Meta description tag problems according to an seo tool
-
hi, my site is www.in2town.co.uk
I am using an seo tool to check on my site and how to improve the seo. The tool is here. http://www.juxseo.com/report/view/51ebf9deab900
for some reason it has brought up errors, it claims i have not got a meta description even though i have and have doubled checked in my source code
the errors it has brought up is as follows, and i would like to know if this is a fault of the seo tool or am i doing something wrong
Does the description tag exist?0/1
<a id="sub_toggle_12" class="sub_toggle contract_sub"></a>Hide Info
Description Tag:
Explanation: The meta description tag does not help your rankings but it is your opportunity to encourage prospects to click. The meta description should describe the content of your web page, include a strong call to action, and include your keyword.
Action: Make sure you are using the meta description tag. It is found in the section of your page.
Is there only one description tag?0/2<a id="sub_toggle_13" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More Info
Is your description less than 156 characters?0/1<a id="sub_toggle_14" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More Info
Is your keyword in the description tag?0/3
<a id="sub_toggle_15" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More Info
it also says about the canocial tag which it claims i have more than one
Is the canonical tag optmized?
Is there only one canonical tag?0/4
<a id="sub_toggle_10" class="sub_toggle contract_sub"></a>Hide Info
Explanation: You only need one of these to direct a search engine. Don't muddy the waters.
Action: Make sure you only have one canonical tag. This only applies if you use the canonical tag.
any help and advice would be greatregards
-
just to let you know that i have now sorted the issues on the home page and we have jumped from page nine in google to pay six in the past 12 hours. so many thanks for your help it has done wonders.
can you let me know about the below as i have looked at we see it with the www.
On you health page it has the canonical URL of http://in2town.co.uk/health-magazine (I don't remember wether it was with or without www) - and this is the proper way to do it.
-
thanks for this. i am having it re done on the home page as there were two of them
hi it should be with the www.
i can see it as
<link href="[http://www.in2town.co.uk/health-magazine](view-source:http://www.in2town.co.uk/health-magazine)" rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" />
-
Yes, if you prefer the www prefix, that is what should should do.
If you put this in a dynamic header (like one in a theme) it will appear on every page, yes.
however, on your site it looks like it has been properly implemented already (at least last time I checked)
On you health page it has the canonical URL of http://in2town.co.uk/health-magazine (I don't remember wether it was with or without www) - and this is the proper way to do it.
-
so basically i should get rid of this one
<link href="[http://in2town.co.uk/](view-source:http://in2town.co.uk/)" rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" /> and put the one i had in but if i put this in the head, this will mean it will be shown on every page unless i am wrong
-
Hi again,
Sure.A canonical link is used to tell the search engines, browsers, etc what your prefered link is.
For instance, lets say you have a website with a page containing a parameter: http://www.yoursite.com/page.html?parameter=this - but you only want google to crawl the content for both http://www.yoursite.com/page.html?parameter=this, http://www.yoursite.com/page.html?parameter=that and http://www.yoursite.com/page.html. The solution is to set the canonical url to http://www.yoursite.com/page.html - that sets the prefered url to the specified canonical url.So if you prefer to use http://www.in2town.co.uk instead of just http://in2town.co.uk the element you specified is the correct use for your home page. This should be done one every page as you have already done.
--
Jørgen Juel -
can i ask you if that canonical looks ok on line 14 as the one i told them to put on was on 63, and that included the site name as we had trouble with our site being known as in2town.co.uk and www.in2town.co.uk
the below is the one i instructed them to show
-
Great, thanks
-
thanks for this jorgen juel, i had the canonical put on today and a redirect and since then the meta description has vanished, i need to speak to the person who done it as when i clear my cache it appears again but when i move to another page and go back again it vanishes.
I will sort out the two canonical links now and see what happens. thank you for letting me know where they are. i will keep you updated
-
Hi @tim ellis,
I've had a look at your site and it looks like you don't have any meta description or keywords tags.
The code for your description and keywords tags are as follows
The other question you had, regarding canonical links; you have two links to canonical - one on line 14 and 63.
