 Google Descriptions Revisited, This seems crazy to me |
| Important Announcement: ***Need an Affordable SEO Website Review?*** |
  |
 Apr 23 2004, 06:28 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 HR 3  Group: Active Members Posts: 60 Joined: 8-March 04 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 05:07 PM From: UK Member No.: 2,804  |
I know that there is a recent thread like this - but my problem seems a little different.
On checking my site using the site:www.mysite.net on Google, I'm finding that I have some very odd descriptions coming up. I have recently changed the site from table design to CSS - and so that people with (very) old browsers can see something of my site I have imported the CSS file using @import rather than the <link> tag. In this way - if someone with an old browser looks at the site, they can't get the stylesheet, and the page is rendered without it. I have placed a <div> at the top of the page that is hidden when the syle sheet is available, but visible when it isn't. This <div> simply tells people that they are using an old browser and that a browser update will make the site look much better. It is this browser message that Google is picking up as the description for pretty much all of my pages. The few that don't have this seem to be using my <meta> description tag. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be happening? I realise that this is a tactic that is some spammers use to cram in keywords - but as I assume Google knows this I would expect it to ignore the message rather than use it as the site description! Any comments greatly appreciated - as this one has me really confused? <would insert scratching head smilie - but can't find one> Thanks, Elliot |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 06:42 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 33 & Retired ... What to do, What to do? Group: Active Members Posts: 653 Joined: 13-October 03 User's local time: Feb 10 2010, 03:07 AM From: Nth Qld - Australia Member No.: 1,052 |
Elliot,
Mate, you have the following which I assume your talking about. QUOTE <body> <p id="brow"> This site will look much better in a browser that supports <a href="http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/" title="Download a browser that complies with Web standards."> web standards</a>, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device. </p> And this being your .CSS QUOTE #brow { display: none; } Anything inside the <p> tag, Google is going to read and index because it knows no better. It will see that as plain text. QUOTE Search Engine Spider Simulator Search engine spiders can see the following text: This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device. Home | About | Services | Clients | News | Contact | Login web design and consultancy TradingUp is a web design consultancy company based in Colchester, Essex.........and so on The SE's are just seeing it as the first text they come across. Look at alternative methods IMO. I am not real sure how to fix that exactly. The best method to view what the SE's are going to view, with or without CSS, is run it through the lynx viewer. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 07:03 AM
Post
#3
|
|
 HR 10  Group: Moderator Posts: 7,489 Joined: 24-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 12:07 PM From: Somerville, MA Member No.: 22 |
At the very least, I'd move that div a bit lower down in the code, so it's not the first thing that comes up. And that's despite the fact that I don't believe the order a spider finds things means much. I'd still let it see your text links before it saw this.
I did a redesign on a site years ago, and found that it was displaying terribly in NS 4x. It took me weeks to get it to display properly (it was a coding error on my part) and while I was working on it, I threw in some javascript to sniff for that browser. If it found it, it popped up an alert box suggesting the user try viewing the page in a more modern browser. Not that that's a great alternative (frankly, it's a pretty lousy alternative), but at least a spider would skip it. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 07:29 AM
Post
#4
|
|
 HR 2 Group: Active Members Posts: 37 Joined: 21-April 04 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 01:07 PM Member No.: 3,310 |
QUOTE The best method to view what the SE's are going to view, with or without CSS, is run it through the lynx viewer. I hope this is not off-topic too far, but when I view pages in the Lynx viewer I often find gifs and jpgs that do not have alt tags and show up as an awkward looking filename. These images might be nothing more than the corner of a table, a divider or something else of little significance, but they stand out in the viewer and I suppose to search engines as well. So, should an attempt be made to create alt tags for all images, regardless of their visual significance (not necessarily to improve page rank, but just to have the page appear less "ugly")? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 09:26 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
HR 4 Group: Active Members Posts: 206 Joined: 24-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 11:07 AM Member No.: 15 |
QUOTE So, should an attempt be made to create alt tags for all images, regardless of their visual significance (not necessarily to improve page rank, but just to have the page appear less "ugly")? Yes, they should. If a user comes to your site in lynx, with images turned off, or using a text-to speech browser, they'll get the--often gibberish--file names or similar information when they come to the image. The alt attribute should include a textual equivalent of the image. For the spacers or curving corner graphics you describe, that would be alt="" (alt equals null or nothing). Alt is a required attribute of the img tag. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 03:05 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
HR 3 Group: Active Members Posts: 60 Joined: 8-March 04 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 05:07 PM From: UK Member No.: 2,804 |
Thanks Anthony & qwerty for taking the time to look at my site - I didn't really expect that.
