Incorrect Spelling Indexed In Meta Info - Can't Change It
-
Hi,It would be great if a member of the community could help me to resolve this issue.Google is indexing an incorrect spelling on of our key pages and we can't identify the reason why.- The page in question: https://newbridgesilverware.com/jewelleryAs you can see from the attached image, the Meta Title is rendered to contain the keyword "jewelry" (the American spelling.) We want this to read as "jewellery" - the British-English spelling. Yet in the page source the word is given in the meta title as "jewellery". Nowhere in the page source or on the page itself does the American spelling appear - yet Google still renders it in the Meta Title.Can anyone identify why this is happening and offer any possible solutions?Much appreciated
-
Hi John,
could you please give us a feedback and tell if any of the suggestions the community offered to you was of help?
Thank you.
-
Did you implemented the hreflang annotation using the sitemaps.xml methodology?
I'm asking because in this page https://newbridgesilverware.com/jewellery I don't see any hreflang in the code.
Another question... you're talking about a version for UK/IE and one version for the US, but I see only one site and sub folders like it could be /us/ for the United States ecommerce version.
So... are you dynamically changing the content (included meta titles) depending on user IP?
Because if it is so, then the hreflang doesn't work at all and you should, instead, check out this help page by Google https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6144055?hl=en, which is about Locale-aware crawling by Googlebot.
However, to be totally sincere, that Google is advising in red in that same page this: We continue to support and recommend using separate locale URL configurations and annotating them with rel=alternate hreflang annotations... makes me recommend you to forget dynamic serving and create two separate versions of your ecommerce and, once done, implement the hreflang annotations.
-
Just a bump on this one.
We added Href Lang Tags last week (one unique to the US, one that would appear only to those in the UK & Ireland) and had the site recrawled and reindexed, but this issue is still appearing with the American spelling appearing in the Meta Info in Google's index - despite being present nowhere on the page or the page source.
Anyone have any ideas on possible resolutions to this one?
-
Hi Logan,
No, this is the only page with dynamic content causing an issue.
The US is one of the key markets, alongside the UK & Ireland so unfortunately dynamic content like this would be ideal.
No target country is set, but I will put this suggestion to the team. Thanks.
-
Are there other pages that have dynamic content based on location? If this is the only one, this is probably too big of a project for such a small problem.
Are you targeting the US market as well? If you're only looking to market to UK/Ireland, you might just want to take out that dynamic content.
Have you set a location for your site in Search Console? Doing so might help Google better understand your site and shift the meta data for UK/Ireland properly.
-
Hi Logan,
Many thanks for your suggestion, I will put that to the team.
The only differences in content will be the spelling of jewelry vs jewellery. This is already the case, throughout the page.
On Google, both the meta description and the URL are correctly displaying as "jewellery" as it should for the UK & Ireland. The issue with the US spelling is only impacting the Page Title itself...
-
In that case, you might have some difficulties getting this resolved. What's seems to be happening is Google is finding your US version and indexing those regardless of location. If you want to serve different content based on location, there should be a unique URL for each country. You can then specify to each version of Google (.com, .ie, or .co.uk) with hreflang tags which URL should be in which index. I'm not exactly sure how you're swapping out the meta data, but it seems like Google is only acknowledging your US versions.
-
Hi Alick,
Many thanks for your response.
Are you based in the USA? What I should have mentioned is that the website was built for Meta Information to be inputted for both US and UK & Ireland audiences.
So any searches from the US should infact render jewelry, whereas from my location (in Ireland), it should render jewellery. When I check the source code, there is only the jewellery spelling and no appearances of jewelry at all within the source code.
-
Hi Logan,
Are you based in the USA? What I should have mentioned is that the website was built for Meta Information to be inputted for both US and UK & Ireland audiences.
So any searches from the US should infact render jewelry, whereas from my location (in Ireland), it should render jewellery. When I check the source code, there is only the jewellery spelling and no appearances of jewelry at all within the source code.
-
As Alick pointed out in his screenshot, the title tag does use the American spelling, 'Jewelry'. Google will not correct what they show in SERPs until they're provided with something different. When searching the source code, I also found 15 other instances of the American spelling on your site, which mostly appear in the navigation. I'd recommend changing the navigation links to reflect this as well
-
Hi,
Google cached version showing that 'Jewelry' used in meta title (6th may 2017). It will be fixed when Google crawl your page again. I'm also attaching cached version image.
