Rich Snippet Date Removal
-
Hey Mozzers,
I'm having a real problem getting some rich snippet data to go away! Normally i'm all for it, but in this case it's giving our department page a video rich snippet and also a really super old date (i'm not sure if this is connected with the video rich snippet, but it showed up at the same time).
The SERP is here: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pool+table&pws=0&hl=en&num=10
We are 3rd for our page http://www.libertygames.co.uk/store/pool_tables/
I can't find the date Google is using anywhere on the page, in the headers or file dates or anything. I've even removed the video markup and removed the page from the video sitemap, the rich snippet testing tool confirms this : http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertygames.co.uk%2Fstore%2Fpool_tables%2F
Does anyone have any ideas why this might be showing up or if there is a way to speed up getting it off there and our old meta description back? I'm pretty sure it's killing our click-throughs.
Thanks in advance,
Stuart
-
Hi Phil,
Yeah fair point re the publisher tag, but like you say there is a lot of debate about exactly how to implement it, but i'll definitely try and refine it's use if I can.
Cheers for the video advice, i'll keep working on it.
Stu
-
Hi Stu,
Apologies - I assumed this was author and didn't check for the publisher mark-up.
I appreciate this is a bit of a hot topic and truly nobody has a great answer right now - but I don't think rel="publisher" should be used for anything that isn't in some sense journalistic. Category pages, product pages, home pages etc aren't really authored by an organisation - but, for example, "the beginners guide to SEO" on Moz absolutely is and should have the rel="publisher" mark-up attributed. Essentially - I'd define it as "collaborative content" where there's more than one author.
However, I'll back track on my previous point - I don't think your implementation here will be causing you issues, though all the video points remain.
Cheers,
Phil
-
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your response - and also your awesome talk at BrightonSEO - as far as the authorship markup is concerned we shouldn't have authorship markup on that page but we should have publisher markup, should that really only be on the homepage then? I've read a few different things about it (we put it on all pages as technically we are the publishers of all the pages on the site).
As for the video, i'll try what you suggested, I don't mind the video itself being there it's more the date in 2007 that makes the content look way older than it actually is! But yeah thanks for the advice, i'll keep at it!
Stu
-
First thing to say is that this might be really tricky. I've previous come across several instances of Google basically not removing video snippets - even when videos are removed from the page and the content is completely refreshed.. it seems like, right now, once you've got a video indexed, it's hard to get that removed.
The other thing to suggest is that your authorship mark-up is pretty spammy and not appropriate. "Liberty Games" are not an author and shouldn't be getting that snippet - so I can imagine image recognition seeing that your thumbnail isn't a human face and therefore choosing to ignore this implementation and provide the video instead consistently.
In terms of removing the video result - you basically want to refresh and resubmit everything so Google recrawls and reindexes. Resubmit your Video sitemap, make some adjustments on the page (including removing the video) then resubmit that via GWMT. No guarantees though unfortunately, as I mentioned - this can be a tough one!
-
Hey,
We do have a video sitemap, but that video isn't listed in it
Maybe i'll change the code and rename the video, see if that does it and then give the obfuscator a go...
-
Hmm odd. You don't have a video sitemap set up do you?
You can try encrypting or obfuscating the code that displays the video in order to hide it from G.
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
-
Is Removing Breadcrumbs Detrimental for SEO?
We have full navigational breadcrumbs on our site for the menu and the brand menu. i.e. Home > Clothing > Jackets Brand > Brand Name > Brand Jackets There's been talk of removing this and having it like Chico's does, where on item pages they just have a link at the top to previous category (i.e. you're on a shirt product page and at the top it says "Back to Tops" instead of listing Home > Clothing > Tops) Is doing something like this detrimental to SEO? From what I've read Breadcrumbs are for user experience but I just want to be sure.
Technical SEO | | AliMac260 -
Should you use google url remover if older indexed pages are still being kept?
Hello, A client recently did a redesign a few months ago, resulting in 700 pages being reduced to 60, mostly due to panda penalty and just low interest in products on those pages. Now google is still indexing a good number of them ( around 650 ) when we only have 70 on our sitemap. Thing is google indexes our site on average now for 115 urls when we only have 60 urls that need indexing and only 70 on our sitemap. I would of thought these urls would be crawled and not found, but is taking a very long period of time. Our rankings haven't recovered as much as we'd hope, and we believe that the indexed older pages are causes this. Would you agree and also would you think removing those old urls via the remover tool would be best option? It would mean using the url remover tool for 650 pages. Thank you in advance
Technical SEO | | Deacyde0 -
Is it good practice to update your disavow file after a penalty is removed.
