Structured Data + Meta Descriptions
-
Hey All,
Was just looking through some google pages on best practices for meta descriptions and came across this little tidbit.
"Include clearly tagged facts in the description. The meta description doesn't just have to be in sentence format; it's also a great place to include structured data about the page. For example, news or blog postings can list the author, date of publication, or byline information. This can give potential visitors very relevant information that might not be displayed in the snippet otherwise. Similarly, product pages might have the key bits of information—price, age, manufacturer—scattered throughout a page. A good meta description can bring all this data together. For example, the following meta description provides detailed information about a book.
"
This is the first time I have seen suggested use of structured data in meta descriptions. Does this totally replace a regular meta description or will it work in conjunction with the regular meta description? If I provide both structured data and text, will the SERP display text and the structured data the way it was previously displayed? Or will the 150 -160 character limit take precedence and just cut off all info after that?
-
JStrong,
Just to make sure we're all on the same page: Although Google uses the phrase "Structured Data..." I don't think they mean it in the same was as you would use, for example, Schema markup in the code. The example there is simply a meta description, which you can use for whatever purpose you like. It could be worth testing the Click-Through-Rate on meta descriptions like that (a metric you can see in Google Webmaster Tools) to decide if you want to use it, though for my money I'd bet on a description with a clear value proposition, offer, call to action, emotion, etc... that will also have their keywords bolded if they appear in the description.
If you do test it out please share what the effect on CTR in the SERPs was from GWT. Just because I'm curious.
-
Very interesting! I don't recall seeing that before but I checked the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine entry for that URL and the quoted extract has been there since at least 2013.
Elsewhere Google has been pretty insistent on structured data being part of the document itself as much as possible so it does seem somewhat contradictory advice. As you say perhaps they've simply forgotten to update that particular entry to reflect current thinking.
-
Hi Alex,
Ah, so something older then? This is where I saw the information. I thought Google was usually pretty good about removing outdated information, but maybe not in this case. I agree, that I have previously only worked with and seen structured data in the body markup, so not sure if this was a more recent development or not.
Thanks for the input!
-
Once upon a time it was possibly a good use of the meta description to include some salient structured data but today we have a proper way of marking up structured data. The meta description is best used for compelling, relevant copy to attract the user to click through to your site as the meta description is your one best hope of affecting what is shown to the user in the SERPs.
Search engines haven't shown any inclination to parse the meta description and I doubt they would do so in future. Structured data belongs in the document itself, marked up accordingly.
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
-
No index detected in robots meta tag GSC issue_Help Please
Hi Everyone, We just did a site migration ( URL structure change, site redesign, CMS change). During migration, dev team messed up badly on a few things including SEO. The old site had pages canonicalized and self canonicalized <> New site doesn't have anything (CMS dev error) so we are working retroactively to add canonicalization mechanism The legacy site had URL’s ending with a trailing slash “/” <> new site got redirected to Set of url’s without “/” New site action : All robots are allowed: A new sitemap is submitted to google search console So here is my problem (it been a long 24hr night for me 🙂 ) 1. Now when I look at GSC homepage URL it says that old page is self canonicalized and currently in index (old page with a trailing slash at the end of URL). 2. When I try to perform a live URL test, I get the message "No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag" , so indexation cant be done. I have no idea where noindex is coming from. 3. Robots.txt in search console still showing old file ( no noindex there ) I tried to submit new file but old one still coming up. When I click on "See live robots.txt" I get current robots. 4. I see that old page is still canonicalized and attempting to index redirected old page might be confusing google Hope someone can help to get the new page indexed! I really need it 🙂 Please ping me if you need more clarification. Thank you ! Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bgvsiteadmin1 -
Taxonomy question - best approach for site structure
Hi all, I'm working on a dentist's website and want some advice on the best way to lay out the navigation. I would like to know which structure will help the site work naturally. I feel the second example would be better as it would focus the 'power' around the type of treatment and get that to rank better. .com/assessment/whitening
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bee159
.com/assessment/straightening
.com/treatment/whitening
.com/treatment/straightening or .com/whitening/assessment
.com/straightening/assessment
.com/whitening/treatment
.com/straightening/treatment Please advise, thanks.0 -
Does it hurt your SEO to have an inaccessible directory in your site structure?
Due to CMS constraints, there may be some nodes in our site tree that are inaccessible and will automatically redirect to their parent folder. Here's an example: www.site.com/folder1/folder2/content, /folder2 redirects to /folder1. This would only be for the single URL itself, not the subpages (i.e. /folder1/folder2/content and anything below that would be accessible). Is there any real risk in this approach from a technical SEO perspective? I'm thinking this is likely a non-issue but I'm hoping someone with more experience can confirm. Another potential option is to have /folder2 accessible (it would be 100% identical to /folder1, long story) and use a canonical tag to point back to /folder1. I'm still waiting to hear if this is possible. Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | digitalcrc0 -
Help! Website Page Structure.