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
-
Crawl and Indexation Error - Googlebot can't/doesn't access specific folders on microsites
Hi, My first time posting here, I am just looking for some feedback on a indexation issue we have with a client and any feedback on possible next steps or items I may have overlooked. To give some background, our client operates a website for the core band and a also a number of microsites based on specific business units, so you have corewebsite.com along with bu1.corewebsite.com, bu2.corewebsite.com. The content structure isn't ideal, as each microsite follows a structure of bu1.corewebsite.com/bu1/home.aspx, bu2.corewebsite.com/bu2/home.aspx and so on. In addition to this each microsite has duplicate folders from the other microsites so bu1.corewebsite.com has indexable folders bu1.corewebsite.com/bu1/home.aspx but also bu1.corewebsite.com/bu2/home.aspx the same with bu2.corewebsite.com has bu2.corewebsite.com/bu2/home.aspx but also bu2.corewebsite.com/bu1/home.aspx. Therre are 5 different business units so you have this duplicate content scenario for all microsites. This situation is being addressed in the medium term development roadmap and will be rectified in the next iteration of the site but that is still a ways out. The issue
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ImpericMedia
About 6 weeks ago we noticed a drop off in search rankings for two of our microsites (bu1.corewebsite.com and bu2.corewebsite.com) over a period of 2-3 weeks pretty much all our terms dropped out of the rankings and search visibility dropped to essentially 0. I can see that pages from the websites are still indexed but oddly it is the duplicate content pages so (bu1.corewebsite.com/bu3/home.aspx or (bu1.corewebsite.com/bu4/home.aspx is still indexed, similiarly on the bu2.corewebsite microsite bu2.corewebsite.com/bu3/home.aspx and bu4.corewebsite.com/bu3/home.aspx are indexed but no pages from the BU1 or BU2 content directories seem to be indexed under their own microsites. Logging into webmaster tools I can see there is a "Google couldn't crawl your site because we were unable to access your site's robots.txt file." This was a bit odd as there was no robots.txt in the root directory but I got some weird results when I checked the BU1/BU2 microsites in technicalseo.com robots text tool. Also due to the fact that there is a redirect from bu1.corewebsite.com/ to bu1.corewebsite.com/bu4.aspx I thought maybe there could be something there so consequently we removed the redirect and added a basic robots to the root directory for both microsites. After this we saw a small pickup in site visibility, a few terms pop into our Moz campaign rankings but drop out again pretty quickly. Also the error message in GSC persisted. Steps taken so far after that In Google Search Console, I confirmed there are no manual actions against the microsites. Confirmed there is no instances of noindex on any of the pages for BU1/BU2 A number of the main links from the root domain to microsite BU1/BU2 have a rel="noopener noreferrer" attribute but we looked into this and found it has no impact on indexation Looking into this issue we saw some people had similar issues when using Cloudflare but our client doesn't use this service Using a response redirect header tool checker, we noticed a timeout when trying to mimic googlebot accessing the site Following on from point 5 we got a hold of a week of server logs from the client and I can see Googlebot successfully pinging the site and not getting 500 response codes from the server...but couldn't see any instance of it trying to index microsite BU1/BU2 content So it seems to me that the issue could be something server side but I'm at a bit of a loss of next steps to take. Any advice at all is much appreciated!0 -
Monthly Refreshes Aren't Actually Needed, Right?
We get tons of emails from Network Solutions with the following text: To ensure that your website is easily found online it is important that you submit your website to the major search engines and internet directories, including: | Google™ Google Places™ Google Mobile™ Bing™ Yahoo!<sup>®</sup> Twitter<sup>®</sup> | Facebook<sup>®</sup> CitySearch<sup>®</sup> Foursquare™ Angie's List<sup>®</sup> GPS navigation MerchantCircle<sup>®</sup> | To do so, we recommend you go to each search engine and internet directories web page, locate the instructions and then complete a monthly refresh of your listing. If you would like us to complete this process for you please call us at... Everything I've ever read about modern SEO says this isn't necessary and it's just a solicitation to get people to pay them for something they don't even need. We update our social pages regularly and maintain listings on many citation sites using Moz Local (in addition to manually building citations). Can you guys confirm that this is just more spam from Network Solutions?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottImageWorks0 -
When Mobile and Desktop sites have the same page URLs, how should I handle the 'View Desktop Site' link on a mobile site to ensure a smooth crawl?