I'm just surprised that Google decides to use the very first words of content for it's descriptions when on most pages there is more relevant content elsewhere. Thanks again, Elliot |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 04:36 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 HR 7 Group: Moderator Posts: 2,241 Joined: 31-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 10:07 AM From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Member No.: 170 |
Actually, Google will very often use different descriptions for different searches.
EXAMPLE I did 2 searches - "high rankings" and "jill whalen" Both come up with www.highrankings.com as the number one result. But look at the descriptions. See anything interesting? Description for "high rankings" ... Register Now! High Rankings Search Engine Marketing Seminar in Chicago. ... Subscribe to the [url=http://www.highrankings.com/advisor.htm]High Rankings® Advisor[/url] Search Engine Marketing Newsletter. ... Description for "jill whalen" Jill Whalen provides expert search engine optimization, SEO copywriting, search engine marketing consulting, and SEO seminars, training and workshops. ... ------------ These are BOTH the description for this page. It's the same page. What is the difference? Google assumes that you are not interested in the standard description of a page, but rather the part of the page that is related to what you are looking for, which for all you know says something like "this site is NOT about...." So Google looks for the first instance of your KEYWORD for that search and provides a description based on the text snippit around it. BOTTOM LINE: want to change your description? Find the first instance of the search term that the visitor probably used and optimise the paragraph that it is in as a descriptor for your site. Ian |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2004, 12:43 PM
Post
#8
|
|
 High Rankings Advisor  Group: Admin Posts: 29,201 Joined: 21-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 12:07 PM From: Ashland, MA Member No.: 2 |
Why do you care what description show up when you search for your site by name?
That's not how people will be searching for it, so don't worry about it. Jill |
|
|
|
|
Apr 25 2004, 10:41 PM
Post
#9
|
|
 Paz Group: Active Members Posts: 702 Joined: 4-March 04 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 01:07 PM From: Spain Member No.: 2,763 |
QUOTE marketing consulting, and SEO seminars Still bad grammar in my opinion too, I wish somebody could tell me that it is different in the States to the rest of the worlds English ? A comma is a symbol that replaces a word like and and therefore should not precede that word. :learn: |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 01:50 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
HR 3 Group: Active Members Posts: 60 Joined: 8-March 04 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 05:07 PM From: UK Member No.: 2,804 |
I use a comma to represent a pause (in speech) - so it would be ok to separate the last two elements of a list with [, and] as far as I'm concerned - and I'm English. I'm not saying I'm gramatically correct - but I think this usage is pretty widespread either side of the pond.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 11:45 AM
Post
#11
|
|
 Vintage Babe Group: Moderator Posts: 4,142 Joined: 31-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 12:07 PM From: Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually) Member No.: 89 |
QUOTE Still bad grammar in my opinion too, I wish somebody could tell me that it is different in the States to the rest of the worlds English ? Is the saying about "the pot calling the kettle black" known in your part of the world? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Methinks there's a bit of irony inherent in posting a complaint about a very minor grammatical disagreement that itself contains so many major grammatical errors: 1. Between "too" and "I" should be either a period (full stop) or a semicolon. A comma in this place is -- AFAIK -- totally incorrect on both sides of the pond. 2. The word "worlds" should be written with an apostrophe (world's), as it is a possessive. As written, it is plural, and I honestly don't think English is being spoken on other planets at this point. 