Rich Snippet Date Removal
-
Hey Mozzers,
I'm having a real problem getting some rich snippet data to go away! Normally i'm all for it, but in this case it's giving our department page a video rich snippet and also a really super old date (i'm not sure if this is connected with the video rich snippet, but it showed up at the same time).
The SERP is here: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pool+table&pws=0&hl=en&num=10
We are 3rd for our page http://www.libertygames.co.uk/store/pool_tables/
I can't find the date Google is using anywhere on the page, in the headers or file dates or anything. I've even removed the video markup and removed the page from the video sitemap, the rich snippet testing tool confirms this : http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertygames.co.uk%2Fstore%2Fpool_tables%2F
Does anyone have any ideas why this might be showing up or if there is a way to speed up getting it off there and our old meta description back? I'm pretty sure it's killing our click-throughs.
Thanks in advance,
Stuart
-
Hi Phil,
Yeah fair point re the publisher tag, but like you say there is a lot of debate about exactly how to implement it, but i'll definitely try and refine it's use if I can.
Cheers for the video advice, i'll keep working on it.
Stu
-
Hi Stu,
Apologies - I assumed this was author and didn't check for the publisher mark-up.
I appreciate this is a bit of a hot topic and truly nobody has a great answer right now - but I don't think rel="publisher" should be used for anything that isn't in some sense journalistic. Category pages, product pages, home pages etc aren't really authored by an organisation - but, for example, "the beginners guide to SEO" on Moz absolutely is and should have the rel="publisher" mark-up attributed. Essentially - I'd define it as "collaborative content" where there's more than one author.
However, I'll back track on my previous point - I don't think your implementation here will be causing you issues, though all the video points remain.
Cheers,
Phil
-
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your response - and also your awesome talk at BrightonSEO
- as far as the authorship markup is concerned we shouldn't have authorship markup on that page but we should have publisher markup, should that really only be on the homepage then? I've read a few different things about it (we put it on all pages as technically we are the publishers of all the pages on the site).
As for the video, i'll try what you suggested, I don't mind the video itself being there it's more the date in 2007 that makes the content look way older than it actually is! But yeah thanks for the advice, i'll keep at it!
Stu
-
First thing to say is that this might be really tricky. I've previous come across several instances of Google basically not removing video snippets - even when videos are removed from the page and the content is completely refreshed.. it seems like, right now, once you've got a video indexed, it's hard to get that removed.
The other thing to suggest is that your authorship mark-up is pretty spammy and not appropriate. "Liberty Games" are not an author and shouldn't be getting that snippet - so I can imagine image recognition seeing that your thumbnail isn't a human face and therefore choosing to ignore this implementation and provide the video instead consistently.
In terms of removing the video result - you basically want to refresh and resubmit everything so Google recrawls and reindexes. Resubmit your Video sitemap, make some adjustments on the page (including removing the video) then resubmit that via GWMT. No guarantees though unfortunately, as I mentioned - this can be a tough one!
-
Hey,
We do have a video sitemap, but that video isn't listed in it
Maybe i'll change the code and rename the video, see if that does it and then give the obfuscator a go...
-
Hmm odd. You don't have a video sitemap set up do you?
You can try encrypting or obfuscating the code that displays the video in order to hide it from G.
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
-
SERPs started showing the incorrect date next to my pages
Hi Moz friends, I've noticed since Tuesday, November 9, half of my post's meta dates have changed in regards to what appears next to the post in the search results. Although published this year, I'm getting some saying a random date in 2010! (The domain was born in 2013; which makes this even more odd). This is harming the CTR of my posts and traffic is decreasing. Some posts have gone from 200 hits a day to merely 30. As far as on our end of the website, we have not made any changes in regards to schema markup, rich snippets, etc. We have not edited any post dates. We have actually not added new content since about a week ago, and these incorrect dates have just started to appear on Tuesday. Only changes have been updating certain plugins in terms of maintenance. This is occurring on four of our websites now, so it is not just specific to one. All websites use Wordpress and Genesis theme. It looks like only half of the posts are showing weird dates we've never seen before (far off from the original published date as well as last updated date -- again, dates like 2010, 2011, and 2012 when none of our websites were even created until 2013). We cannot think of a correlation as to why certain posts are showing weird dates and others the correct. The only change we can think of that's related is back in June we changed our posts to show Last Updated date to give our readers an insight into when we changed it last (since it's evergreen content). Google started to use that date for the SERPs which was great, it actually increased traffic. I'm hoping it's a glitch and a recrawl soon may help sift it around. Anybody have experience with this? I've noticed Google fluctuates between showing our last updated date or not even showing a date at all sometimes at random. We're super confused here. Thank you in advance!