I was wondering if you could use the disavow file by adding to it - even after your site has recovered from a partial site penalty. As a recurring SEO procedure, we are always looking at links pointing to our Website. We then ascertain those links that are clearly of no value. In order to clean these up, would it be good practice to update your disavow file with more of theses domains. Is the disavow file just used for penalty issues to alert google of the work you have done? (we have had penalty in the past but fine now) Would this method help in keeping high quality links to the fore and therefore removing low quality links from Googles eyes? I would welcome your comments.
Technical SEO | | podweb0 -
Is there software that makes it easier to reach out to websites and webmaster to have toxic links removed?
I'm currently trying to disavow toxic links that I have found on my site, that our previous SEO company created. Google requires that we reach out to the individual websites and try to have them removed. Does anyone know of software that makes this process automated or easer? I'm currently doing it manually, uhg! Also, is there software that can help you find toxic links? I'm currently also doing that manually, uhg! Thanks.
Technical SEO | | milehigh52800 -
Toxic Link Removal
Greetings Moz Community: Recently I received an site audit from a MOZ certified SEO firm. The audit concluded that technically the site did not have major problems (unique content, good architecture). But the audit identified a high number of toxic links. Out of 1,300 links approximately 40% were classified as suspicious, 55% as toxic and 5% as healthy. After identifying the specific toxic links, the SEO firm wants to make a Google disavow request, then manually request that the links be removed, and then make final disavow request of Google for the removal of remaining bad links. They believe that they can get about 60% of the bad links removed. Only after the removal process is complete do they think it would be appropriate to start building new links. Is there a risk that this strategy will result in a drop of traffic with so many links removed (even if they are bad)? For me (and I am a novice) it would seem more prudent to build links at the same time that toxic links are being removed. According to the SEO firm, the value of the new links in the eyes of Google would be reduced if there were many toxic links to the site; that this approach would be a waste of resources. While I want to move forward efficiently I absolutely want to avoid a risk of a drop of traffic. I might add that I have not received any messages from Google regarding bad links. But my firm did engage in link building in several instances and our traffic did drop after the Penguin update of April 2012. Also, is there value in having a professional SEO firm remove the links and build new ones? Or is this something I can do on my own? I like the idea of having a pro take care of this, but the costs (Audit, coding, design, content strategy, local SEO, link removal, link building, copywriting) are really adding up. Any thoughts??? THANKS,
Technical SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Bad reviews coming next to the company website, how to remove those ??
My website name www.commonsite.com (duplicate name), if i search in google with keyword common site, next to that i'm getting mouthshut bad reviews. I tried various methods till now i didnt get any improvement. Finally my doubt is my site has 6 sitelinks in the search engine. What will happen if i delete that ?? Can i get those pages results next to my main website home page results. Please clarify my doubt about sitelinks.
Technical SEO | | MadhukarSV0 -
Removing 301 Redirects
Is it safe to remove old 301 Redirects from an SEO standpoint and can 301s dramatically affect seo? Prior to switching our old domain over to our new domain, we had (and currently still do) tons of 301 redirects, because of optimizing our file names and structure. Then our old domain was redirected to our new domain in the same redirect file. So that being said, now that our new domain has been up and running for about 3 months, would it be safe for me to get rid of the old 301 redirects and redirect anything that was on our old domain to our new domains home page? This would clean up our redirects tremendously and I hope would help with SEO.
Technical SEO | | hfranz0 -
If non-paying customers only get a 2 min snippet of a video, can my video length in sitemap.xml be the full length?
I am working on a website that all of its primary contents are videos. They have an assortment of free videos, but the majority or viewable only with a subscription to the site. If you don't have a subscription, you can see a 2 min video clip of the contents of the video. But all the videos can be anywhere from 10min to 1.5 hours. When I am auto-generating the sitemap.xml, can I put the full length of the videos for paying members in the XML in the video:duration property? Or because publicly only 2 minutes is available (unless you pay for a membership) is that frowned upon?
Technical SEO | | nbyloff0