Source Data -- Order of Page Attributes
-
Hi everyone,
I recently began working on a site with some peculiar things going on in the source code. Namely, the <title>attribute is beneath the <meta description> and <meta keywords> attributes. </p> <p>I checked a number of the client's competitors and found that none of them have the page attributes in the source data ordered like this. Instead, they have the attributes organized more traditionally (as I've usually seen them) in the following order <title>, <meta description>, <meta keywords>.</p> <p>I'm just wondering whether or not this may have any effect on their ability to rank for the desired keyword terms. </p> <p> </p></title>
-
Thanks Erica!
-
The order of those items in the doesn't matter for rankings. Additionally, meta keywords are no longer used as a factor in Google's rankings, and they haven't been for many years. (Sometimes companies use that field for other things.) I suggest checking out this post from Rand about how to create the perfectly optimized page for a keyword.
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
-
Our protected pages 302 redirect to a login page if not a member. Is that a problem for SEO?
We have a membership site that has links out in our unprotected pages. If a non-member clicks on these links it sends a 302 redirect to the login / join page. Is this an issue for SEO? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | rimix1 -
Structure Data Issue
HiI found few errors in Google webmaster tools under structure data. The error shows "Missing: name' but when I click 'Test Live Data' it shows 'All good'. Currently we are using Drupal CMS and please find attached error screenshot.Please advice on this issue.Thanks,SatlaqlGEyp7
Technical SEO | | TrulyTravel0 -
Redesigned and Migrated Website - Lost Almost All Organic Traffic - Mobile Pages Indexing over Normal Pages
We recently redesigned and migrated our site from www.jmacsupply.com to https://www.jmac.com It has been over 2 weeks since implementing 301 redirects, and we have lost over 90% of our organic traffic. Google seems to be indexing the mobile versions of our pages over our website pages. We hired a designer to redesign the site, and we are confident the code is doing something that is harmful for ranking our website. F or Example: If you google "KEEDEX-K-DS-FLX38" You should see our mobile page ranking: http://www.jmac.com/mobile/Product.aspx?ProductCode=KEEDEX-K-DS-FLX38 but the page that we want ranked (and we think should be, is https://www.jmac.com/Keedex_K_DS_FLX38_p/keedex-k-ds-flx38.htm) That second page isn't even indexed. (When you search for: "site:jmac.com Keedex K-DS-FLX38") We have implemented rel canonical, and rel alternate both ways. What are we doing wrong??? Thank you in advance for any help - it is much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | jmaccom0 -
My website internal pages are not getting cached with latest data
In our website we have sector list, in home page main category list is displayed click on main category user has to select sub category and reach the result page. EX: Agriculture->Agribusiness->Rice Agriculture page is indexed,but Agribusiness and Rice page is not getting cached,it is showing old indexed date as 23 July 2013,but i have submitted the sitemaps after this 4 times, and some url i have submitted manually in web master tool, but after this also my pages are not cached recently, Please suggest the solution and what might be the problem Thank you In Advance, Anne
Technical SEO | | Vidyavati0 -
Unreachable Pages
Hi All Is there a tool to check a website if it has stand alone unreachable pages? Thanks for helping
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Too Many On-Page Links
Hello. My Seomoz report this week tells me that I have about 500 pages with Too Many On-Page Links One of the examples is this one: https://www.theprinterdepo.com/hp-9000mfp-refurbished-printer (104 links) If you check, all our products have a RELATED products section and in some of them the related products can be UP to 40 Products. I wonder how can I solve this. I thought that putting nofollow on the links of the related products might fix all of these warnings? Putting NOFOLLOW does not affect SEO?
Technical SEO | | levalencia10 -
Page not Accesible for crawler in on-page report
Hi All, We started using SEOMoz this week and ran into an issue regarding the crawler access in the on-page report module. The attached screen shot shows that the HTTP status is 200 but SEOMoz still says that the page is not accessible for crawlers. What could this be? Page in question
Technical SEO | | TiasNimbas
http://www.tiasnimbas.edu/Executive_MBA/pgeId=307 Regards, Coen SEOMoz.png0 -
Which version of pages should I build links to?
I'm working on the site www.qualityauditor.co.uk which is built in Moonfruit. Moonfruit renders pages in Flash. Not ideal, I know, but it also automatically produces an HTML version of every page for those without Flash, Javascript and search engines. This HTML version is fairly well optimised for search engines, but sits on different URLs. For example, the page you're likely to see if browsing the site is at http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/#/iso-9001-lead-auditor-course/4528742734 However, if you turn Javascript off you can see the HTML version of the page here <cite>http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/page/4528742734</cite> Mostly, it's the last version of the URL which appears in the Google search results for a relevant query. But not always. Plus, in Google Webmaster Tools fetching as Googlebot only shows page content for the first version of the URL. For the second version it returns HTTP status code and a 302 redirect to the first version. I have two questions, really: Will these two versions of the page cause my duplicate content issues? I suspect not as the first version renders only in Flash. But will Google think the 302 redirect for people is cloaking? Which version of the URL should I be pointing new links to (bearing in mind the 302 redirect which doesn't pass link juice). The URL's which I see in my browser and which Google likes the look at when I 'fetch as Googlebot'. Or those Google shows in the search results? Thanks folks, much appreciated! Eamon
Technical SEO | | driftnetmedia0