Google Search Console issue: "This is how Googlebot saw the page" showing part of page being covered up
-
Hi everyone!
Kind of a weird question here but I'll ask and see if anyone else has seen this:
In Google Search Console when I do a fetch and render request for a specific site, the fetch and blocked resources all look A-OK.
However, in the render, there's a large grey box (background of navigation) that covers up a significant amount of what is on the page.
Attaching a screenshot.
You can see the text start peeking out below (had to trim for confidentiality reasons). But behind that block of grey IS text. And text that apparently in the fetch part Googlebot does see and can crawl.
My question: is this an issue? Should I be concerned about this visual look? Or no?
Never have experienced an issue like that.
I will say - trying to make a play at a featured snippet and can't seem to have Google display this page's information, despite it being the first result and the query showing a featured snippet of a result #4. I know that it isn't guaranteed for the #1 result but wonder if this has anything to do with why it isn't showing one.
-
Good to hear no performance issue. Obviously that is priority number one. Definitely don't sweat the render. You might want to refetch and see how it looks. also give it shot with mobile fetch to see if you get anything different.
A lot of us are chasing the position zero snippet. I didn't look at your site closely but i would start by making sure that every single item (as appropriate) is marked up with schema.org. That will put you closer to your goal
-
No performance issues, other than not capturing the featured snippet despite my best efforts
Really, I'm mostly concerned about the render, as I hadn't seen that in the 10ish years I've been doing SEO.
Seems like, with your great help (thanks so much again!), that it probably isn't actually an issue of any kind that is hindering performance or the ability to capture the featured snippet.
-
Hi Christian, my apologies, i should have noted that. The CSS does not render in the text cache version. The value though is that you can see if something is crawlable/displaying properly. So for instance, if you looked at that cached version and didnt see any of the content on your page, you know you have something stopping the search engines from properly crawaling and indexing the page.
edit. noticing when looking at the link that the full version doesn't show the CSS either. That's a bit weird. I wouldn't worry about it too much as it seems other pages on your site are rendering properly in the full version.
are you seeing any performance issues with the page or is the concern originally due to just the fact that grey box was displaying in the search/render feature of console?
-
Totally hear you.
Here's a link to the page: https://goo.gl/kZVqE9
Will also say: the cached version of it in Google is also very strange. Almost like CSS not really working.
-
Without knowing the URL its really difficult to audit this situation. My first thought is to ask if you have a pop up that loads when a user comes to your page. Google could be rendering the popup without its content. To your point the content on the page is still shown but only behind the popup.
When you look at the actual text cache of the page are you seeing the actual text of the page? If this is the case I would rely on this more than the rendered version. Honestly, it could be multiple things but without the URL it really is nearly impossible to tell you why.
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
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Combine poorly ranking pages into a single page?
I'm doing on-page optimizations for an apartment management company, and they have about seven apartments listed on their site. Rather than include everything on the same page - /apartments/apartment-name/ - they have the following setup: /apartments/apartment-name/contact /apartments/apartment-name/features /apartments/apartment-name/availability /apartments/apartment-name/gallery /apartments/apartment-name/neighborhood With very few exceptions, none of these pages appear to rank for anything, and those that do either rank very poorly for seemingly random keywords or for keywords like the apartment complex name (alongside the main landing page for the complex). I'm of the mind to recommend combining the pages into a single one that contains all the info, eliminates the chances for duplicate content (all of the neighborhood pages contain the same content verbatim), and prevents keyword cannibalization. Thoughts? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | Alces1 -
"Avoid Multiple Page Title Elements"
Hi, in page recommondation I get a "Acoid Multiple Page Tile Elements" Fix. Make sure your page has only one <title>tag. </span><em>"Web pages are meant to have a single title, and for both accessibility and search engine optimization reasons, we strongly recommend following this practice"</em></p> <p>Well I'm trying....I am not able to find where og why I have multiple titles in this page?</p> <p>This is a norwegian page, but maybe someone can look through it?</p> <p>http://www.proplantime.no/bransjer/bygganlegg/mannskapsliste</p></title>
On-Page Optimization | | Marked_Proplan0 -
"Turning off" content to a site
One site I manage has a lot of low quality content. We are in the process of improving the overall site content but we have "turned off" a large portion of our content by setting 2/3 of the posts to draft. Has anyone done this before or had experience with doing something similar? This quote from Bruce Clay comes to mind: “Where a lot of people don’t understand content factoring to this is having 100 great pages and 100 terrible pages—they average, when the quality being viewed is your website,” he explained. “So, it isn’t enough to have 100 great pages if you still have 100 terrible ones, and if you add another 100 great pages, you still have the 100 terrible ones dragging down your average. In some cases we have found that it’s much better, to improve your ranking, to actually remove or rewrite the terrible ones than add more good ones.” What are your thoughts? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | ThridHour0 -
Re="tag" Question
Hello, I own the site I putted rel="tag" in categories and product links , its correct? There are a lot of categories and products , I wont get penalized right? Just making sure to know if Im doing it right , thank you for help me 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | matiw0 -
Google's Page Layout Algorythm
It seems that Google have been or will penalizing websites with too many ads above the fold. Is it me or Google's search result layout is a perfect example of what NOT to do?
On-Page Optimization | | sbrault741 -
Meta tag "revisit after" - useful?
Hi everybody, I've rarely seen the "revisit after" meta tag during the last 1,5 years. As some of my current client websites are still using it and I'm not sure, if it's still usefull/has any effect, I'd like to hear from the community. Any advices/hints/experiences with the tag? Thanks in advance and cheers from Germany Sven
On-Page Optimization | | targi420 -
Does link text "more information" have more weight than a normal link?
Does the anchor text "more information" hold any additional weight than any other anchor text? My suspicion is no, but just wanted to confirm.
On-Page Optimization | | nicole.healthline0