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
-
Importance - meta title keyword
HI I want to find out how important people think it is to have the keyword as the first word in the meta title? Is this something that would even make a difference?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Adding a Canonical Tag to each page referencing itself?
Hey Mozers! I've noticed that on www.Zappos.com they have a Canonical tag on each page referencing it self. I have heard that this is a popular method but I dont see the point in canon tagging a page to its self. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rpaiva0 -
Should the Title Tag and the H1 Tag not be the same or not anymore and can that be classed as over optimization?
Hi All, I am just evaluating my title tags, H1,H2's etc and wondered in light of the google algorithm changes over the last 12 months , we should look at more diversity as opposed to things possibly looking over optimized... Originally (18 months ago) my Title tags considered of 2/3 keyword phrases , then I reduced this to my keyword phrase | Brand Name but a majority of my H1's and H2's had the same keyword phrases. Historically this has served us very well and rankings for good but over the last 12 months, we were hit by panda, hummingbird etc...and which we are trying to recover from and from what I have read, the rules have changed with regards to good seo./ over optimized SEO. We have been writting unique content , making more of our links branded etc to sort things out from that perspective but on the page stuff is just as important so I would like to get this right. I am now thinking , that I may be getting penalized if my H1 and title's , H2 are the same ? and that they should be obviously related but different. H2's again , need to be related but not the same as either of the above. Is that how things should be these days ? from what I have read about this, most of the articles are not that recent so I don't what to do what is now redundant advice Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Wrong page in serps
Hi
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | niclaus78
I've been working with a law firm's website for a couple of years and we've encounter a problem. The pages were divided to target employers and employees separately. For the very targeted keywords mentioning either employees or employers everything was good but for broader less targeted keywords e.g unfair dismissal keywords chooses either one or the other which is a problem. Now I created this ''bridge'' pages where all the topics are explained and then users are directed to and then they will chose where to go. the problem is a lot of off page was created during this years either targeting on or the other. What I plan to do is: -Create a new site map and changing the priority, so the new pages will have a priority 1 and the others less. - bookmarks, articles, etc will be targeting now to the new pages. I place the new pages linked from the home page so that they get the link juice of the home page and they are also now more a category page in the map, so a level up comparing to the previous ones. Questions: 1- Is it worthwhile adding a rel canonical tag to the new pages and rel alternate to previous pages, or if its not a question of duplicate content it shouldn't have an impact? What other things should I take into consideration? Thanks a lot. nico0 -
tags inside <a>tags - is this bad?</a>
Hi, I'm currently redesigning my website, and in many places, I've now decided to make links a little bit more obvious for the user, using tags within a <a>tag in order to make the entire block of text clickable. I was just wondering if this could have a negative impact in the search engines. My gut feeling is no, since I'm actually improving usability, but I guess it could have an impact on how Google looks at the anchor text? An example of the HTML is as follows: </a> <a></a> <a></a> [Cristal Night Club Hotels <address>1045 5th Street
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mjk26
Miami Beach, FL33139</address> 6.4 miles from Miami Dade County Auditorium](http://localhost:8080/frontend/venue-hotels/cristal-night-club-hotels/301022 "Hotels near Cristal Night Club") Thanks for your thoughts and comments, Best wishes Mike0 -
Are tags an issue in SEO
SEOMoz saw that my tags were duplicate pages. Are tags a serious issue in SEO? Should I remove it entirely to prevent the duplicate pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | visualartistics0 -
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 -
Original Source and Canonical tags
We've been using canonical links to protect site SEO for contributor content and requiring canonical of our partners (as well as tagging internal duplicate content with canonical). Most other media sites have been doing the same but this is a moving target. I'm now hearing that the original source tag is now a better option. Special focus for us is placement on google news. Any guidance?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jbertfield0