Missing Meta Description tags?
-
I just ran our first SEOMoz pro report and it's showing that every article page on our site is missing descriptions. However, it's visible on the source and Google seems to be picking them up.
Can you please tell me why SEOMoz is makring them as missing? Are we doing something wrong here? -
However, I will ask you just to clarify - which meta description is getting picked up? The one further down the page? If that's the one getting indexed, then it's something else probably... shoot me an email at help@seomoz.org and I can dig into it further to see if it's a bug on our side. Thanks!
-
Hey Xavier!
This was the reason we weren't seeing it, but as you can see, Google's crawler is a clever little thing. It can pick up a lot of cool stuff that Roger can't. Fortunately, this is exactly the type of error we want Roger to show you, so we probably wouldn't change it so Roger could figure out these things anyways. It's great that Google figured it out, but it would have been understandable if they hadn't been able to.
Hope this helps!
-
Thank you. We actually commented that out to try and direct the search engines to the All-in-One SEO meta tags, which occur further down the page. Google seems to be picking up the meta descriptions ok - we can see tem on SERPs just fine. Guess it's just when SEOMoz is crawling?
Thanks,
Xavier
-
Thanks. Yes, I commented out the first, which is auto-generated by our Theme/WP.
-
Unforutnately, your elements are hidden inside comment tags. Here's what I'm seeing on the page when I perform a "View Source":
The comment tags are "". They're usually used to hide content from rendering on the client-side. Learn more about HTML comment tags here: http://htmlhelp.com/reference/wilbur/misc/comment.html
Not sure why you'd contain these valid elements within comment tags, but that's why SEOmoz can't see them. I'd suggest that this is also not best practice for Google and other search engines, even if they've managed to extract them.
So: remove the two comment tags from your elements and you'll be back in the clear. Cheers!
-
Unsure why SEOmoz tools are missing it, I can see you are using All in One SEO pack and you do have meta descriptions. You actually have 2!!!
The head area of your pages has all sorts going on with javascript and many link tags. If possible you should try to clean it up a bit, I'd suggest. Then obviously ensure you have only one meta description.
Hopefully when a moz staffer sees this thread they'll take a look into your bug.
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
-
Meta no index crawler warnings
I've decided that the duplicate content issues on my site weren't worth the effort from the amount of traffic the archive pages on my WordPress site received no I decided to no-index them using Yoast. Now I have 60 meta no-index crawler warnings. Should I just ignore these? It seems I get warnings, either way, I use the site. Does anyone have advice on how to move on with this?
Moz Pro | | Libra_Photographic0 -
Canonical tag on webstore products to avoid Duplicate Page Content ?
Hi, I would like to have an opinion on what how we are planning to solve the issue with Duplicate Page Contents that MOZ PRO is showing us. MOZ Pro is showing us a lot of pages with duplicate content as High Priority Issue. Mainly the problem is with products which have very few differences between them, e.g. pink bike model X and red bike model X. So we decided to implement a canonical tag on these products, and the pink bike model X will now have a canonical pointing to the red bike model X. So hopefully we will be ranking higher with our red bike model X and our pink bike model X will disapear from the index. Am I right ? Is it a good practice, since we will loose long tails indexes? I check each canonical in the Search Console, and we have extremely few searched for "pink bike model X" most of searches are "bike model X". Thank you in advance for your opinion. Isabelle
Moz Pro | | isabelledylag0 -
H1 tag Audit & Image Alt Tag Audit Tools
Hi Mozzers, Anyone know of a good FREE tool that has no limits to use to scrape my site for H1 tags & image alt tags by page? Ideally it would produce a report with a list of page URLs, corresponding H1 tags and each image alt tag on each page. Anyone? Bueller?
Moz Pro | | dsinger0 -
15-20 images on a page / Alt Tag them or not with the keyword phrase?
I have a site that easily has 15-20 images per product page, giving the users ideas of what they can do with the product design. All of them have an alt tag with the keyword phrase in it. There is also an H1, H2, sometimes an H3, body copy with the keyword phrase 1-3 times, bold when it seems like a good time to emphasize it. Just in the images alone, we've exceeded the recommended 15 keyword phrases on a page. Moz On Page Grader says the following: Avoid Keyword Stuffing in Document We've seen evidence that excessive use of keywords can negatively impact rankings and thus suggest moderation. Recommendation: Remove instances of the targeted keyword(s) from the document text of this page to bring it below 15 What's the recommendation for the image alt tags? We'd like the images to show up in Google Images, so they should have the tag, right? What's the right way to handle this for SEO purposes? Someone's suggested naming 1/2 of the images one keyword phrase, and the other 1/2 an altogether different one, not searched nearly as often as the primary keyword phrase.
Moz Pro | | INCart0 -
Why do I see a duplicate content errors when rel="canonical" tag is present
I was reviewing my first Moz crawler report and noticed the crawler returned a bunch of duplicate page content errors. The recommendations to correct this issue are to either put a 301 redirect on the duplicate URL or use the rel="canonical" tag so Google knows which URL I view as the most important and the one that should appear in the search results. However, after poking around the source code I noticed all of the pages that are returning duplicate content in the eyes of the Moz crawler already have the rel="canonical" tag. Does the Moz crawler simply not catch whether that tag is being used? If I have that tag in place, is there anything else I need to do in order to get that error to stop showing up in the Moz crawler report?
Moz Pro | | shinolamoz0 -
Why do crawlers still track meta keywords if it is not needed in my site?
I have crawled three sites already and it returns more than 5000 errors most of which are MIssing Meta Keywords tags. The sites are on Wordpress and using my SEO plugin I can easily edit the meta keywords of each page, but I am having second thoughts. Well should I?
Moz Pro | | jernest0020 -
Export & Email Keyword Report for Selected Tags
Is there a way to get a keyword ranking summary report emailed to me for specific tags?
Moz Pro | | CPollock0 -
Canonical tags and SEOmoz crawls
Hi there. Recently, we've made some changes to http://www.gear-zone.co.uk/ to implement canonical tags to some dynamically generated pages to stop duplicate content issues. Previously, these were blocked with robots.txt. In Webmaster Tools, everything looks great - pages crawled has shot up, and overall traffic and sales has seen a positive increase. However the SEOmoz crawl report is now showing a huge increase in duplicate content issues. What I'd like to know is whether SEOmoz registers a canonical tag as preventing a piece of duplicate content, or just adds to it the notices report. That is, if I have 10 pages of duplicate content all with correct canonical tags, will I still see 10 errors in the crawl, but also 10 notices showing a canonical has been found? Or, should it be 0 duplicate content errors, but 10 notices of canonicals? I know it's a small point, but it could potentially have a big difference. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | neooptic0