We're about to roll out a mobile site. The mobile and desktop URLs are the same. User Agent determines whether you see the desktop or mobile version of the site. At the bottom of the page is a 'View Desktop Site' link that will present the desktop version of the site to mobile user agents when clicked. I'm concerned that when the mobile crawler crawls our site it will crawl both our entire mobile site, then click 'View Desktop Site' and crawl our entire desktop site as well. Since mobile and desktop URLs are the same, the mobile crawler will end up crawling both mobile and desktop versions of each URL. Any tips on what we can do to make sure the mobile crawler either doesn't access the desktop site, or that we can let it know what is the mobile version of the page? We could simply not show the 'View Desktop Site' to the mobile crawler, but I'm interested to hear if others have encountered this issue and have any other recommended ways for handling it. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | merch_zzounds0 -
I've seen and heard alot about city-specific landing pages for businesses with multiple locations, but what about city-specific landing pages for cities nearby that you aren't actually located in? Is it ok to create landing pages for nearby cities?
I asked here https://www.google.com/moderator/#7/e=adbf4 but figured out ask the Moz Community also! Is it actually best practice to create landing pages for nearby cities if you don't have an actual address there? Even if your target customers are there? For example, If I am in Miami, but have a lot of customers who come from nearby cities like Fort Lauderdale is it okay to create those LP's? I've heard this described as best practice, but I'm beginning to question whether Google sees it that way.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley2 -
Can changing G+ authorship on a well-ranking article drop its search ranking?
We have an article that ranks #1 in Google SERP for the keyword we want it to rank for. We decided to revise the article because although it's performing well, we knew it could be better and more informative for the user. Now that we've revised the content, we're wondering: Should we update the article author (and the G+ authorship markup) to reflect that the revisor authored the content, or keep the original author listed? Can changing G+ authorship on an article impact its search ranking, or is that an issue that's a few Google algorithm updates down the road?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pasware0 -
Can SEO increase a page's Authority? Or can Authority only be earned via #RCS?
Hi all. I am asking this question to purposefully provoke a discussion. The CEO of the company where I am the in-house SEO sent me a directive this morning. The directive is to take our Website from a PR3 site to a PR5....in 6 months. Now, I know Page Rank is a bit of a deprecated concept, but I'm sure you would agree that "Authority" is still crucial to ranking well. When he first sent me the directive it was worded like this "I want a plan in place with the goal being to "beat" a specific competitor in 6 months." When I prodded him to define "beat," i.e. did he mean "outrank" for every keyword, he answered that he wanted our site to have the same "Authority" that this particular competitor has. So I am left pondering this question: Is it possible for SEO to increase the authority of a page? Or does "Authority" come from #RCS? The second part of this question is what would you do if you were in my shoes? I have been devoting huge amounts of time on technical SEO because the Website is a mess. Because I've dedicated so much time to technical issues, link-earning has taken a back seat. In my mind, why would anyone want to link to a crappy site that has serious technical issues (slow load times, no persistent cart, lots of 404s, etc)? Shouldn't we make the site awesome before trying to get people to link to us? Given this directive to improve our site's "Authority" - would you scrap the technical SEO and go whole hog into a link-earning binge, or would you hunker down and pound away at the technical issues? Which one would you do first if you couldn't do both at the same time? Comments, thoughts and insights would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo1 -
Change to SiteLinks?
Hi All, Perhaps it's been like this all along (I don't think so) but can someone tell me why some pages with Google sitelinks now look like this (see the "Coke" search) while others look like this (see the "Amazon" search image). Is this because of Rich Snippet use? One of my client's SiteLinks used to resemble the Amazon one, but now resembles the Coke one (not preferred). Any input? Thanks, Chris Elevated Synergy Group - SEO coke.png amazon.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chris.Bleill0 -
What if you can't navigate naturally to your canonicalized URL?
Assume this situation for a second... Let's say you place a rel= canonical tag on a page and point to the original/authentic URL. Now, let's say that that original/authentic URL is also populated into your XML sitemap... So, here's my question... Since you can't actually navigate to that original/authentic URL (it still loads with a 200, it's just not actually linkded to from within the site itself), does that create an issue for search engines? Last consideration... The bots can still access those pages via the canonical tag and the XML sitemap, it's just that the user wouldn't be able to access those original/authentic pages in their natural site navigation. Thanks, Rodrigo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlgoFreaks0