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 [email protected] 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
-
How crucial are H1 tags and descriptions in wordpress categories?
Hi all Trying to improve SEO for my (mostly) local site, www.nectarbridge.com, and recently got back on Moz Pro account. First crawl of my site by Moz, a manageable number of issues that I've mostly sorted, but the category with the largest number of problems is missing or invalid tags. My content pages and blog posts are not missing the tags. It's category, archives, etc., including multiple pages, ex: https://www.nectarbridge.com/category/blog/page/4/ A smaller number of pages are being flagged by Moz as missing descriptions, and they are also category pages and the like. So the question is - how hard should I pursue fixing these issues? I'm using the divi theme, which apparently doesn't display the category description by default (if it did, that would kill two birds with one stone). There is a fix to add the category description, but before I get into that I'm trying to discern whether this issue really matters greatly to SEO or if I should spend that time just working on more content.
Moz Pro | | gary_nectarbridge0 -
What is the best way to add a noindex./nofollow meta tags to tags in a blog?
Could anyone tell me the best way to add noindex./nofollow meta tags as I have around 12 duplicate tags in a blog. I have the Yoast SEO plugin - unpaid version.
Moz Pro | | SEM_at_Lees0 -
Missing Meta Description in Pop Up Image Gallery URL
Hi there, Moz has reported that I have a lot of missing meta description in the Pop Up Image Gallery. There are over 150 of these that are missing. The issue is that in our CMS I cannot add meta description to images. I am also not entirely sure why the images I am loading up are generating their own URL like the one below. Possibly that is why Moz is saying it needs a meta description when it is only an image?. An example of the link that has missing meta description that I can't add would be something like this: http://www.domianhere.com/products/PopUpImageGallery/93/1?iframe=true When clicking these links it is purely an image with no text. So basically I am asking how do you add a meta description to a Pop Up image Gallery photo URL and/or possibly why would an image create a custom URL so I have to put in a Meta Description? Hopefully that makes sense, thank you in advance for your help - much appreciated!
Moz Pro | | marketing-gal0 -
I have a duplicate content on my Moz crawler, but google hasn't indexed those pages: do I still need to get rid of the tags?
I received an urgent error from the Moz crawler that I have duplicate content on my site due to the tags I have. For example: http://www.1forjustice.com/graves-amendment/ The real article found here: http://www.1forjustice.com/car-accident-rental-car/ I didn't think this was a big deal, because when I looked at my GWT these pages weren't indexed (picture attached). Question: should I bother fixing this from an SEO perspective? If Google isn't indexing the pages, then am I losing link juice? 6c2kxiZ
Moz Pro | | Perenich0 -
Does Moz recognize rel next prev tags? Magento question
Howdy Mozzers! We are running a store in magento where we have many products in each category. Hence view all for category pages is not an option. We have applied rel next prev tags to our paginated pages in the following manner Example for page 2 in a category: The issue we are facing is that Moz suggests www.domain.com/category and www.domain.com/category?p=1 as duplicates, even though rel next prev tags are implemented. 1. Does nel next prev consolidate link juice?
Moz Pro | | MozAddict
2. Does Moz recognize the tags?
3. Will this work for us or should we implement canonical tags as well?0 -
Updating Meta Keywords
Hi I am going through the process of cleaning up the SEO on my blog www.shoottokyo.com. Someone recommended that I can use ScreamingFrog to find the location of 4xx errors and I noticed that there are Meta Keywords on about 200 of my posts but some of them are wrong such as it mentions my old city I lived in or my old camera I used to use. I want to clean these up. If I look on the post itself in Wordpress I don't even this this information. Where can I edit it? Is there a way to easily edit across multiple posts? I previously used All in One SEO perhaps these came from that and I need to reinstall that to clean this up? I'm new to all of this expect a lot of questions. Thanks Dave
Moz Pro | | ShootTokyo0 -
Is there a way to get SEOMOZ to not throw an error if i'm using the rel=canonical tag?
There are so many errors (~1500) that I can't find the pages with duplicate content among the ones that are correctly tagged
Moz Pro | | seospeedwagon0 -
Some questions on Canonical tag AND 301 redirect
Hi everyone, I'm new here - always loved SEOMoz and glad to be part of the Pro community now. I have 2 questions regarding the Canonical URL tag. Some background info: We used to run an OsCommerce store, and recently migrated to Magento. In doing so, we right away created 301 redirects of the old category pages (OsCommerce) to the new category pages (Magento) via the Magento admin. Example: www.example.com/old-widget-category.html
Moz Pro | | yacpro13
301 redicrected to
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html In Magento admin, we have enabled the Canonical tag for all product and category pages. Here's how Magento sets up the Canonical tag: The URL of interest which we want to rank is:
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html However Magento sets up the canonical tag on this page to point to:
www.example.com/old-widget-category.html When using the SEOMoz On Page Report Card, it pick this up as an error because the Canonical tag is pointing to a different URL. However, if we dig a little deeper, we see that the URL being pointed to
www.example.com/old-widget-category.html
has a 301 redirect to
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html
which is the URL we wan to rank. So because we set up a 301 redirect of the old-page to the new-page, on the new-page the canonical tag points to the old-page. Question 1)
What are you opinions on this? Do you think this method of setting up the Canonical tag is acceptable? Second question... We use pagination for category pages, so if we have 50 products in one category, we would have 5 pages of 10 products. The URL's would be: www.example.com/new-widget-category.html (which is the SAME as ?p=1)
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=1
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=2
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=3
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=4
www.example.com/new-widget-category.html?p=5 Now ALL the URLs above have the canonical tag set as:
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/new-widget-category" /> However, the content of each page (page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is different because different products are displayed. So far most what I read regarding the Canonical tag is that it is used for pages that have the same content but different URLs. I would hope that Google would combine the content of all 5 pages and view the result as a single URL www.example.com/new-widget-category Question 2) Is using the canonical tag appropriate in the case described above? Thanks !0