Does anyone know what causes the long meta description snippet?
-
You know the ones I mean... Google have been infrequently displaying some meta descriptions as 3-4 lines long for some time now. But recently, I've been noticing them more. Not sure whether it's just a coincidence that I've been seeing more for my searches, or whether Google are displaying more in this format.
Does anybody know what causes Google to prefer the longer meta description or extended meta description for some results?
-
Is this here to stay, do you think...? I'm so wary of Google's changes, I don't think I'll be lengthening my titles to make better use of the width until the dust settles a bit.
EDIT: http://www.thesempost.com/new-title-description-lengths-for-google-seo/ (inb4 Google rolls back to the previous layout in one week's time.)
-
I did notice the wider SERPs in my logged in browser this morning. There's been so many layout updates recently, as well as other odd fluctuations, who knows what Google's up to...
I just wondered whether there's any significant difference in CTR for results with longer descriptions. And if it's an improvement, can we optimise our on-page content for it, the same way that we can optimise to increase our likelihood of appearing as a featured snippet, to nudge Google into considering showing the elongated description for our result.
-
It seems that this is the new standard within Google. Here is a recent article (May 11) form Jennifer Slegg about this topic. Search results are about 600 pixels wide.
-
I think that Dr Pete mentioned in there that Google pretty much have open license to do what they want (which we know they do) and if they feel that one or more results deserve more exposure because they answer the question so well, then they will do this.
Also, be aware that in the last 24 hours, Google announced that they are making their search results pages wider which means more room for Titles and Descriptions, so this might also be playing a part in what you are seeing.
I still think that Pete's post sums up everything needed to know about this. I think this explains it pretty well.
"If all of this seems confusing, that's probably because it is. Google is taking a lot more liberties with snippets these days, both to better match queries, to add details they feel are important, or to help build and support the Knowledge Graph."
-Andy
-
Thanks, Andy. This was an enlightening read and I'm grateful for you sharing it, but I don't feel as if it really answered my question. For some search queries, I'm even seeing half of the 1st page results displayed with long descriptions. Surely, this has got to be more than before? But what's so special about _those _results that causes Google to opt for the longer snippet?
-
Rather than go into duplicate details here, Dr Pete did a post on just this a little while back.
Read it in all its glory here
-Andy
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
-
How often does Google review Featured Snippets? What do you think?
Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows how often Google review Featured Snippets and if there is a way to find out? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | Chris29181 -
Do pages with canonicals need meta data?
Page A has a canonical to Page B. Should Page A have meta data values such as description, keywords, dublin core values, etc.? If yes, should the meta data values be different on Page A and Page B?
Algorithm Updates | | Shirley.Fenlason1 -
Google is simplifying my meta titles. What does it mean?
Hi Guys. I've noticed that google seems to be simplifying my meta titles in their SERP for some keyword searchs. Should I be worried about this? Perhaps a sign of being a little 'spammy' in my meta titles? Or is Google just aiming to bring up the most relevant looking result? Based on that specific search? Isaac.
Algorithm Updates | | isaac6630 -
Multiple products with legitimate duplicate descriptions
We are redeveloping a website for a card company who have far too many products to write unique descriptions for each. Even if they could I don't think it would be beneficial to the user. However they do have unique descriptions for each range which is useful for users viewing an individual card. Which is better practice: a) Ignore the duplicate content issue and supply the user with info about the range b) Provide clear enticing links to find out more about the range which will leave the individual card page a little void of content. Many thanks
Algorithm Updates | | SoundinTheory0 -
Fetch as Google - removes start words from Meta Title ?? Help!
Hi all, I'm experiencing some strange behaviour with Google Webmaster Tools. I noticed that some of our pages from our ecom site were missing start keywords - I created a template for meta titles that uses Manufacturer - Ref Number - Product Name - Online Shop; all trimmed under 65 chars just in case. To give you an idea, an example meta title looks like:
Algorithm Updates | | bjs2010
Weber 522053 - Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop The strange behaviour is if I do a "Fetch as Google" in GWT, no problem - I can see it pulls the variables and it's ok. So I click submit to index. Then I do a google site:URL search, to see what it has indexed, and I see the meta description has changed (so I know it's working), but the meta title has been cut so it looks like this:
Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop So I am confused - why would Google cut off some words at start of meta title? Even after the Fetch as Googlebot looks perfectly ok? I should point out that this method works perfect on our other pages, which are many hundreds - but it's not working on some pages for some weird reason.... Any ideas?0 -
Our organic search traffic went flat for 2 weeks Oct 2 - Oct 17\. It has since resumed to more normal numbers. Anyone have any idea why this would happen?