3. There should be no space between the word "English" and the question mark. Optional: there could be a comma before the word "too," but it isn't required. Not necessarily incorrect, but definitely nonstandard: the "different... to" construction ("different... from" would be more common in this context), and the fact that you are apparently comparing "the States" to "the rest of the worlds [sic] English". It would be more correct to compare American English to the rest of the world's English, or the States to the rest of the world. As it is, you're trying to compare a country to a language, which doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense... In the US, putting a comma before the final "and" (or "or") in a series is -- in general usage -- optional. One can put on in or not, as one sees fit and as needed to insure clarity. There are specific stylebooks that have their own specifications; I'm speaking of general usage. I'm given to understand that rule applies elsewhere as well. In this forum (and in many others), rules of grammar and spelling are largely overlooked. (A good thing it is, too -- otherwise OWG would never be allowed to post! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif) ) Posts here are considered the equivalent of casual conversation and are allowed a certain amount of leeway in grammar and punctuation appropriate to the venue. (In other words, if your grammar and spelling is so bad no one can understand your posts, you should probably work on that a bit... otherwise, we'll most likely overlook any minor errors, much as I have overlooked the grammatical errors in your posts up until now and will continue to do in the future. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif) ) (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smartass.gif) --Torka (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 01:44 PM
Post
#12
|
|
 Work is Fun Group: Moderator Posts: 4,642 Joined: 31-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 01:07 PM From: Neath, South Wales, UK Member No.: 110 |
I have to agree that Picking people up on grammar etc is very bad netiquette.
Another thing I would have to agree with is that thankfully on most forums it is the content that matters, not the spolling or gramer (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) OWG (unable compose a grammatically correct sentence, so it's a good job I do SEO not copywriting (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif) ) Although the article I did for dyslexia world was hailed as a masterpiece, apparently they thought i was a member not a guest writer (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 04:39 PM
Post
#13
|
|
 Is it just me, or is it getting cooler in the evenings...? Group: Members Posts: 1,621 Joined: 26-August 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 06:07 PM From: Chester, UK Member No.: 644 |
QUOTE(essexell @ Apr 26 2004, 07:50 AM) I use a comma to represent a pause (in speech) - so it would be ok to separate the last two elements of a list with [, and] as far as I'm concerned - and I'm English. I'm not saying I'm gramatically correct - but I think this usage is pretty widespread either side of the pond. Yep - that's the way I use it too, and I'm on the UK side of the pond. IMO, it's fine to break grammatical rules IF it makes things clearer for readers. I'll often write the way that people speak, and everyday spoken English is rarely grammatically correct, but it is widely understood. The only time I'd make sure that my grammar is 100% perfect is if the target audience for the site happened to be schoolteachers who teach English! BrianR |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 04:48 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is it getting cooler in the evenings...? Group: Members Posts: 1,621 Joined: 26-August 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 06:07 PM From: Chester, UK Member No.: 644 |
QUOTE So Google looks for the first instance of your KEYWORD for that search and provides a description based on the text snippit around it. Ian So are you saying that your description is ignored by Google even if it contains the appropriate keyword?? - ie. the 'first instance' applies to the body text only. BrianR |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2004, 05:10 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Work is Fun Group: Moderator Posts: 4,642 Joined: 31-July 03 User's local time: Feb 9 2010, 01:07 PM From: Neath, South Wales, UK Member No.: 110 |
I find that Google will apply its 'most relevant' mantra to what snippet it displays. Often it will skip past a couple of occurences and display the word where it appears as anchor text, or bolded out.
Like quite a few things in Google at the moment though it is not always the case. OWG |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
This forum is sponsored by High Rankings, a Boston SEO Agency
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th February 2010 - 12:07 PM |