Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Product Images with organic results in SERP
-
Hey Mozzers,
I've noticed that several of our product page results in Google have the product image associated with them. Today is the first day I've seen this. Does anyone know anything about these? Has Google put anything out about this? Here's a couple examples:
What's interesting is that they don't show for me when I use Chrome's Incognito mode.
Any insights much appreciated!
Will
-
Odd - the exact page is http://www.evo.com/alpine-ski-boots/full-tilt-drop-kick.aspx. But there is no Schema markup and the OpenGraph image is of the yellow boot and so are the product images…
The image they appear to be showing is from the “Others Liked These Similar Items” from the lower right nav…
Which is not Schema or OG coded…
-
Since the SERP shows product information such as price and the fact that it is "in stock," I assume that you are using scheme markup? (Which, of course, you should.) I don't know if there is (and/or if you're using) product-image scheme markup, but that would be why if it appears. If there is no product-image scheme markup, then Google still thinks that it is valuable to the user to show the image on the page in the SERP.
As far as the image appearing only sometimes (when you're NOT using Icognito mode): Google decides what to include in each SERP every time that the search results are processed and your website is included. And that decision may involve the exact search query, the search history of the user, the location and device of the user, and many other factors. Google may even decide to use text for the meta description other than what the website owner has specified.
So, what appears is always up to Google. Not all schema markup (or anything else on the page) will appear every time. Since Google seems to understand that you "own" the website and are specifically interested in it, perhaps Google wants to show you more of the elements on the specific page. In contrast, Google may think a random person searching for that keyword (as in you under Incognito search) who is "less associated" with your specific website may want to view more general results overall and see fewer specific details about one particular website.
I hope this makes sense. It all comes down to the fact that Google shows different information to each searcher based on what it knows about that searcher. It will be different for each person every time.
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
-
Why Product pages are throwing Missing field "image" and Missing field "price" in Wordpress Woocommerce
I have a wordpress wocommerce website where I have uploaded 100s of products but it's giving me error in GSC under merchant listing tab. When I tested it show missing field image and missing field price. I have done everything according to https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/product#merchant-listing-experiences and applied fixed i.e. images are 800x800 and price range is also there. What else can be done here?!merchant listing.jpg
Technical SEO | | Ravi_Rana0 -
When should a variant be a variant and when should it be a separate product from an SEO POV?
Hi all, We are looking at changing our current e-commerce store to a new platform and in doing so thinking of making some changes to how we list products in sub-categories. We have seen related questions asking about splitting a single product into multiple products to rank for different terms, but we are wondering about combining multiple products into a single product page? The examples we have seen have been about fashion items with variants of colour and size. However, the products we sell have variances that change the appearance, dimensions and technical specification, so we would like to ask the MOZ community if combining products with these variances would still be deemed good practice? We sell wood burning stoves and a good example of a product that we are considering combining is the Scan 85 stove, which is available in eight different configurations: 85-1, 85-2, 85-3 etc. Scan themselves refer to each version as a separate product and they are bought, stocked and sold as separate products. Wood burning stoves like this typically have a firebox in the centre and then design options that can change the top, side, base, door, colour and fuel. In this example, the firebox is the Scan 85 and the variation is the last number, each of which corresponds to a different design option changing both the appearance and dimensions (see attached image). We have them listed as eight different products on our current site, one for each version. Primarily because each option has its own name (albeit 1-digit difference) which when we created the pages we thought that more pages would present us with more ranking opportunity. However, we have since learnt that because these eight pages are all so similar and it is difficult to write unique content about each product (with the 85-1 and 85-2 the only difference between the models are the black trim on the 85-1 and the silver trim on 85-2). Especially as when talking about the firebox itself, how well the fire burns, how controllable it is etc, will be the same for all versions. Likewise, earning backlinks to eight separate pages is also very difficult. Exploring this lead, us to the question, when is a variant a variant and when is it a separate product? Are there hard and fast rules for what defines variants and products? Or does it simply vary from industry to industry product to product, and if so should we be looking at it from a UX or SEO POV, when making that decision? Our hope is that if we combine these eight products into a single high-quality page, it will present us with a greater ranking opportunity for that one page over eight individual pages. We also hope that in doing so will allow us to create a more intuitive UX on a single page with a unique description, more reviews focused on one page and an explanation of the options available, all of which should lead to more conversions. Finally, by creating a better UX and unique detailed description we hope that there is a higher chance of us earning product level backlinks then we do with eight lower quality pages. One of the issues in creating a single product page for all the variants is the sub-category/results pages, as we would be removing eight simple products and replacing them with one complex product. We have