Hi there, I have a cupcake website; www.cupcakesdelivered.com.au To date, we have sold only regular cupcakes. Moving forward, we are about to start selling lots of different sorts of cupcakes and want to categorise them - i.e.; sport cupcakes, corporate cupcakes, movie-themed cupcakes etc. I am looking for a recommendation on how best to structure this in terms of pages / domains / subdomains etc, so as to best support SEO. Your help would be greatly appreciated!! Thank you, Laura.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cupcakesdelivered0 -
Process for moving existing articles to new structure (URLs, titles, etc)
I am in the midst of a major redesign of my site, including revamping existing articles . I have a couple of hundred articles and I am reviewing all aspects of these articles, including titles, URLs, content, etc. I am putting together a process as I move each article across to the new site and have SEO very much in mind. I'd appreciate any feedback on this. First off, let me be clear that I consider the quality of the content paramount. Anything suggested below is considered "supporting" (that content) from an SEO perspective. But, since I am moving this content across, I may as well take the opportunity to clean things up. The existing articles don't have particularly good SEO-related attributes, in terms of their titles, URLs, use of keywords and so on. So, I plan to do the following for each article. For illustrative purposes (our site serves the wedding industry), I will use an article about how to involve children at a wedding. Questionsunder each bullet. Use the "Keyword Difficulty" feature on Moz Pro to research a specific keyword for each article. In the example case I used "involving children in our wedding". Honestly, I am not really sure what to do with this feature 🙂 I've read everything from "focus on the long tail" to "don't fear highly competitive keywords". So, my current thinking is merely to use it as interesting information for they keyword I choose but not actually make any specific decisions from that ie. make sure the keyword is relevant to the article as the first priority and use the tool to check out search volume. Not sure what I should read into a zero for recent Bing searches. Is that really an important factor? I'm assuming the Google information is not available from Google (it would be displayed here otherwise, I'm guessing) Use a title that uses these keywords. In this case, I simply went with "Involving children in our wedding". Same for URL - /wedding-guests/involving-children-in-our-wedding If I have a reasonable, short and human-friendly term like this (I can do this with virtually every article quite easily), is there any reason why the URL and the title should not be the same? In short, the title and URL are both a relatively concise "mini-sentence" Make sure the meta description of the article is easy-to-read (for humans) and uses the keyword (sentence) Make sure that the theme (we are moving to WordPress) uses H1 for the page header/title and H2 for sections within the document Implement 301 redirects from the old URL (old site) to the new URL This seems like a pretty obvious approach for articles where the URL has changed (which will be most of them). But what do I do with articles that I am going to remove. Should I redirect (301) to a related article (so at least the visitor ends up on a page that is generally relevant) or just let this "fall through" as a non-existent page (401)? As I say, I have 200+ articles to go through I want to make sure I am taking this advantage to clean things up. Anything leaping out as missing/problematic? Thanks in advance Mark
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
Meta Abstract & Revisit
Moz Community, I have just noted a competitor using some meta information i have not seen before, Just wondering if anyone has any experience or feedback on using these tags and if they are worth implementing, Seems very similar to the meta description, i don't really see the point unless potentially this abstract could be more topic based if your meta description is designed for Click-Through optimization. Isn't this defined in the sitemap anyway? , and most of the time we will Tweet and Google Plus share any new updates to our site also Google seems to do a good job anyway of crawling anything new we publish or change, Any advice or feedback would be great please, Thanks James
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Antony_Towle0 -
Unsure where Google has sourced this inaccurate Product Data
Hi, This is a slightly odd one I was hoping someone could shed some light on. One of our staff just did a Google search and located these listings on Google UK Product Search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ink+cartridges&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1074&bih=499&tbm=shop&prmd=imvns#q=ink+cartridges&hl=en&sa=X&tbs=store:3287803270081455254&tbm=shop&prmd=imvns&ei=xp5pUP6uN8i_0QXUuoHADQ&ved=0CI0BEMcMMAE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=333b49ec245f6031&biw=1074&bih=499 Do you happen to have any idea where Google is getting this regionalised data from and in particular the pricing which is incorrect? We have a Google (UK) Product Feed however the prices given are different than those being displayed in this localised search. Additionally the product feed that we supply relates to our main website and not a specific store. If you click through to compare prices from multiple merchants you'll see our prices being listed correctly under our company name and website rather than the incorrect pricing attributed to a specific store. I have checked our Google Places Account and our Google Product Feed Account but I just can't figure out where this data and incorrect pricing is coming from and indeed why it only affects our physical stores and not the more generalised website pricing. If someone could point me in the right direction so I can get this corrected I’d appreciate it! Many thanks Chris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate0 -
Understanding Canocalization, domain structure, redirects
Hey guys, My background is more in marketing aspect of SEO and I'm afraid my technical knowledge is not where it should be. I'm confused about how to find out whether a site is splitting link juice by having to many domains(?) that are not redirected properly. Am I asking that right? How do you figure that out? And, once you know, do you just go to the ones that are not redirecting and add a 301? Where is the best place to add a 301? I know there's a difference in the eyes of the search engines between, say, example.com and www.example.com and probably other forms, correct? I'm not a programmer or IT specialist, I'm a marketing consultant, but I feel like I'm really missing it when it comes to understanding all this stuff (looking at HTTP headers, using GWT, reading source code, etc) and am not sure the best way to learn it effectively so I can be sure I'm not missing something when consulting with clients. Help? Please? Thanks, David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DavidPPeters0