Meta description tag in rss xml file?
-
The SEOmoz crawl diagnostic tool is complaining that I'm missing a meta description tag from a file that is an RSS xml file. In my <channel>section I do have a <description>tag. Is this a bug in the SEOmoz tool or do I need to add another tag to satisify the warning?</description></channel>
-
You're right, I probably should block bots from crawling that xml file (yes, it duplicates what is on my blog). On the other hand, it may be a bug in SEOmoz's crawler that it's reporting a warning about a missing meta description tag in a .xml file, too. (so FYI SEOmoz, if you're listening...).
-
Damnit, the one time I don't ctrl+c before hitting submit, grrr.
Anyway, I misunderstood, I though you were pulling descriptions from a .xml file not having your feed crawled.
Do you really want your feed to be indexed? Just duplicate content isn't it?
I'd think about blocking bots from crawling it (though please seek a second opinion first).
And to answer your actual questions the RSS description is not the same as the meta description (though I'm not sure if adding it will stop readers parsing the feed).
-
Hi Barry,
Here's the URL
I don't know if .xml files are suppose to have a meta description tag, or if they use just the 'description' tag within the 'channel' block.
-
What happens when you view source? Is there a tag?
If it's their I'd imagine you're all right, if not, then you'll need to add it.
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
-
Duplicate content issues with file download links (diff. versions of a downloadable application)
I'm a little unsure how canonicalisation works with this case. 🙂 We have very regular updates to the application which is available as a download on our site. Obviously, with every update the version number of the file being downloaded changes; and along with it, the URL parameter included when people click the 'Download' button on our site. e.g. mysite.com/download/download.php?f=myapp.1.0.1.exe mysite.com/download/download.php?f=myapp.1.0.2.exe mysite.com/download/download.php?f=myapp.1.0.3.exe, etc In the Moz Site Crawl report all of these links are registering as Duplicate Content. There's no content per se on these pages, all they do is trigger a download of the specified file from our servers. Two questions: Are these links actually hurting our ranking/authority/etc? Would adding a canonical tag to the head of mysite.com/download/download.php solve the crawl issues? Would this catch all of the download.php URLs? i.e. Thanks! Jon
Moz Pro | | jonmc
(not super up on php, btw. So if I'm saying something completely bogus here...be kind 😉 )0 -
Canonical tag on webstore products to avoid Duplicate Page Content ?
Hi, I would like to have an opinion on what how we are planning to solve the issue with Duplicate Page Contents that MOZ PRO is showing us. MOZ Pro is showing us a lot of pages with duplicate content as High Priority Issue. Mainly the problem is with products which have very few differences between them, e.g. pink bike model X and red bike model X. So we decided to implement a canonical tag on these products, and the pink bike model X will now have a canonical pointing to the red bike model X. So hopefully we will be ranking higher with our red bike model X and our pink bike model X will disapear from the index. Am I right ? Is it a good practice, since we will loose long tails indexes? I check each canonical in the Search Console, and we have extremely few searched for "pink bike model X" most of searches are "bike model X". Thank you in advance for your opinion. Isabelle
Moz Pro | | isabelledylag0 -
Are tags in blogs worth anything in SEO value these days and can i remove duplicate title tags?
I have around 12 duplicate tags in the blog and the general consensus is to noindex./nofollow the tag pages which is not an awful way to do things. Should I just arrange my tags better or remove them all together? I believe it's the fact that the same page can be accessed by 3 different url's because of the tags it's under and that in the tag urls, only teaser descriptions of the posts are being display, not the full post, but the seomoz tools still consider it as duplicated content.
Moz Pro | | SEM_at_Lees0 -
Problems with csv file from OSE
Hello Support, I have problems with the formatting of csv files from OSE in Excel. I got lines that only contain -- and these lines break up the data. It is possible to correct this manually but a bit annoying if you have 1500+ links generated in the file. I work a lot with csv files from other tools and programs and those give me no problems. Can you help me out please? Greetings Rob
Moz Pro | | FindFactory0 -
Does Rogerbot respect the robots.txt file for wildcards?
Hi All, Our robots.txt file has wildcards in it, which Googlebot recognizes. Can anyone tell me whether or not Rogerbot recognizes wildcards in the robots.txt file? We've done a Rogerbot site crawl since updating the robots.txt file and the pages that are set to disallow using the wildcards are still showing. BTW, Googlebot is not crawling these pages according to Webmaster Tools. Thanks in advance, Robert
Moz Pro | | AC_Pro0 -
What is the best practice for replacing an old xml sitemap?
I have an existing xml sitemap that my website developer loaded, however I don't think its set up properly. What is the best practice for replacing an old xml sitemap? Is there anything I should be concerned about?
Moz Pro | | webestate0 -
I have a Rel Canonical "notice" in my Crawl Diagnostics report. I'm presuming that means that the spider has detected a rel canonical tag and it is working as opposed to warning about an issue, is this correct?
I know this seems like a really dumb question but the site I'm working on is a BigCommerce one and I've been concerned about canonicalisation issues prior to receiving this report (I'm a SEOmoz pro newbie also!) and I just want to be clear I am reading this notice correctly. I presume this means that the site crawl has detected the rel canonical tag on these pages and it is working correctly. Is this correct?? Any input is much appreciated. Thanks
Moz Pro | | seanpearse0 -
Why aren't canonical tags reducing duplicate page title/content?
We have canonical tags set up for a feature page on one of our sites. This site has an image gallery controlled by javascript. To aid the user experience the image can also be specified by a URL parameter (the javascript also uses this URL to fetch the images). The SEOMoz report complains that the links to these images have duplicate page titles and content. To try and combat this we set canonical tags to point only to the original page, without the slideshow parameter. e.g. http://www.example.com/feature-page/ http://www.example.com/feature-page/?slideshow=1 -> canonical tag set to http://www.example.com/feature-page/ http://www.example.com/feature-page/?slideshow=2 -> canonical tag set to http://www.example.com/feature-page/ The latest SEOMoz report has come back and the errors still exist. What can we do to remove these error messages? Thanks
Moz Pro | | TJSSEO1