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
-
Truncated sitelinks in SERP
Anyway, I've seen these pop up for certain searches (not all). I'm curious as to how these truncated sitelinks appear. When searching for a company, the full sitelinks appear with descriptions and the like, but these little ones are a little new to me (apologies, I don't know if they have an official name). Is there a way to get them to appear for our page? Or more importantly, does it matter? iZlJZ
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Parker8180 -
SITEMAP - Does <changefreq>and <image:title>have any apreciable effect?</image:title></changefreq>
Hi everyone. It was hard to find some actual evidence that some of the atributes to be declared in a sitemap have some real impact.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gaston Riera
Particularly, im interested in these two: <changefreq></changefreq> and**image:title</image:title>** I've used them in a few cases just to check their effect and couldnt see any.
Do you have any experience with these? Or any other atribute that might be helpful, in order to create a more accurate and effective sitemap? Also, this could be a great topic to create a new Moz Blog post, the one about sitemap is 8years old.0 -
_Styling in my SERP, why?_
So Google is using an tag for my SERP snippet and there is styling in that that uses _and for some reason that _is showing up in the snippet itself. So "blah, blah blah, _19.99 _blah" is what is being displayed. How do I prevent this from happening? I thought styling within the header tags was fine? So what I am trying to do basically: Adventure Bear 16 oz or Adventure Bear 1.1oz Is this allowed or am I making a terrible mistake here? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
Chris Birkholm____0 -
Duplicate keyphrases in page titles = penalty?
Hello Mozzers - just looking at a website which has duplicate keyphrases in its page titles... So you have [keyphrase 1] | [exact match Keyphrase 1] Now I happen to know this particular site has suffered a dramatic fall in traffic - the SEO agency working on the site had advised the client to duplicate keyphrases. Hard to believe, huh! What I'm wondering is whether this extensive exact match keyphrase duplication might've been enough to attract a penalty? Your thoughts would be welcome.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Title tags with >70 characters but most important words at start. Is this really a problem?
Is there in fact any kind of negative impact having title tags longer than 70 characters, as long as I place the most important keywords at the start and make sure that title still is compelling when cut somewhere around 70 characters? Are the additional words after the 70 characters limit just ignored? May additional words dillute the strength of the first words or may they even be helpful ? Any experience or any studies you know about impact of longer title tags? Or any statement from google about it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse0 -
Does having several long title tags hurt you?
Our title tags are dynamically generated, and some have over 140 characters. Does having a large quantity of URLS with an excessive number of characters hurt you in any way?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
How long until you see results?
How long does it typically take for SEO efforts to materialize? We recently performed a complete website redesign (new site, and am wondering how long we should wait until we analyze the results and possibly change our seo/keyword strategy?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tdeboer0 -
H1 Tags
Quick and easy most likely - Just need to clear a few point. I understand each page within the site should only have one H1 tag which should be the most important one. I also believe these only effect google ranking very slightly? right? Currently my CMS is system is pulling the H1 tag in from the page and automatically using the page heading that is on the page IE) the heading used for the content. Should this be a keyword / key phrase instead? and will it be duplicate if i used the same one on various pages in my site? Cheers guys look forward to hearing your feedback
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wazza19850