Snippet problem
-
Hi there
Today I had the following question from a client
Why my pages are only listed with a title (but no snippet) in the search results. What could be the possible reason?
Can anyone help me to answer him?
Thanks
-
Are the pages blocked from crawling at all? I've seen that happen when Google can't crawl a page, but knows of it because of a followed link from elsewhere.
-
hi, they are tested, akll works fine.
-
Hi Nikos,
If you have implemented the Rich Snippets, tested them and submitted it, then it can take up to 1 month and a half or even more until the rich snippets start to show up in the search results.
If you didn't test your Rich snippets, go to your Google webmasters tools and there you will have the chance to test if you applied the snippets well.
Good luck,
Istvan
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
-
I have two robots.txt pages for www and non-www version. Will that be a problem?
There are two robots.txt pages. One for www version and another for non-www version though I have moved to the non-www version.
Technical SEO | | ramb0 -
A problem with duplicate content
I'm kind of new at this. My crawl anaylsis says that I have a problem with duplicate content. I set the site up so that web sections appear in a folder with an index page as a landing page for that section. The URL would look like: www.myweb.com/section/index.php The crawl analysis says that both that URL and its root: www.myweb.com/section/ have been indexed. So I appear to have a situation where the page has been indexed twice and is a duplicate of itself. What can I do to remedy this? And, what steps should i take to get the pages re-indexed so that this type of duplication is avoided? I hope this makes sense! Any help gratefully received. Iain
Technical SEO | | iain0 -
How do you get a Google+ pic in your SERP snippet
Hi from from 20 degrees C 83% humidity wetherby UK 🙂 A few weeks back i decided i needed to get my pretty face appearing in my serps for www.davidclick.com But after having set up a Gppgle+ account and linking my site to the Google+ account i think I may have done something wrong 😞 I linked to the Google+ page via a footer link in www.davidclick.com but alas I'm not able to get my face in my SERP which this website has: http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/zymurgy_bucket/google-plus-picJPGcopy.jpg So my question is please - "How do you get your Google+ account image to appear in the SERPS. Ta muchly,
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
David0 -
How to Activate the Review Rich Snippets
Hi! I added microdata markup to a page with 10 reviews of a type of product (e.g. red basketball shoes). I used the aggregate review microdata markup so that when you use the Google rich snippet it shows that Google "sees" the rich snippet data for an average of 4 stars for 10 reviews. But when I search for the phrase, the search result doesn't show the review rich snippet. Do you have an idea why this is? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs0 -
How long to reverse the benefits/problems of a rel=canonical
If this wasn't so serious an issue it would be funny.... Long store cut short, a client had a penalty on their website so they decided to stop using the .com and use the .co.uk instead. They got the .com removed from Google using webmaster tools (it had to be as it was ranking for a trade mark they didn't own and there are legal arguments about it) They launched a brand new website and placed it on both domains with all seo being done on the .co.uk. The web developer was then meant to put the rel=canonical on the .com pointing to the .co.uk (maybe not needed at all thinking about it, if they had deindexed the site anyway). However he managed to rel=canonical from the good .co.,uk to the ,com domain! Maybe I should have noticed it earlier but you shouldn't have to double check others' work! I noticed it today after a good 6 weeks or so. We are having a nightmare to rank the .co.uk for terms which should be pretty easy to rank for given it's a decent domain. Would people say that the rel=canonical back to the .com has harmed the co.uk and is harming with while the tag remains in place? I'm off the opinion that it's basically telling google that the co.uk domain is a copy of the .com so go rank that instead. If so, how quickly after removing this tag would people expect any issues caused by it's placement to vanish? Thanks for any views on this. I've now the fun job of double checking all the coding done by that web developer on other sites!
Technical SEO | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
SEO problem if homepage is 2 folders deep?
We are currently looking at a site for a client, where instead of featuring standard file structure, every folder is being buried two folders deep by the CMS. So the homepage is: www.domain.com.au/folder/folder And a subpage is: www.domain.com.au/folder/folder/subpage Is this necessarily and SEO problem? Will it be positive for rankings to pull out the two redundant folders? Any insights are appreciated! Cheers
Technical SEO | | MarketingResults0 -
Advice on strange URL problem
I'm considering doing some pro bono work for a local non-profit and upon initial review they have a number of serious issues but there is one in particular I'd like to check my thinking on. The developer who set up the site some years ago implemented a javascript redirect on their root domain so that it redirects to: http://domain.com/wordpress This is wrong for all kinds of reasons and I want to recommend eliminating this redirect and getting rid of the 'wordpress' part of the path altogether. However, the site is quite established with good PR and they would take a hit by changing the path. I'd do 301 redirects to the new URLs that would not have 'wordpress' in the path in addition to other remediation. My question - is my thinking here good? It's worth it, right? The other option is just get rid of the weird redirect and keep 'wordpress' in the path but this seems unacceptable to me. Any opinions?
Technical SEO | | friendlymachine0 -
Will using hidden divs cause me problems?
The developers want to use hidden divs to display links to each page of our photo gallery from the first page to Google but only previous and next buttons to users. Will this be a problem? Is it the best solution?
Technical SEO | | GriffinHansen0