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 InfoIs your description less than 156 characters?0/1<a id="sub_toggle_14" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More InfoIs 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 -
Open Graph Meta Description...
Does my html meta description tag have to be the same as my Open Graph meta description? I'm having problems pulling through my meta description into Google SERPs and I wondered if its because my 'OG' data is not consistent? Thanks Guys, Kay
Technical SEO | | eLab_London0 -
Magento SEO question
Hello Moz Community, I am wondering if these magento settings are correct for seo. www.domain.com 301 > www.domain.com/main-language www.domain.com/main-language/main-keyword (index & follow) www.domain.com/main-language/main-keyword/shopby/size-m (index & follow & canonicalized to www.domain.com/main-language/main-keyword) All layered navigation links are no-follow
Technical SEO | | mhenze0 -
Meta HTML tag code
I have been instructed by Moz that I have some missing meta description tags; however, this is what comes up when I searched for more help on this site: "The proper coding for a meta HTML tag is These Meta descriptions can be nested anywhere in the element." Obviously the actual coding is missing... so can anyone tell me what the proper coding for a meta HTML tag is? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | marissaRT0 -
Meta-robots Nofollow
I don't understand Meta-robots Nofollow. Wordpress has my homepage set to this according to SEOMoz tool. Is this really bad?
Technical SEO | | hopkinspat1 -
Exchange Links - Problem or Not ?
There's a company that sells a real estate portal sites ready for several companies.
Technical SEO | | imoveiscamposdojordao
And when they install this system they always leave each site in a file calledimobiliarias.php that lists all properties that use your system, so there is a hugeexchange of links between the same sites.
So you can see with the Open Site Explorer that all sites have the same Backlinks.
This would not cause problems with regard to exchange links?
Loss of position or something? Thank you guys.! Sorry. 😛 Google Translator.0 -
Duplicate Meta Description in GWMT
We've just discovered that there are multiple duplicate URLs indexed for a site that we're working on. It seems that when new versions of the site was developed in the last couple of years, there were new page names and URL structures that were used. All of these seem to be showing up as Duplicate Meta Descriptions in Google's WMT, which is not surprising as they are basically the same page with the same content that are just sitting on different page names/URLs. This is an example of the situation, where URL 5 is the current version. Note: all the others are still live and resolve, although they are not linked to from the current site. URL 1: www.example.com/blue-tshirts.html (Version 1 - January 2010) URL 2: www.example.com/blue-t-shirts.html (Version 2 - July 2010) URL 3: www.example.com/blue_t_shirts.html (Version 3 - November 2010) URL 4: www.example.com/buy/blue_tshirts.html (Version 4 - January 2011) URL 5: www.example.com/buy/bluetshirts.html (Version 5 - April 2011) Presumably, this is a clear case of duplicate content. QUESTION: In order to solve it, shall we 301 all of the previous URLs to the current one - ie. Redirect URLs 1-4 to URL 5? Or, should some of them be NoIndexed? To complicate matters, there is Pagination on most of them. For example: URL 1: www.example.com/blue-tshirts.html (Version 1 - January 2010) URL 1a: www.example.com/page-1/blue-tshirts.html URL 1b: www.example.com/page-2/blue-tshirts.html URL 1c: www.example.com/page-3/blue-tshirts.html URL 4: www.example.com/buy/blue_tshirts.html URL 4a: www.example.com/buy/page-1/blue_tshirts.html URL 4b: www.example.com/buy/page-2/blue_tshirts.html URL 4c: www.example.com/buy/page-3/blue_tshirts.html URL 5: www.example.com/buy/bluetshirts.html URL 5a: www.example.com/buy/page-1/bluetshirts.html URL 5b: www.example.com/buy/page-2/bluetshirts.html URL 5c: www.example.com/buy/page-3/bluetshirts.html Since URL 5 is the current site, we are going to 'NoIndex, Follow' URLs 5a, 5b and 5c, which is what we understand to be the correct thing to do for paginated pages. QUESTION: What shall we do with URLs 1a, 1b and 1c? Should we apply the same "No Index, Follow" OR should they be 301'd to their respective counterparts in 5a, 5b and 5c? QUESTION: In the same way, since URL 4 is the version just before the current live Version 5, does it make a different on whether the paginated pages (ie 4a, 4b and 4c) should be No Indexed or 301'd? Thanks in advance for all responses and suggestions, it's greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | orangechew0 -
Google Off/On Tags
I came across this article about telling google not to crawl a portion of a webpage, but I never hear anyone in the SEO community talk about them. http://perishablepress.com/press/2009/08/23/tell-google-to-not-index-certain-parts-of-your-page/ Does anyone use these and find them to be effective? If not, how do you suggest noindexing/canonicalizing a portion of a page to avoid duplicate content that shows up on multiple pages?
Technical SEO | | Hakkasan1