Google displaying "Items 1-9" before the description in the Search Results
-
We see our pages coming up in Google with the category page/product numbers in front of our descriptions. For example: Items 1 - 24 of 86 (and than the descriptions follows).
Our website is magento based. Is there a fix for this that anyone knows of?
Is there method of stopping Google from adding this on to the front of our Meta Description?
-
Hi there, thanks for your question! Has it been answered? We'd love an update on this issue, thanks!!
Christy
-
In Webmaster tools, are there many duplicate descriptions?
What do you mean by losing all the existing URLs?
Yes we do, you can contact me on my profile for further action on this.
-
In our webmasters tools, I do see many duplicated page issues...What would be an easy fix?
Would we lose all the existing URL's?
Also Rene, perhaps inappropriate to ask in this Q and A section, but do you also offer
offer services to fix these issues for companies? Often I get great advise, but wouldnt
know where to start implementing it, and our web developer is great, but not very
SEO knowledgeable...
-
Well it should be empty, but I don't see any problems with this page in particular: http://www.dutchgrown.com/fall-planted-bulbs/tulips/tulip-arma.html
""
Are there a description that you could show me which contains the prefix? By the way, you should be careful using the category option for your products. Especially with Magento, you can run into Duplicate Content issues when you have the category as a part of the product URL.
-
website is http://tinyurl.com/lbldnba
-
Dear Rene,
Thank you for responding.
I did not see Search Engine Optimization listed under: System => Configuration => Catalog => Search Engine Optimization?
However, I was able to go to the sidewide settings shown in your screenshot.
My "Title Prefix" and "Title Suffix" and "Default Description" are empty right now.Do you recommend putting in a default description?
-
Do you mean that Magento adds a prefix on your meta descriptions? Or do you mean that the category is included in the URL?
Just wanted to make sure that I understand it correctly, and I think that you ask about the meta description tag. Have you taken a look at the meta description field in System => Configuration => Catalog => Search Engine Optimization?
You could also take a look at the sidewide settings for the tags: http://www.screenpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Generall-Config2-580x324.png
What is your URL?
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
-
Google displaying root domain instead of country locale
Hi, For many months now, Google refuses to display the relevant locale in many markets, and instead shows the root domain as number 1 result. The country locale isn't even in the SERP in some countries(!). This only applies for branded searches. It appears Google is treating the root domain as an international landing page or something, while this isn't the case - visitors get redirected automatically based on their Geo-IP to the relevant country locale if they enter the root domain, there is no "flag selector" that people or bots can choose. Site: example.com If someone searches for "example" from Google Canada, they should be met with example.com/en-ca/ as the first result for branded searches. Instead, example.com is ranking, and example.com/en-ca/ is nowhere to be found. This problem is in all our English markets; Canada, India and UK. For non-english countries, branded searches return the relevant locale, but the root domain is often the 2nd result as well. This isn't as bad as the case with the English markets, but still. Any help whatsoever would be greatly appreciated, or if you can recommend great reading assets. I have researched this thoroughly and tried different technical solutions, but nothing has worked so far. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | LeoVegas0 -
Is "Above the Fold Content" still a thing?
Many of our pages have the textual content stuffed at the bottom of the page because the manager doesn't think anybody reads it and it is an eyesore to have at the top: http://www.stevinsontoyotawest.com/schedule-service For some light reading here is Google’s official blog talking about content quality:
Technical SEO | | MEllsworth
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html This references Ads vs Content showing above the fold. However, in our case it has to do with images vs ads and stuffing text at the bottom of pages. Here is a bit of heavier reading. You can do a quick search for "Fold" to see their interpretation.
http://macedynamics.com/research/content-quality-score/ I understand that images are still content, however hardly any of the images have Alt text and they are not even named with keywords so Google really can't distinguish what the page is about through images alone. I'm not about to go through the entire site and add Alt text and rename images because I have much more to do on my plate. So, the questions is: Is stuffing content at the bottom of the page, below all images/inventory/widgets ok to do or should we stick with the eyesore content at the top of the page? Thoughts?0 -
My sites "pages indexed by Google" have gone up more than qten-fold.
Prior to doing a little work cleaning up broken links and keyword stuffing Google only indexed 23/333 pages. I realize it may not be because of the work but now we have around 300/333. My question is is this a big deal? cheers,
Technical SEO | | Billboard20120 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
Is the " meta content tag" important?
I am currently trying to optimize my companies website and I noticed that meta content is exactly the same for all of the pages on our website. Isn't this problematic? The actual content on the webpage is not the same and a lot of the pages don't have these keywords in the content.
Technical SEO | | AubbiefromAubenRealty0 -
Search result pages - noindex but auto follow?
Hi guys, I don't index my search pages, and currently my pages are tagged name="robots" content="noindex"> Do I need to specify follow or will it automatically be done? Thanks Cyto
Technical SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Domain "Forwarded"?
Hi SEOMoz! The company I work for has a website, www.accupos.com, but they also have an old domain which is not used anymore called http://accuposretail.com/ These two sites had duplicate content so I requested the OLD site (http://accuposretail.com/) be redirected to accupos.com to eliminate the dupe content. Unfortunately, I do not understand completely what happened but when they performed this forwarding the accuposretail.com URL is still in use. Now it just displays EXACTLY what accupos.com displays and not something similar. The tech team told me it is forwarded but I can't help but see the URL still in the search box on top. Is this unacceptable? The actual URL has to forward and change to the accupos.com URL in order to not be duplicate content, correct? I have limited experience in this. Please let me know if we are good to go, or if I need to tell them more action is required. Thanks! Derek M
Technical SEO | | DerekM880 -
Is having "rel=canonical" on the same page it is pointing to going to hurt search?
i like the rel=canonical tag and i've seen matt cutts posts on google about this tag. for the site i'm working on, it's a great workaround because we often have two identical or nearly identical versions of pages: 1 for patients, 1 for doctors. the problem is this: the way our content management system is set up, certain pages are linked up in a number of places and when we publish, two different versions of the page are created, but same content. because they are both being made from the same content templates, if i put in the rel=canonical tag, both pages get it. so, if i have: http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp and http://www.myhospital.com/professional-condition.asp and they are both produced from the same template, and have the same content, and i'm trying to point search at http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp, but that tag appears on both pages similarly, we have various forms and we like to know where people are coming from on the site to use those forms. to the bots, it looks like there's 600 versions of particular pages, so again, rel=canonical is great. however, because it's actually all the same page, just a link with a variable tacked on (http://www.myhospital.com/makeanappointment.asp?id=211) the rel=canonical tag will appear on "all" of them. any insight is most appreciated! thanks! brett
Technical SEO | | brett_hss0