hreflang annotations... makes me recommend you to forget dynamic serving and create two separate versions of your ecommerce and, once done, implement the hreflang annotations.
-
Just a bump on this one.
We added Href Lang Tags last week (one unique to the US, one that would appear only to those in the UK & Ireland) and had the site recrawled and reindexed, but this issue is still appearing with the American spelling appearing in the Meta Info in Google's index - despite being present nowhere on the page or the page source.
Anyone have any ideas on possible resolutions to this one?
-
Hi Logan,
No, this is the only page with dynamic content causing an issue.
The US is one of the key markets, alongside the UK & Ireland so unfortunately dynamic content like this would be ideal.
No target country is set, but I will put this suggestion to the team. Thanks.
-
Are there other pages that have dynamic content based on location? If this is the only one, this is probably too big of a project for such a small problem.
Are you targeting the US market as well? If you're only looking to market to UK/Ireland, you might just want to take out that dynamic content.
Have you set a location for your site in Search Console? Doing so might help Google better understand your site and shift the meta data for UK/Ireland properly.
-
Hi Logan,
Many thanks for your suggestion, I will put that to the team.
The only differences in content will be the spelling of jewelry vs jewellery. This is already the case, throughout the page.
On Google, both the meta description and the URL are correctly displaying as "jewellery" as it should for the UK & Ireland. The issue with the US spelling is only impacting the Page Title itself...
-
In that case, you might have some difficulties getting this resolved. What's seems to be happening is Google is finding your US version and indexing those regardless of location. If you want to serve different content based on location, there should be a unique URL for each country. You can then specify to each version of Google (.com, .ie, or .co.uk) with hreflang tags which URL should be in which index. I'm not exactly sure how you're swapping out the meta data, but it seems like Google is only acknowledging your US versions.
-
Hi Alick,
Many thanks for your response.
Are you based in the USA? What I should have mentioned is that the website was built for Meta Information to be inputted for both US and UK & Ireland audiences.
So any searches from the US should infact render jewelry, whereas from my location (in Ireland), it should render jewellery. When I check the source code, there is only the jewellery spelling and no appearances of jewelry at all within the source code.
-
Hi Logan,
Are you based in the USA? What I should have mentioned is that the website was built for Meta Information to be inputted for both US and UK & Ireland audiences.
So any searches from the US should infact render jewelry, whereas from my location (in Ireland), it should render jewellery. When I check the source code, there is only the jewellery spelling and no appearances of jewelry at all within the source code.
-
As Alick pointed out in his screenshot, the title tag does use the American spelling, 'Jewelry'. Google will not correct what they show in SERPs until they're provided with something different. When searching the source code, I also found 15 other instances of the American spelling on your site, which mostly appear in the navigation. I'd recommend changing the navigation links to reflect this as well
-
Hi,
Google cached version showing that 'Jewelry' used in meta title (6th may 2017). It will be fixed when Google crawl your page again. I'm also attaching cached version image.
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
-
Why isn't the canonical tag on my client's Magento site working?
The reason for this mights be obvious to the right observer, but somehow I'm not able to spot the reason why. The situation:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
I'm doing an SEO-audit for a client. When I'm checking if the rel=canonical tag is in place correctly, it seems like it: view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15) (line nr 15) Anyone seing something wrong with this canonical? When I perform a site:http://quickplay.no/ search, I find that there's many url's indexed that ought to have been picked up by the canonical-tag: (see picture) ..this for example view-source:http://quickplay.no/fotball-mal.html?limit=15 I really can't see why this page is getting indexed, when the canonical-tag is in place. Anybody who can? Sincerely 🙂 GMdWg0K0 -
Can Google index PDFs with flash?
Does anyone know if Google can index PDF with Flash embedded? I would assume that the regular flash recommendations are still valid, even when embedded in another document. I would assume there is a list of the filetype and version which Google can index with the search appliance, but was not able to find any. Does anyone have a link or a list?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andreas.wpv0 -
How to make an AJAX site crawlable when PushState and #! can't be used?
Dear Mozzers, Does anyone know a solution to make an AJAX site crawlable if: 1. You can't make use of #! (with HTML snapshots) due to tracking in Analytics 2. PushState can't be implemented Could it be a solution to create two versions of each page (one without #!, so campaigns can be tracked in Analytics & one with #! which will be presented to Google)? Or is there another magical solution that works as well? Any input or advice is highly appreciated! Kind regards, Peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ConversionMob0 -
Can literally any site get 'burned'?
Just curious what people think. The SEOMOZ trust on my site has gone up, all while Google is dropping us in rankings for lots of keywords. Just curious if this can happen to anyone or once you are 100% 'trusted' you're good. We went from 120,000 page views down to about 50,000. All while doubling content, improving the design(at least from a user perspective), and getting more natural links. Seems counter intuitive to Google's mantra of ranking quality. I would guess 'authority' sites never get hit by these updates right? So when you make it you've made it.(at least from a dropping like a rock perspective, obviously you have to keep working). I'm guessing we just need a bunch more quality links but would hate to work on building links, quality content, trust etc for it to be something so finicky long term.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | astahl110 -
Meta Revisit?
Hi there, We have just migrated to a new website with a new design etc and I have noticed that we now have this code on our website: From my understanding this is telling search engines to come back to your website in 10 days time to crawl the website? I'm sure I have read on serveral occasions that you should not does this and let search engines crawl your site when it see's fit to do so? Hope someone can help me out on this Kind Regards,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
How often do you refresh meta descriptions? And does refreshing meta descriptions help in ranking?
1. And does refreshing meta descriptions help in ranking? 2. How often do you refresh meta descriptions? I am not sure whether it's a new feature, but I noticed this little time stamp on one of the search results, it says 1 day ago, and the website ranked quite high. So is there any correlation here? o4JIw.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robotseo0 -
Google sees redirect when there isn't any?
I've posted a question previously regarding the very strange changes in our search positions here http://www.seomoz.org/q/different-pages-ranking-for-search-terms-often-irrelevant New strange thing I've noticed - and very disturbing thing - seems like Google has somehow glued two pages together. Or, in other words, looks like Google sees a 301 redirect from one page to another. This, actually, happened to several pages, I'll illustrate it with our Flash templates page. URL: http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | templatemonster
Has been #3 for 'Flash templates' in Google. Reasons why it looks like redirect:
Reason #1
Now this http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php page is ranking instead of http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Also, http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php is not in the index.
That what would typically happen if you had 301 from Flash templates to logo templates page. Reason #2
If you search for cache:http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php Google will give the cahced version of http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php!!!
If you search for info:www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php you again get info on http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php instead! Reason #3
In Google Webmaster Tools when I look for the external links to http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php I see all the links from different sites, which actually point to http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php listed as "Via this intermediate link: http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php" As I understand Google makes this "via intermediate link" when there's a redirect? That way, currently Google thinks that all the external links we have for Flash templates are actually pointing to Logo templates? The point is we NEVER had any kind of redirect from http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php to http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php I've seen several similar situations on Google Help forums but they were never resolved. So, I wonder if anybody can explain how that could have happened, and what can be done to solve that problem?0 -
Any ideas for capturing keywords that your client rejects because they aren't politically correct?
Here's the scenario: you need to capture a search phrase that is very widely used in common search, but the term is considered antiquated, overly vernacular, insensitive or outright offensive within the client's industry. In this case, searchers overwhelmingly look for "nursing homes," but the term has too many negative connotations to the client's customers, so they won't use it on-page. Some obvious thoughts are to build IBLs or write an op-ed/blog series about why the term is offensive. Any other ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jeremy_FP1