Weird title tag in SERps (see attachment)
-
Hi Mozzers
Does anyone know why my clients title tag appears like it does in the image attached?
It seems as though Google is pulling the parent page url and putting that at the front.
All other title tags are normal.
Anyone any ideas and is it anything to be worried about?
Thanks
Anthony
@Anthony_Mac85
-
I agree with chris, if its not needed why have it?
As for doing harm, Duane Forester from Bing advised not to do it, and said that sites that misuse the canonical tag, Bing will ignore them all together.
There is also the line of thought, that we know that canonical tags do not pass all link juice, just like 301's or any request, there is a certain amount of decay, 15% in the original google algorithm.
It just may be that when you have a canonical back to yourself, it is followed and that you get that decay unnecessarily
-
Hi Gerard
Thanks for sharing that link with me - very interesting.
So according to that post, Google are saying that for the search query "Picosure Tattoo Removal" the URL - "treatments/picosure-tattoo-removal" delivers more relevance, as opposed to the original title tag - "PicoSure Tattoo Removal UK | Serving Manchester..."
Think I'd prefer the original title tag to be honest. What do you think guys?
Thanks
Anthony
PicoSure Tattoo Removal UK
-
Hi Anthony!
These are all great responses to your question. It's funny that just yesterday I was researching this very topic for my own company and came across this post which shed some light on the subject as well. It'll also be interesting to see how things shape up with the new SERP redesign by Google.
Keep us updated!
Thanks,
Gerry
-
Sounds like a great plan! Good luck. Let us know if it gets resolved.
-
Yeh I guess it doesn't matter either way.
I tried the structured data testing tool and the title tag displays correctly.
Hmmm, think I'll wait a few days and see it sorts itself out. Then try amending the title tag option
Thanks
-
Hiya,
Yes I would agree it doesn't cause harm however it doesn't do anything else either. The canonical doesn't make a difference really. I wouldn't see how it protects you from scrapers or people stealing your content having your page indexed first is irrelevant of the tag. look at it another way if a scraper stole your content they could just stick a canonical pointing to them selfs and thus claim it was their content, it wouldn't work. It all boils down to who Google index's to and if most people are pointing to the original (in theory)
Reason I pointed it out was it may have been an error of Google getting in a muddle with the canonical and might of been worth a try
-
Hey Chris
Just done some reading into putting a rel canonical on a page pointing to itself and it seems that it's harmless. Matt Cutts even says so in this video.
Also, a couple of people have said that "having a tag on your page protects you somewhat from scrapers and people stealing your content. If your page is indexed first with your tag, any syndicated or duplicate versions from 3rd parties in theory should not be able to rank that content." Found that in this thread here.
They don't seem to be doing any harm so think I'm going to leave them
Anthony
-
Thanks for your responses Chris and Jane - both very useful!
I will try your suggestions and thanks for the other tips re: dupe content on directory listings and and canonicals. I'll get those sorted too
Anthony
-
Hi Anthony,
It looks like a simple error on Google's part, especially since your other pages are displayed correctly, but do try the actions listed by Chris like Fetch as Googlebot, perhaps after also making some minor changes to the title tag to spur a new title to be indexed (nothing drastic, try "PicoSure Tattoo Removal UK | Fastest Treatment in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham" perhaps).
I don't believe this will be the problem in this case, but beware of copying pages' content on other websites like Yell:
http://i.imgur.com/JAqToZv.png
http://i.imgur.com/e94blAB.png
It's a bad idea to place your content on other websites, especially authoritative sites. Google heavily filters (and sometimes penalises for) duplicate content and the last thing you want is Yell or another review / directory site being considered more relevant for your text than you are.
-
Just a guess here, I know Google if it feels you're Meta isn't right can select its own and this maybe what's happened although I don't think this is what it is. I would also try removing the canonical as there is no need for it as its pointing to its self. You can also try a Fetch as Google see if it refreshes the Meta.
You can always wait a day and see if it resolves its self as sometimes an over reaction can do more harm then good especially if it resolves on its own. Lucky you're in a good placement and the incorrect meta still gets the keyword across.
Hope some of that helps a bit.
Good luck!
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
-
Irrelevant Landing Pages are Ranking on Google SERP
Hi, I have noticed that Google likes to rank random pages on my site higher in the SERPs than the actual relevant content page for that service. Please let me know why it is happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RuchiPardal0 -
Google W.M.T Missing Meta Title on AJax Pages... Weird!!
