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
-
Why isn't our complete meta title showing up in the Google SERPS? (cut off half way)
We carry a product line, cutless bearings (for use on boats). For instance, we have one, called the Able, that has the following meta title (and searched by View Page Source to confirm): BOOT 1-3/8" x 2-3/8" x 5-1/2" Johnson Cutless Bearing | BOOT Cutlass However, if I search for it on on Google by part number or name (boot cutless bearing, boot cutlass bearing), the meta title comes back with whole first part chopped off, only showing this : "x 5-1/2" Johnson Cutless Bearing | BOOT Cutlass - Citimarine ..." Any idea why? Here's the url if it will hopefully help: https://citimarinestore.com/en/metallic-inches/156-boot-johnson-cutless-bearing-870352103.html All the products in the category are doing the same. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Citimarine0 -
Why some websites can rank the keywords they don't have in the page?
Hello guys, Yesterday, I used SEMrush to search for the keyword "branding agency" to see the SERP. The Liquidagency ranks 5th on the first page. So I went to their homepage but saw no exact keywords "branding agency", even in the page source. Also, I didn't see "branding agency" as a top anchor text in the external links to the page (from the report of SEMrush). I am an SEO newbie, can someone explain this to me, please? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Raymondlee0 -
Is ok to add 'no follow' to every outbound link?
How do you handle outbound links from your site?.. do you no follow them all to be on the safe side?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nick-name1230 -
New website won't rank for branded keywords in Google, but does in Bing
We launched a website in October www.butterfly.com. The branded product name "Butterfly Body Liners" will not rank until page 2 of Google, but it ranks #1 in Bing. Organic traffic never really picked up so it's not easy to tell if it's been "hit" by any penalty. The strange thing is, this website: http://archive.is/PQZdO is ranking #1. This is an archived version of the site. Does anyone have any insight as to why this is happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LaughlinConstable0 -
Client Can't Write His Own Articles
Hello, I'm helping a client put together an FAQ and 5 thorough, graphically stimulating, articles. The client can easily write his FAQ articles. However, he's not knowledgeable enough to write the 5 thorough articles, and hiring an expert to write them from scratch would cost a huge chunk of money. Should we have a writer put together an outline or rough draft and present that to the expert for editing? The client can afford that. Or what's the best way to move forward without costing a huge amount of money?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW1 -
Sudden Change In Indexed Pages
Every week I check the number of pages indexed by google using the "site:" function. I have set up a permanent redirect from all the non-www pages to www pages. When I used to run the function for the: non-www pages (i.e site:mysite.com), would have 12K results www pages (i.e site:www.mysite.com) would have about 36K The past few days, this has reversed! I get 12K for www pages, and 36K for non-www pages. Things I have changed: I have added canonical URL links in the header, all have www in the URL. My questions: Is this cause for concern? Can anyone explain this to me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Has there been a 'Panda' update in the UK?
My site in the UK suddenly dropped from page 1 and out of top 50 for all KWs using 'recliner' or a derivative. We are a recliner manufacturer and have gained rank over 15 years, and of course using all white hat tactics. Did Google make an algo update in the Uk last week?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KnutDSvendsen0 -
Robots.txt: Link Juice vs. Crawl Budget vs. Content 'Depth'
I run a quality vertical search engine. About 6 months ago we had a problem with our sitemaps, which resulted in most of our pages getting tossed out of Google's index. As part of the response, we put a bunch of robots.txt restrictions in place in our search results to prevent Google from crawling through pagination links and other parameter based variants of our results (sort order, etc). The idea was to 'preserve crawl budget' in order to speed the rate at which Google could get our millions of pages back in the index by focusing attention/resources on the right pages. The pages are back in the index now (and have been for a while), and the restrictions have stayed in place since that time. But, in doing a little SEOMoz reading this morning, I came to wonder whether that approach may now be harming us... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/restricting-robot-access-for-improved-seo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kurus
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions Specifically, I'm concerned that a) we're blocking the flow of link juice and that b) by preventing Google from crawling the full depth of our search results (i.e. pages >1), we may be making our site wrongfully look 'thin'. With respect to b), we've been hit by Panda and have been implementing plenty of changes to improve engagement, eliminate inadvertently low quality pages, etc, but we have yet to find 'the fix'... Thoughts? Kurus0