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
-
Negative News in SERP results?
Hey guys, We did reputation management back in March 2017. We basically built high quality links to online assets such as linkedin, twitter, facebook, positive PR articles and other web properties in order to rank them higher then negative PR. However there was 0 change (the link building was solid). And the negative PR remains in the top 10 with also positive new articles about the site. At this point, i believe that Google is keeping the negative PR in the top 10 to keep balanced SERP results. Does anyone know if this is something Google does to balance positive and negative results? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cathywix0 -
Bad SEO Practice: in title tag?
Greetings, I just discovered that some of our content was produced with
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_Lifescript
tags in the title tag. Example: <title>Diabetes Symptoms <br> In Women Over 40</title> My gut says this is bad for SEO, but I couldn't find a definitive answer on the web, so I thought I would ask the community of gurus here at Moz. 🙂 Thanks in advance for any reply. Kind regards, Eric0 -
Should I nofollow my Wordpress tags?
I have a website that have a strong root domain (ranking on many terms) but the subpages (articles) doesn't rank well. My feeling is that the linkjuice is not flowing to them (not enough anyway). When I run site:http://mydomain.com I have my root as the first result and the next many results are tagpages on my sites. I have arund 180 index pages, and I need to go to down to result #50 give or take before I see any subpage using the site command. My website theme have the tags on every page possible. The tags are useful for my viewers, but not SEO useful, but I fear that they are dilluting my linkjuice. Should I nofollow and noindex them? Noindex makes sense (the tags are just duplicate content featuring snippets of text from the articles). But Nofollow would make sense too since I wouldn't send any linkjuice through the tags. What would you guys do? Bests regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | claus101 -
On Page Content. has a H2 Tag but should I also use H3 tags for the sub headings within this body of content
Hi Mozzers, My on page content comes under my H2 tag. I have a few subheadings within my content to help break it up etc and currently this is just underlined (not bold or anything) and I am wondering from an SEO perspective, should I be making these sub headings H3 tags. Otherwise , I just have 500-750 words of content under an H2 tag which is what I am currently doing on my landing pages. thanks pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Cross Domain Rel Canonical tags vs. Rel Canonical Tags for internal webpages
Today I noticed that one of my colleagues was pointing rel canonical tags to a third party domain on a few specific pages on a client's website. This was a standard rel canonical tag that was written Up to this point I haven't seen too many webmasters point a rel canonical to a third party domain. However after doing some reading in the Google Webmaster Tools blog I realized that cross domain rel canonicals are indeed a viable strategy to avoid duplicate content. My question is this; should rel canonical tags be written the same way when dealing with internal duplicate content vs. external duplicate content? Would a rel=author tag be more appropriate when addressing 3rd party website duplicate content issues? Any feedback would be appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanguardCommunications0 -
Have Title Tags Changed After Hummingbird?
Now that Hummingbird is really looking at longer-tail searches and almost a Q&A style search, should the way we do our title tags change? Moz still recommends: Optimal Format Primary Keyword - Secondary Keyword | Brand Name
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | netviper
or
Brand Name | Primary Keyword and Secondary Keyword But is this really right anymore after Hummingbird? Should we be more of a Q&A type title tag, while still using our Primary Keyword? For example: If I am targeting Red Nike Shoes, should my title tag be: Red Nike Shoes, Nike Shoes | Shoes.com or now: We carry the latest Red Nike Shoes | Shoes.com or Find Red Nike Shoes on sale at shoes.com What are your thoughts?0 -
Help choosing titles
Good evening guys, I changed my titles last month, in preparation for the over optimisation penalty and the result was an instant and quite dramatic loss in traffic. I believe the reason is, the change resulted in a lot of duplicate titles. My website is similar to deviant art, but for mobile phones. So the titles include the brand of mobile phone for example. The titles were: Upload name + Brand + Content type - 3 tags - FILEID So an example would be Black Nokia wallpaper - black, abstract, grey - 12345 I changed them to Black Nokia wallpaper by artist name on domain name. But this resulted in thousands of duplicate titles and a dramatic loss in traffic. For example a user could upload 20 black wallpapers. With this in mind, I need to change my titles and fast. But I don't want to make another mistake. The one I am quite keen to try is: Black Nokia Wallpaper - Tag1, tag2 wallpapers - on domain name. So the main variable would be the name of the upload and then the 2 tags, to mix things up a little. Another option would be to throw the file ID in there somewhere? As that will always be unique. Perhaps the file ID could be in the place of the "wallpapers" after the two tags? I'd like to keep the domain name, for branding reasons. Any other suggestions are warmly welcomed. Thanks a lot.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seo-wanna-bs0 -
Sitemap in SERPS
What's up guys, Having some troubles with SERP rankings. My sitemap (navigation) is appearing instead of my actual keywords. I have tried a few methods to fix this; setting a preferred domain, using a 301 redirects, deleting out of date pages via Google webmaster tools. Nothing seems to work. My next step was to refresh the cache for my entire site - does anyone know how to do this? Can't see any tools... Any help would be great. Cheers, Jon.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jamesjk240