Technical SEO | | smmour2 -
Removing a canonical tag from Pagination pages
Hello, Currently on our site we have the rel=prev/next markup for pagination along with a self pointing canonical via the Yoast Plugin. However, on page 2 of our paginated series, (there's only 2 pages currently), the canonical points to page one, rather than page 2. My understanding is that if you use a canonical on paginated pages it should point to a viewall page as opposed to page one. I also believe that you don't need to use both a canonical and the rel=prev/next markup, one or the other will do. As we use the markup I wanted to get rid of the canonical, would this be correct? For those who use the Yoast Plugin have you managed to get that to work? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | jessicarcf0 -
Toxic Link Removal
Greetings Moz Community: Recently I received an site audit from a MOZ certified SEO firm. The audit concluded that technically the site did not have major problems (unique content, good architecture). But the audit identified a high number of toxic links. Out of 1,300 links approximately 40% were classified as suspicious, 55% as toxic and 5% as healthy. After identifying the specific toxic links, the SEO firm wants to make a Google disavow request, then manually request that the links be removed, and then make final disavow request of Google for the removal of remaining bad links. They believe that they can get about 60% of the bad links removed. Only after the removal process is complete do they think it would be appropriate to start building new links. Is there a risk that this strategy will result in a drop of traffic with so many links removed (even if they are bad)? For me (and I am a novice) it would seem more prudent to build links at the same time that toxic links are being removed. According to the SEO firm, the value of the new links in the eyes of Google would be reduced if there were many toxic links to the site; that this approach would be a waste of resources. While I want to move forward efficiently I absolutely want to avoid a risk of a drop of traffic. I might add that I have not received any messages from Google regarding bad links. But my firm did engage in link building in several instances and our traffic did drop after the Penguin update of April 2012. Also, is there value in having a professional SEO firm remove the links and build new ones? Or is this something I can do on my own? I like the idea of having a pro take care of this, but the costs (Audit, coding, design, content strategy, local SEO, link removal, link building, copywriting) are really adding up. Any thoughts??? THANKS,
Technical SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Forwarding kw rich domains to main domain
Hi My client has a clutch of kw rich domains that want to point to main domain, apart from being good for promotional reasons is there any seo benefit for doing so (i know there used to be years ago but under impression hasn't been any benefit for a long while) Most importantly though can any bad come from doing this ? Best Rgds Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Google Cache Date Reverted - Anyone Seen This Before?
Yesterday I was checking the cache date of page of a client. Today the snapshot date has been reversed/reverted. Yesterday it displayed "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 19 Apr 2013" whereas today it reads "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 4 Apr 2013". Has anyone seen this before? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | PhilYarrow1 -
Removing a lot of content & changing url structure.
I recently moved an existing ecommerce site, which I recently purchased, from Volusion to Shopify. The new site has a completely different link structure. The old site also had about 120 products which are not even close to being up to par with the products I now have on the site. So I had to remove all of those pages too. I was just wondering which measures I need to take to deal with this? I created a really nice 404 page. I also 301 redirected the pages which still exist. But I was wondering if there is anything else I should do? Should I request a removal of all the old pages, which no longer exist? Should I do something else I'm not thinking about? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. jim
Technical SEO | | PedroAndJobu0 -
Speed up the process of removing URLs from Google Index
Hi guys, We have done some work to try to remove pages from Google index. We have done the following: 1. Noindex tag 2. Make pages returning a 404 response. Is there anyway to notify Google about these changes so we can speed up the process of removing these pages from Google index? Also regarding the URL removal tool, Google says that it's used to remove URLs from search results, does it mean the URLs are removed from their index too? Many thanks guys David
Technical SEO | | sssrpm0 -
Which is better? Remove folder or fix the links and wait?
Dear Mozers, Recently I added a new language to one of my sites in a new folder (www.site.com/es/) but for some reasons many links got broken or were simply sending to a wrong page. This caused a bad indexing and it also showed a lot of duplicate content. I know how to fix it but my question is this: Is it better to remove the second language folder, fix it and then put it back up after a few months or just fix it now as it is and wait for G to come back and index the new links?
Technical SEO | | Silviu0