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,
-
I tried to find the other question cause i know this one has been asked before, but I think the "Good Answer" response was something like...
Google Never used these tags, some others did, but Googlebot has never, and having them these days just adds more code --- that means less code that really needs to be seen by the engines will be seen since they only crawl a certain amount of data on your site, per crawl.
And I know that a few lines of code is really negligible when it comes to site load speed and maybe even crawl amount, but removing superfluous code on your site is always a best practice in my opinion.
And this code would definitely qualify as superfluous code in my opinion
Shane
UPDATE**
Found it and the answer was staff endorsed
-
One thing i am certain you should NOT do is to put revisit-after "1 DAYS" on all pages. That could give you a punishment.
We have a sitemap where some of our pages are set to be updated monthly. However, Google visits the pages often than that.
If your site has a good structure, with a good amount of pages I think you will do fine without the tag. Especially if you have a sitemap with good and honest values for update frequency for the entries. I think it is good to have good values IF you choose to have the tag. I really can not see Google punishing you unless you have a revisit which is a lot more frequent than your actual updates on the page.
I would recommend you skipping the tag and concentrate on haveing a good sitemap, with solid values for "priority" and "changefreq".
Best regards,
Rasmus
-
Based on Google's own blog they ignore the revisit-after attribute. I'd still remove it since there's no purpose.
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
-
Site moved. Unable to index page : Noindex detected in robots meta tag?!
Hope someone can shed some light on this: We moved our smaller site (into the main site ( different domains) . The smaller site that was moved ( https://www.bluegreenrentals.com)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bgvsiteadmin
Directory where the site was moved (https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals) Each page from the old site was 301 redirected to the appropriate page under .com/rentals. But we are seeing a significant drop in rankings and traffic., as I am unable to request a change of address in Google search console (a separate issue that I can elaborate on). Lots of (301 redirect) new destination pages are not indexed. When Inspected, I got a message : Indexing allowed? No: 'index' detected in 'robots' meta tagAll pages are set as Index/follow and there are no restrictions in robots.txtHere is an example URL :https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals/resorts/colorado/innsbruck-aspen/Can someone take a look and share an opinion on this issue?Thank you!0 -
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://moz.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://moz.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
Wrong meta descriptions showing in the SERPS
We recently launched a new site on https, and I'm seeing a few errors in the SERPS with our meta descriptions as our pages are starting to get indexed. We have the correct meta data in our code but it's being output in Google differently. Example: http://imgur.com/ybqxmqg Is this just a glitch on Google's side or is there an obvious issue anyone sees that I'm missing? Thanks guys!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brian_Owens_10 -
Capitalization of first letter of each word in meta description. Catches more attention, but may this lead to google ignoring the meta description then more frequently?
Capitalization of first letter of each word in meta description. Catches more attention, but may this lead to google ignoring the meta description then more frequently? Same for an occasional capitalized FREE in meta description. Anybody had experience with this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse1 -
Faulty title, meta description and version (https instead of http) on homepage
Hi there, I am working on a client (http://minibusshuttle.com/) whose homepage is not indexed correctly by Google. In details, the title & meta description are taken from another website (http://planet55.co.uk/). In addition, homepage is indexed as https instead of http. The rest of the URIs are correctly indexed (titles, meta descriptions, http etc). planet55.co.uk used to be hosted on the same server as minibusshuttle.com and an SSL certificate was activated for that domain. I have tried several times to manually "fetch by Google" the homepage, to no avail. The rest of the pages are indexed/refreshed normally and Google responds very fast when I perform any kind of changes there. Any suggestions would be highly appreciated. Kind regards, George
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gpapatheodorou0 -
Meta-description not used at all times
Hi all We are marketing an e-commerce site and seem to have a weird issue. For some reason the clearly specified meta description is not being used in the SERPs. Had a look in the source but all tags seems to be there. The site can be found here:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Resultify
www.bangerhead.se A sample search in Google that uses the wrong info in the SERP:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enSE548SE548&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=bangerhead Any ideas to why this is? Grateful for any inputHave a nice day Fredrik0 -
Google not displaying meta description
Hi, one of my clients is receiving the following error in SERP - "A description of the page is not available because of this site's robots.txt". The site is built on WordPress and I realized that by default, the settings were checked to blocks bots from crawling the site. So, I turned it off, fixed robots.txt and submitted the sitemap again. Since, then it's been almost 10 days, the problem still exists. Can anyone tell me what should be done to fix it or if there's a way to get Google to recrawl the pages again.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mayanksaxena0 -
Not using a robot command meta tag
Hi SEOmoz peeps. Was doing some research on robot commands and found a couple major sites that are not using them. If you check out the code for these: http://www.amazon.com http://www.zappos.com http://www.zappos.com/product/7787787/color/92100 http://www.altrec.com/ You fill not find a meta robot command line. Of course you need the line for any noindex, nofollow, noarchive pages. However for pages you want crawled and indexed, is there any benefit for not having the line at all? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | STPseo0