Hey Mozers, I was looking through my Google Web Masters Tool under HTML Improvements. It looks like I have 2,200 pages missing Meta Titles and I was about to lose it thinking HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN! I came to realize that the pages were "Ajax Pages". This is specifically a checkprice pop up and I dont want this page crawled by google. It looks like to google I have over 2k pages missing Meta Titles and they are all "check price pop ups". How would you suggest I block this. I thought about going the easy route and removing the subfolder and putting it in the Robots.txt document and I'm scared of that because we use AJax for a bunch of calls. I'm also scared of putting in the head <metaname="robots" =="" noindex,nofollow"="">because it requires hard coding</metaname="robots"> I Know i'm not the first to come across this issue, Any Ideas??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rpaiva0 -
Is it alright to repeat a keyword in the title tag?
I know at first glance, the answer to this is a resounding NO, that it can be construed as keyword stuffing,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MIGandCo
but please hear me out. I am working on optimizing a client's website and although MOST of the title tags
can be optimized without repeating a keyword, occasionally I run into one where it doesn't read right if I
don't repeat the keyword. Here's an example: Current title:
Photoshop on the Cloud | Adobe Photoshop Webinars | Company Name What I am considering using as the optimized title:
Adobe Photoshop on the Cloud | Adobe Photoshop Webinars | Company Name Yes, I know both titles are longer than recommended. In both instances, only the company name gets
truncated so I am not too worried about that. So I guess what I want to know is this: Am I right in my original assumption that it is NEVER okay to
repeat keywords in a title tag or is it alright when it makes sense to do so?0 -
Canonical Tags being indexed on paginated results?
On a website I'm working on which has a search feature with paginated results, all of the pages of the search results are set with a canonical tag back to the first page of the search results, however Google is indexing certain random pages within the result set. I can literally do a search in Google and find a deep page in the results, click on it and view source on that page and see that it has a canonical tag leading back to the first page of the set. Has anyone experienced this before? Why would Google not honor a canonical tag if it is set correctly? I've seen several SEO techniques for dealing with pagination, is there another solution that you all recommend?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Sitelinks (breadcrumbs) in SERPs
Hi there, I have a .co.uk & .ie website both have the exact same content, only differences is the UK website is selling the product in pounds and the Irish website is selling in Euros plus both websites have different contact numbers. I decided to use rel canonical on the .ie pointing to the .co.uk website as I think it was having an issue in my SERPs for the .co.uk website in Google.co.uk, anyway since doing this, I am seeing strange things happening in SERPs for my keywords, for example if you click the link below, my website is number 2 for 'hot flushes' if you hover over or click on 'health or 'menopause' in the breadcrumbs in SERPs it takes you to the .co.uk website, is this normal? Click here
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
Google Web Master Tools: Duplicate Title Tags?
According to Google Web Master Tools it says my site has 910 Duplicate Title Tags. How verbose should title tags be? What's the maximum character length? For example, let's say I have an image of an iPhone 4S being held in someone's hand. How verbose of a title and how many characters am I allowed to have? Is the goal with title tags to be very specific in describing the image? In the above example, do I need to say something like: "iPhone 4S being held by white caucasian male" or will "iPhone 4S" suffice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | asc760 -
Does rel=canonical fix duplicate page titles?
I implemented rel=canonical on our pages which helped a lot, but my latest Moz crawl is still showing lots of duplicate page titles (2,000+). There are other ways to get to this page (depending on what feature you clicked, it will have a different URL) but will have the same page title. Does having rel=canonical in place fix the duplicate page title problem, or do I need to change something else? I was under the impression that the canonical tag would address this by telling the crawler which URL was the URL and the crawler would only use that one for the page title.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | askotzko0 -
Should I use the main keyword in the title tag for the site on all category pages?
I am pretty excited about changing all my title tags (for the most important 7 pages) since I have seen my rankings jump up in the SERP just by adding the main keyword for my website in the title tag. To make it easier I will explain my business. Simply, I run an online jewelry shop, so basically the keywords I want to use is "Jewelry online" and for the main categories "Necklace", "Rings" and "Bracelets". What I am unsure about is whether to use all the keywords in the main pages title tag or should I just use the main keyword "Jewelry online". I don’t want to create competition between my own pages of course. Jewelry Online - Trendy Fashion Jewelry | Homepage Or Jewelry Online - Necklace, Rings, Bracelets | Homepage And the same goes for the main categories, should I include "jewelry online" or not, like: Bracelets - Fashion Jewelry Online | Homepage Or Bracelets - Trendy_ Bangles_ and Arm Cuffs | Homepage Any suggestions what is the best practice for the title tag on main page and the main categories? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ikomorin0