Google Search Console issue: "This is how Googlebot saw the page" showing part of page being covered up
-
Hi everyone!
Kind of a weird question here but I'll ask and see if anyone else has seen this:
In Google Search Console when I do a fetch and render request for a specific site, the fetch and blocked resources all look A-OK.
However, in the render, there's a large grey box (background of navigation) that covers up a significant amount of what is on the page.
Attaching a screenshot.
You can see the text start peeking out below (had to trim for confidentiality reasons). But behind that block of grey IS text. And text that apparently in the fetch part Googlebot does see and can crawl.
My question: is this an issue? Should I be concerned about this visual look? Or no?
Never have experienced an issue like that.
I will say - trying to make a play at a featured snippet and can't seem to have Google display this page's information, despite it being the first result and the query showing a featured snippet of a result #4. I know that it isn't guaranteed for the #1 result but wonder if this has anything to do with why it isn't showing one.
-
Good to hear no performance issue. Obviously that is priority number one. Definitely don't sweat the render. You might want to refetch and see how it looks. also give it shot with mobile fetch to see if you get anything different.
A lot of us are chasing the position zero snippet. I didn't look at your site closely but i would start by making sure that every single item (as appropriate) is marked up with schema.org. That will put you closer to your goal
-
No performance issues, other than not capturing the featured snippet despite my best efforts
Really, I'm mostly concerned about the render, as I hadn't seen that in the 10ish years I've been doing SEO.
Seems like, with your great help (thanks so much again!), that it probably isn't actually an issue of any kind that is hindering performance or the ability to capture the featured snippet.
-
Hi Christian, my apologies, i should have noted that. The CSS does not render in the text cache version. The value though is that you can see if something is crawlable/displaying properly. So for instance, if you looked at that cached version and didnt see any of the content on your page, you know you have something stopping the search engines from properly crawaling and indexing the page.
edit. noticing when looking at the link that the full version doesn't show the CSS either. That's a bit weird. I wouldn't worry about it too much as it seems other pages on your site are rendering properly in the full version.
are you seeing any performance issues with the page or is the concern originally due to just the fact that grey box was displaying in the search/render feature of console?
-
Totally hear you.
Here's a link to the page: https://goo.gl/kZVqE9
Will also say: the cached version of it in Google is also very strange. Almost like CSS not really working.
-
Without knowing the URL its really difficult to audit this situation. My first thought is to ask if you have a pop up that loads when a user comes to your page. Google could be rendering the popup without its content. To your point the content on the page is still shown but only behind the popup.
When you look at the actual text cache of the page are you seeing the actual text of the page? If this is the case I would rely on this more than the rendered version. Honestly, it could be multiple things but without the URL it really is nearly impossible to tell you why.
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
-
Review snippets not shown on google search results
Hi, In Moz it shows that we have a review snippet for a keyword/page, but it is not shown on google SERP. Can anyone explain why it isnt shown on Google search results, and what we should do in order to get it shown ?
On-Page Optimization | | jensatlieto0 -
Too many links per page? Double navigation on every page...
I have a client with navigation across the top of each page plus the same nav links in a sidebar on every page. Can that duplication (or the sheer number of links) on each page have a negative ranking factor?
On-Page Optimization | | brm20170 -
Duplicate content - "Same" profile-information
Hi, I own a casting website with lots of profiles. Some of these profiles only typed in their firstname, email and age, when they registered on the site, and they haven't added more information ever since. From Crawl Diagnostics, I can see that there is "lots" of these profiles, which looks exactly the same (only showing age and firstname), allthought they are not the same. I could add which day the profile were created on the site, to maybe avoid these "duplications". The email will always be hidden. Or, how big an issue is this? Crawl Diagnostics tells me, that there is around 200 of these, and they are "marked" as High Priority. Any ideas on what to do? /Kasper
On-Page Optimization | | KasperGJ0 -
Rel="canonical" Wordpress 2015 Best Practice
There are forum posts about how to insert rel="canonical" tags in Wordpress, but I've read about lots of changes in this space recently (updates to Yoast, for example). I'm having a problem with duplicate content on one of my sites, and it seems to be coming from multiple indexes of the same pages. I'll have a blog post show up under the posts, then the archives, then the tags. So, my question is, in early 2015, what are the current best practices for adding rel="canonical" tags in Wordpress? Thanks! Tim
On-Page Optimization | | TimLlew0 -
How the hell do you get microformat to show up on google serp?
Preface: I implemented Microformat aggregate review (http://data-vocabulary.org/Review-aggregate) for our e-commerce website and included only on the homepage. The vote and count are actually coming from real reviews we are getting from our customers, and in the homepage some reviews are shown prominently and a link points to the full list of all the reviews. Microformat markup is correct, validated in GWT. Have been online for a while (probably a couple of years). Our website: http://www.gomme-auto.it The star rating never showed up. When checking competitors I could see their microformats where not showing up either. But now things changed, if I check one competitor (the market leader www.gommadiretto.it) searching for it with their brand name “gommadiretto” no star rating is showing, but if I search for tires of a specific manufactured like “pneumatici barum” I can see their result in serp is showing the star rating for that specific internal page (the brand page) where they simply put the website overall aggregate review microformat mark up, they actually put it on every page. And that make me scratch my head and start asking myself some questions: is google showing their microformats because they manually awarded them somehow? no other competitor seems to have got the star rating in serp is google showing their microformats because they have so much more reviews than I have? I have around 1700, they have around 11000. is google showing their microformats because their reviews are certified by TrustPilot? is google showing their microformats because they put it in the product page? well of course since I am not putting it there (in the brand page) it's a factor, but isn't it recommended to put the website aggregate reviews microformat only on one page? and shouldn't we show the brand reviews on the brand page? isn't it best practice/recommended to put the website aggregate review microformat only on one page? is google showing their microformats because of some other reasons I can't see? What the hell is google criteria for showing the star rating? Does anyone know?
On-Page Optimization | | max.favilli0 -
Why does Google pick a low priority page on my site?
Hi Guys. One of my pages ranks quite well for "mid year diaries 14-15" on Google. The problem is it's a really specific product page (A4, Hardback, day-to-a-page diary I think). It would be much better for the user to land on our mid-year diaries category, not really deep into the site. Why is Google prioritizing this product page over our general 'mid year diaries' category? Especially when the category would relate to the search more accurately? I work for TOAD diaries and I think our page rank is 10 for this search. Eagerly awaiting some insight 🙂 Thanks in advance everyone! Isaac.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
Is it redundant to include a redirect to my canonical domain (www) in my .htaccess file since I already have the correct rel="canonical" in my header?
I've been reading the benefits of each practice, but not found anyone mentioning whether it's really necessary to do both? Personally I try to stay clear of .htaccess rewrites unless it's absolutely necessary, since because I've read they can slow down a website.
On-Page Optimization | | HOPdigital0 -
What image attribute should carry "anchor text" for internal linking
Newbie question: an internal link generally should carry keyword anchor text, so if the link is actually an image, what image attribute should contain the equivalent of the anchor text
On-Page Optimization | | k3nn3dy30