All META descriptions gone
-
Hi there,
Since almost a week now, all of my optmized META descriptions has been gone in Google. The last few years Google has always shown all of the optimized META descriptions. My website is an ecommerce site (phone accessories) and all pages have its own unique content (url, text, title, description) and score well in Google. The META descriptions are created by using a template like this:
At [brandname] you find lots of [variable category product] * USP 1 * USP 2 * USP 3
All META descriptions differ from each other only by the variable category product.
Something tells me this is an effect of the Panda 4.0 update. I tested with a category page by replacing the META description for a 100% unique one. Then I asked Google (via Webmaster tools) to reindex the page. Today the new description got indexed. This means uniqueness is important.
My question is: how do I get the optimized META descriptions back? Creating real unique descriptions (means not using a template) for every page is very hard for a webhop since all category pages have the same message to tell (only difference is the type of product), I want to use USP's, and META descriptions of all productpages have been lost too (over 15000 different products).
Please help!
Thanks in advance.Marcel
-
Hi Jane,
Thanks for your clarification. Since a higher number of people have asked about META description and title tags changes I guess this is a Panda effect.
I know what to do next, a lot of rewriting work.
Marcel
-
Hi Marcel,
Not sure that this can be put down to Panda: it could be related since Panda deals solely with on-page, but Google works on so many changes at once that it might not be. There is a team dedicated to working on SERP display, optimising click-through from SERPs, etc. so it would be very difficult to say exactly what this relates to. It's definitely been happening (a higher number of people asking in here about why their descriptions and title tags are changing in SERPs) for a few months now.
-
Thanks for your quick responses.
I am going to test further with some pages to see what is needed to do now. Still this is a odd change of Google, because the descriptions were clear to Google users and managed expectations right.
Can I conclude that this (for me) major META descritpion change is a part of Panda 4.0?
Something I noticed is that the description of the page I tested, got three lines of text instead of two. Three lines wouldmake things easier to make unique descriptions. I am testing with other pages now to see the possibilities of this.
Marcel
-
Hi Marcel
Actually, I think the warning signs for this started back in November 2013, when Matt Cutts was asked about meta descriptions and if we should use templates or make them all unique. See this article and this one.
To summarise those articles, he recommended that you should not use a template as a meta description, as you have expected. He recommended unique meta descriptions for all the pages you want to rank, but for other pages it's totally fine to use no meta description at all. Google can generate a decent description for you if you leave the tag out in your HTML.
However, if you want a page to have your own description I'm afraid you'll need a unique one for each. I'd prioritise those products that are your big sellers or those with the best margin and write them first. I would also remove the template ASAP so that you have no description by default and then add them in when you have the time. That's the only way I can see getting your unique descriptions back I'm afraid. Try to work out a priority system with your team.
Hope this helps.
-
Sometimes they do not choose to utilize the meta description and titles I believe because they may think something is more relevant to return based on the specific user query.
As far as I know, you cannot do anything about what gets displayed by the engine. So long as you have checked that each page has it's own unique meta, then there is not much else that you can do.
Your meta may appear as intended for some searches and not for others is what I am really saying. It is the engine's prerogative as to what is displayed based on the user's query and I am seeing more and more that the engine's are ignoring your page/post specific meta tags when it comes to the display.
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
-
Does Google still use Meta descriptions?
I've noticed that Google is not using my Meta description in the SERP results but rather text from my page, it seems to be a similar situation with a couple of the other sites in the same search results. Does anyone know why this would be?
Technical SEO | | OUTsurance0 -
"Items 1 - 24 of 75" Appearing in Meta Description - How Do I Remove It?
Hey guys, I've noticed that the item count is appearing at the beginning of the meta description for our brand pages, e.g. "Items 1 - 24 of 75 -". The issue I have with this is that it reduces the character limit (due to truncation), consequently leaving me with little room to play with to include more useful information. Is there a way to remove this? Cheers, A
Technical SEO | | RobTucker0 -
Problem of possible duplicate title tag and description. Help me!