I hope this helps
--
Jørgen Juel
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
-
Understanding Redirects and Canonical Tags in SEO: A Complex Case
Hi everyone, nothing serious here, i'm just playing around doing my experiments 🙂
Technical SEO | | chueneke
but if any1 of you guys understand this chaos and what was the issue here, i'd appreciate if you try to explain it to me. I had a page "Linkaufbau" on my website at https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau. My .htaccess file contains only basic SEO stuff: # removed ".html" using htaccess RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^GET\ (.*)\.html\ HTTP RewriteRule (.*)\.html$ $1 [R=301,L] # internally added .html if necessary RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.html -f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/$ RewriteRule (.*) $1\.html [L] # removed "index" from directory index pages RewriteRule (.*)/index$ $1/ [R=301,L] # removed trailing "/" if not a directory RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} /$ RewriteRule (.*)/ $1 [R=301,L] # Here’s the first redirect: RedirectPermanent /index / My first three questions: Why do I need this rule? Why must this rule be at the top? Why isn't this handled by mod_rewrite? Now to the interesting part: I moved the Linkaufbau page to the SEO folder: https://chriseo.de/seo/linkaufbau and set up the redirect accordingly: RedirectPermanent /linkaufbau /seo/linkaufbau.html I deleted the old /linkaufbau page. I requested indexing for /seo/linkaufbau in the Google Search Console. Once the page was indexed, I set a canonical to the old URL: <link rel="canonical" href="https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau"> Then I resubmitted the sitemap and requested indexing for /seo/linkaufbau again, even though it was already indexed. Due to the canonical tag, the page quickly disappeared. I then requested indexing for /linkaufbau and /linkaufbau.html in GSC (the old, deleted page). After two days, both URLs were back in the serps:: https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau.html this is the new page /seo/linkaufbau
b14ee095-5c03-40d5-b7fc-57d47cf66e3b-grafik.png This is the old page /linkaufbau
242d5bfd-af7c-4bed-9887-c12a29837d77-grafik.png Both URLs are now in the search results and all rankings are significantly better than before for keywords like: organic linkbuilding linkaufbau kosten linkaufbau service natürlicher linkaufbau hochwertiger linkaufbau organische backlinks linkaufbau strategie linkaufbau agentur Interestingly, both URLs (with and without .html) redirect to the new URL https://chriseo.de/seo/linkaufbau, which in turn has a canonical pointing to https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau (without .html). In the SERPs, when https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau is shown, my new, updated snippet is displayed. When /linkaufbau.html is shown, it displays the old, deleted page that had already disappeared from the index. I have now removed the canonical tag. I don't fully understand the process of what happened and why. If anyone has any ideas, I would be very grateful. Best regards,
Chris0 -
Site Hack In Meta Description
Hey MOZ Community, I am looking for some help in identifying where the following meta description is coming from on this home page - https://www.apins.com. I have scrubbed through the page source without being able to locate where the content is being pulled from. The website is built on WordPress and metas were updated using Yoast, but I am wondering if an installed plugin could be the culprit. On top of this, I have had a developer take a look for the "hack" and they have assured that the issue has been removed. I have submitted the URL in GSC a couple of times to be re-indexed but have not had much luck. Any thoughts would be much appreciated, the displayed description is below. The health screening plays http://buyviagraonlineccm.com/ a significant and key role in detecting potentially life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, heart ...
Technical SEO | | jordankremer0 -
Duplicate Product Descriptions
Hi All, After a bit of advice please, we will be selling similar products e.g. A chair which comes in different fabrics and finishes, but is basically the same product. Most, if not all of the ‘long’ product descriptions are identical with only the ‘short’ product descriptions being unique. The ‘long’ product descriptions contain all the manufacturing information, leg option/colour information, graphics, dimensions, weight etc etc. I’m concerned that by having 300+ products all with identical ‘long’ descriptions its going to be seen negatively by google and effect the sites SEO. My question is will this be viewed as duplicate content? If so, are there any best practices I should be following for handling this, other than writing completely unique descriptions for each product, which would be extremely difficult given its basically the same products re-hashed. Many thanks in advance for any advice.
Technical SEO | | Jon-S0 -
Why is google not deindexing pages with the meta noindex tag?
On our website www.keystonepetplace.com we added the meta noindex tag to category pages that were created by the sorting function. Google no longer seems to be adding more of these pages to the index, but the pages that were already added are still in the index when I check via site:keystonepetplace.com Here is an example page: http://www.keystonepetplace.com/dog/dog-food?limit=50 How long should it take for these pages to disappear from the index?
Technical SEO | | JGar-2203710 -
All in One SEO weirdness
For some reason, I'm getting extra words in my title tags. For example, I wrote "Washing Machine Widgets | Acme Widgets, Inc. | Acme Widgets Inc. Anyone have any idea why I'm getting the extra " | Acme Widgets Inc."? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | PGD20110 -
SEO for a franchise business
Were about to embark on an SEO project for a franchise business with about 150 franchises. Would it be best to give all of the franchises individual domain names or house them under the one domain? If they were on the same domain would it be worth setting them up with sub domains or with a URL so city.mydomain.com vs mydomain.com/city Thanks
Technical SEO | | acs1110 -
Best SEO strategy for a site that has been down
Because of hosting problems we're trying to work out, our domain was down all weekend, and we have lost all of our rankings. Doe anyone have any experience with this kind of thing in terms of how long it takes to figure out where you stand once you have the site back up? what the best SEO strategy is for immediately addressing this problem? Besides just plugging away at getting links like normal, is there anything specific we should do right away when the site goes back up? Resubmit a site map, etc? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | OneClickVentures0 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0