questions over how this would work from a filter/facet level whereby when you apply a filter there is an expectation that the image shown will match the criteria, so if we filter for stoves with a silver trim for example, there is an expectation to only see stoves that have a silver trim in the results. When you have separate product pages you have separate listings which makes this easier to only bring back the models matching the criteria. However, when you have a single page this is more complex as you will need a default image for non-filtered results and then the ability to assign an image to lots of different attributes so that the correct image is always shown that matches the criteria selected. All of which we have been assured is do-able but adds an extra level of complexity to the process from an admin side. The alternative to doing this would be to create eight simple/child products and link them to one configurable/parent product. We could them list the simple products into the results pages and have them all linking back to the main configurable product which could load with the options of the simple product that was selected. From an SEO POV this brings in some more work, redirecting each page to the parent, but ultimately this could provide a better UX and might be the better solution. Has anyone got any experience in doing either of these options before? Both options above with affect the number of products we have available, so does the number of products in a sub-category effect the ability for that category page to rank? We currently have around 500 products in our wood burning stoves category, with perhaps an additional 300 to add. If we go down the combining into a single product page route this will reduce the number of products by around a third. If we keep all the simple/child products, then this will stay around the same. So, have we missed something obvious? Is there a glaring issue that we have overlooked from an SEO point of view as well as from the customer experience? We would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks, Reece scan85-1.jpg
Technical SEO | | fireproductsuk0 -
Duplicate content through product variants
Hi, Before you shout at me for not searching - I did and there are indeed lots of threads and articles on this problem. I therefore realise that this problem is not exactly new or unique. The situation: I am dealing with a website that has 1 to N (n being between 1 and 6 so far) variants of a product. There are no dropdown for variants. This is not technically possible short of a complete redesign which is not on the table right now. The product variants are also not linked to each other but share about 99% of content (obvious problem here). In the "search all" they show up individually. Each product-variant is a different page, unconnected in backend as well as frontend. The system is quite limited in what can be added and entered - I may have some opportunity to influence on smaller things such as enabling canonicals. In my opinion, the optimal choice would be to retain one page for each product, the base variant, and then add dropdowns to select extras/other variants. As that is not possible, I feel that the best solution is to canonicalise all versions to one version (either base variant or best-selling product?) and to offer customers a list at each product giving him a direct path to the other variants of the product. I'd be thankful for opinions, advice or showing completely new approaches I have not even thought of! Kind Regards, Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Parked domain is first in search results
We have several brand related domains which are parked and pointing to our main website. Some of these websites are redirecting using a 302 (don't ask, that's a whole other story), but these are being changed. But it shouldn't matter what type of redirect they are no? Since there has never been any traffic and they are not indexed? But it seems that one of them was indexed: exotravel.vn. A search for our brand name or the previous brand name (exotravel and exotissimo) brings up this parked domain first! How can that be? The domain has never been used and has no backlinks. exotravel.vn is redirecting and I submitted a change of address weeks ago to Google, but its still coming up first in all brand name searches for exotissimo or exotravel.
Technical SEO | | Exotissimo0 -
Image Indexing Issue by Google
Hello All,My URL is: www.thesalebox.comI have Submitted my image Sitemap in google webmaster tool on 10th Oct 2013,Still google could not indexing any of my web images,Please refer my sitemap - www.thesalebox.com/AppliancesHomeEntertainment.xml and www.thesalebox.com/Hardware.xmland my webmaster status and image indexing status are below,
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit
Can you please help me, why my images are not indexing in google yet? is there any issue? please give me suggestions?Thanks!
0 -
Do the search engines penalise you for images being WATERMARKED?
Our site contains a library of thousands of images which we are thinking of watermarking. Does anyone know if Google penalise sites for this or is it best practice in order to protect revenues? As watermarking these images makes them less shareable (but protects revenues) i was thinking Google might then penalise us - which might affect traffic Any ideas?
Technical SEO | | KevinDunne0 -
Why has Google removed meta descriptions from SERPS?
One of my clients' sites has just been redesigned with lots of new URLs added. So the 301 redirections have been put in place and most of the new URLs have now been indexed. BUT Google is still showing all the old URLs in the SERPS and even worse it only displays the title tag. The meta description is not shown, no rich snippet, no text, nothing below the title. This is proving disastrous as visitors are not clicking on a result with no description. I have to assume its got something to do with the redirection, but why is it not showing the descriptions? I've checked the old URLs and he meta description is definitely still in the code, but Google is choosing not to show it. I've never seen this before so I'm struggling for an answer. I'd like to know why or how this is happening, and if it can be resolved. I realise that this may be resolved when Google stops showing all the old URLs but there's no telling how long that will take (can it be speeded up?)
Technical SEO | | Websensejim0