Does anyone have any insight as to why our organic search traffic would go to nearly nothing for roughly a 2 week span Oct 2 - Oct 17th? Our regular traffic remained fairly consistent so we were still being indexed. It has now resumed to more normal numbers but I cannot think of anything we did that would make this happen? We did make a 302 switch to be a 301 permanent redirect on our site in early August but that is all I can think of? Any insight or help would be appreciated!
Algorithm Updates | | mwuest0 -
Could we run into issues with duplicate content penalties if we were to borrow product descriptions?
Hello, I work for an online retailer that has the opportunity to add a lot of SKUs to our site in a relatively short amount of time by borrowing content from another site (with their permission). There are a lot of positives for us to do this, but one big question we have is what the borrowed content will do to our search rankings (we normally write our own original content in house for a couple thousand SKUs). Organic search traffic brings in a significant chunk of our business and we definitely don't want to do something that would jeopardize our rankings. Could we run into issues with duplicate content penalties if we were to use the borrowed product descriptions? Is there a rule of thumb for what proportion of the site should be original content vs. duplicate content without running into issues with our search rankings? Thank you for your help!
Algorithm Updates | | airnwater0 -
If Google doesn’t know we’re hosted in the UK, does that affect our SERPs?
Hi, In November 2011 our eCommerce website dropped from between 3rd and 4th position in the UK SERPs down to 7th and 8th. A year after this happened, we still haven’t moved back up to the original ranking despite all our best efforts and we’re looking for a bit of insight into what could have happened. One of our theories is this, do you think it might be the problem? In October 2011 we moved from a single-site custom built CMS hosted in the UK to a multi-site custom built CMS hosted on a much better server based in the UK. As part of this move we started using CloudFlare to help with security and performance (CloudFlare is a security CDN). Because CloudFlare’s servers are in the US, to the outside world it almost looks like we went from a slow hosting company in the UK to a much quicker hosting company in the US. Could this have affected our rankings? We know that Google takes the server IP address into account as a ranking factor, but as far as we understand it’s because they (rightly) believe that a server closer to the user will perform better. So a UK server will serve up pages quicker to a visitor in the UK than a US server because the data has a shorter distance to travel. However, we’re definitely not experiencing an issue with being recognised as a UK website. We have a .co.uk domain (which is obviously a big indicator) and if you click on “Pages from the UK” in the SERPs we jump up to 3rd place. So Google seems to know we’re a UK site. Is the fact we’re using CloudFlare and hence hiding our real server IP address – is this penalising us in the SERPs? Currently out of the 6 websites above us, 4 are in the US and 2 are in the UK. All of these are massive sites with lots of links, so smaller ranking factors might be more important for us. Obviously the big downside of not using CloudFlare is that our site becomes much less secure and it becomes much slower. Images and some static content is distributed via a local CloudFlare server, which means it should tick Google’s box in terms of providing a quick site for users. CloudFlare say in a blog post that they used to have Google crawl rates and geo-tagging issues in the past when they were just starting out, but in 2010 they started working with “the big search engines” to make sure they treated CloudFlare like a CDN (so special rules that apply to Akamai also apply to CloudFlare). Since they’ve been working with Google, CloudFlare say that their customers will only see a positive SEO impact. So at the moment we’re at a loss about what happened to our ranking. Google say they take IP’s into account for ranking, but by using CloudFlare it looks like we’re in the US. We definitely know we’re not having geo-tagging issues and CloudFlare say they’re working with Google to ensure its customers aren't seeing a negative impact by using CloudFlare, but a niggling part of us still wonders whether it could impact our SEO. Many thanks, James
Algorithm Updates | | OptiBacUK0