Hi everybody, I'm optimizing this huge website that has a lot of identical categories for differente locations. I'm trying to find a smart way to write title and description for these categories, changing the location as a variable on the title and description phrase. Here some examples: Title: Attractions in [CITY]. Sightseeings, monuments and museums in [CITY]. Description: Find travel ideas and suggestions for [CITY]. On [NAME OF THE WEBSITE] you can find a lot of attractions, monuments and sightseeing off the beaten path in [CITY]. Changing only the name of the CITY on these Titles and Descriptions, am I running the risk of duplicate title and description? Thanks in advance for your help!
Technical SEO | | OptimizedGroup0 -
Auto generated meta description tag in Drupal
Was having issues on Drupal not autogenerating a meta description tag, but I think I have figured it out. Just to verify, would this piece of code be the meta description tag (reason I ask is b/c it looks a little different than the usual tag I have seen):
Technical SEO | | kevgrand0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Would you move the site to a different host or change packages at a significant expense in order to eliminate the meta refresh
When I began working with a site (http://www.visix.com) , I discovered a number of hosting constraints that hampered some SEO related changes I wanted to make. A year later, the site was teetering on the 1st page for a particular keyword of choice and when the Panda & Penguin updates happened, the site got passed by 3M & Amazon, both much bigger sites. (was #11, now #13) Now I'm thinking I should try and use the homepage to rank for keyword "digital signage software", where originally I was making progress with an inner page. Now I am revisting the homepage meta refresh and need to decide if it is enough of an issue to warrant a hosting change. http://www.visix.com has a meta-refresh "0" seconds to http://www.visix.com/index.aspx I know sites can rank well with these, although I don't know the level of handicap that it has. In an article here, http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection there is a statement saying that a meta-refresh will not pass as much link juice as a 301 redirect. I have read about every opinion I can find, and would appreciate other's opinions on the matter. The host is Network Solutions and the hosting package does not allow 301 redirects, among other things. Would you move the site to a different host or change packages at a significant expense in order to eliminate the meta refresh or is it not a big deal on a well established site? Thanks very much for your feedback!
Technical SEO | | IntegralOCR30 -
Why crawl error "title missing or empty" when there is already "title and meta desciption" in place?
I've been getting 73 "title missing or empty" warnings from SEOMOZ crawl diagnostic. This is weird as I've installed yoast wordpress seo plugin and all posts do have title and meta description. But why the results here.. can anyone explain what's happening? Thanks!! Here are some of the links that are listed with "title missing, empty". Almost all our blog posts were listed there. http://www.gan4hire.com/blog/2011/are-you-here-for-good/ http://www.gan4hire.com/blog/2011/are-you-socially-awkward/ MaeM3.png TLcD8.png
Technical SEO | | JasonDGreat0 -
Google caching meta tags from another site?
We have several sites on the same server. On the weekend we relocated some servers, changing IP address. A client has since noticed something freaky with the meta tags. 1. They search for their companyname, and another site from the same server appears in position 1. It is completely unrelated, has never happened before, and the company name is not used in any incoming text links. Eg search for company1 on Google. Company1.com.au appears at position 2, but at position1 is school1.com.au. The words company1 don't appear anywhere on the site. I've analysed all incoming links with a gazillion tools, and can't find any link text of company1, linking to school1. 2. Even more freaky, searching for company1.com.au at Google. The results at Google in position 1 for the last three days has been: Meta Title for school1 (but hovering/clicking actual goes to URL for company1)
Technical SEO | | ozgeekmum
Meta Description for school1
URL for company1.com.au Clicking on the cached copy of result1, it shows a cached version of school1 taken on March 18. Today is 29 March. Logically we are trying to get Google to spider both sites again quickly. We've asked the clients to update their home pages. Resubmitted xml sitemaps. Checked the HTTP status codes - both are happily returning 200s. Different cookies. I found another instance on a forum: http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/10578/incorrect-meta-information-in-google Any ideas?0