HTML entity characters in meta descriptions
-
Is it okay to leave HTML entity characters, such as " in meta descriptions? Will search engines translate these appropriately?
-
Thank you for the response, Zee.
I've been told that Google is "familiar" with character escaping and will interpret the description correctly. Is there a way to confirm this?
We're programmatically populating meta descriptions for one of our applications and having trouble converting the HTML entity characters.
Thank you
Ellen- -
Hey there! Meta descriptions support non-encoded characters, and search engines will display these characters correctly in SERPs; you don't need to use " to represent " in meta descriptions. You'll see an example of this for the w3 result in this SERP, where you see the " as well as " in its meta description.
Since you're writing meta descriptions for users, and not search engine crawlers, I would recommend you find + replace these characters with their reader-friendly version. Search engines will present the characters you've inserted into your meta descriptions, which may negatively impact users' abilities to read your meta descriptions (and be less likely to click on your results in search).
hope this helps
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
-
JSON-LD meta data: Do you have any rules/recommendations for using BlogPosting vs Article?
Dear Moz Community. I'm looking at moving from in-line Microdata in the HTML to JSON-LD on the web pages that I manage. Seems a far simpler solution having all the meta data in one place - especially for trouble shooting! With this in mind I've started to change the page templates on my personal site before I tackle the ones for my eCommerce site. I've made a start, and I'm still working on the templates producing some default values (like if a page doesn't have an associated image) but have been wondering if any of you have any rules/recommendations for using BlogPosting vs Article? I'd call this type of page an Article:
Technical SEO | | andystorey
https://cycling-jersey-collection.com/browse-collection/selle-italia-chinol-seb-bennotto-1982-team-jersey Whereas this page is from the /blog so that should probably be a BlogPosting:
https://cycling-jersey-collection.com/blog/2017-worldtour-team-jerseys I've used the following resources but it would be great to get a discussion on here.
https://yoast.com/structured-data-schema-ultimate-guide/
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/data-type-selector
https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/0/ I'm keen to get this 100% right as once this is done I'm going to drive through some further changes to get some progress on things like this: https://moz.com/blog/ranking-zero-seo-for-answers
https://moz.com/blog/what-we-learned-analyzing-featured-snippets Kind Regards andy moz-screenshot.jpg1 -
Phone Number In Meta Description
People are more likely to call us, than email us. However, if they're using a mobile device, there's a click to call button on that site. My question is this: google does not include our phone number in our meta description. I could try to get the description changed, but it doesn't seem like it would make that big of a deal for just the desktop site. Am I missing something about the importance of the phone number on a desktop site? Any experience with this situation? Thanks, Ruben
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup3 -
Empty Meta Robots Directive - Harmful?
Hi, We had a coding update and a side-effect of that was that our directive was emptied, in other words it now reads as: on all of the site. I've since noticed that Google's cache date on all of the pages - at least, the ones I tested - have a Cached date of no later than 17 December '12 - that's the Monday after the directive was removed on mass. So, A, does anyone have solid evidence of an empty directive causing problems? Past experience, Matt Cutts, Fishkin quote, etc. And then B - It seems fairly well correlated but, does my entire site's homogenous Cached date point to this tag removal? Or is it fairly normal to have a particular cache date across a large site (we're a large ecommerce site). Our site: http://www.zando.co.za/ I'm having the directive reinstated as soon as Dev permitting. And then, for extra credit, is there a way with Google's API, or perhaps some other tool, to run an arbitrary list and retrieve Cached dates? I'd want to do this for diagnosis purposes and preferably in a way that OK with Google. I'd avoid CURLing for the cached URL and scraping out that dates with BASH, or any such kind of thing. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | RocketZando0 -
Our homepage currently uses a Meta refresh. Is it worth $1,000 to get it fixed?
Look at http://www.ccisolutions.com After the meta refresh takes place the homepage URL looks like this: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher?iafAction=showMain I am trying to convince management that it is worth spending $1,000 with our current provider to get it fixed. It is my understanding that this meta refresh could be preventing the value of our homepage from being passed down to our category pages, etc. Can anyone give me something concrete that I can use to convince management that the fix is worth $1,000? Or is it not worth fixing?
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Pdf page titles and descriptions errors
In my weekly crawl report I suddenly have a huge number of title not found and missing page descriptions errors for all of my pdf files. The pdfs do have a page title (defined in the file/properties tab) However these page titles are not being picked up by the crawler or google. Any ideas how do I fix this? ( I am using the Adrobat 9 Distiller)
Technical SEO | | PerriCline0 -
Is this tabbed implementation of SEO copy correct (i.e. good for getting indexed and in an ok spot in the html as viewed by search bots?
We are trying to switch to a tabbed version of our team/product pages at SeatGeek.com, but where all tabs (only 2 right now) are viewed as one document by the search engines. I am pretty sure we have this working for the most part, but would love some quick feedback from you all as I have never worked with this approach before and these pages are some of our most important. Resources: http://www.ericpender.com/blog/tabs-and-seo http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=03fdefb488a16343&hl=en http://searchengineland.com/is-hiding-content-with-display-none-legitimate-seo-13643 Sample in use: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors **Old Version: ** http://screencast.com/t/BWn0OgZsXt http://seatgeek.com/boston-celtics-tickets/ New Version with tabs: http://screencast.com/t/VW6QzDaGt http://screencast.com/t/RPvYv8sT2 http://seatgeek.com/miami-heat-tickets/ Notes: Content not displayed stacked on browser when Javascript turned off, but it is in the source code. Content shows up in Google cache of new page in the text version. In our implementation the JS is currently forcing the event to end before the default behavior of adding #about in this case to the url string - this can be changed, should it be? Related to this, the developer made it so that typing http://seatgeek.com/miami-heat-tickets/#about directly into the browser does not go to the tab with copy, which I imagine could be considered spammy from a human review perspective (this wasn't intentional). This portion of the code is below the truncated view of the fetch as Googlebot, so we didn't have that resource. Are there any issues with hidden text / is this too far down in the html? Any/all feedback appreciated. I know our copy is old, we are in the process of updating it for this season.
Technical SEO | | chadburgess0 -
Will changing page extensions from .html to .php require a redirect?
Hi. We are launching a new website and our .html page extensions will be replaced with a .php page extension. Example: www.theideapeople.com/web_design.html (current url) www.theideapeople.com/web_design.php (new url) Will this require any special treatment to maintain the page SEO ranking? Does it make a difference if you use a .html or .php? Thank you for your help and insight! Jay
Technical SEO | | theideapeople0 -
What to do about "blocked by meta-robots"?
The crawl report tells me "Notices are interesting facts about your pages we found while crawling". One of these interesting facts is that my blog archives are "blocked by meta robots". Articles are not blocked, just the archives. What is a "meta" robot? I think its just normal (since the article need only be crawled once) but want a second opinion. Should I care about this?
Technical SEO | | GPN0