 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / General / Search Engines / July 2009search results question..
hi, in google search results (and in other engines too, I think), the first line corresponds to what's in <title> in web page right? the second line is supposed to be what you have in <meta name="description"..> tag.. however, sometimes in results for a page on my site instead of content in <meta name="description"..> tag it show shows content of the page, from inside <body> tag.. why does it do this, when in fact I have <meta name="description"..> tag in all my pages.. thank you... > hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inside <body> tag.. why does it do this, when in fact I have <meta > name="description"..> tag in all my pages.. Search engines are free to show you what they want. In the early days it would have been the url, page title and meta-description and I'm sure many search engines still use this combination. Of course this becomes a problem when you consider that not all pages provide a title or meta-description. I believe that Google will often use text from the page, either when it thinks (according to who knows what criteria) that the page from the text is more relevant or when the description is missing or does not appear relevant to the page. Personally, I'd still provide my own description for each page (whether google or others use it or not). HTH.  SignatureBrian Cryer www.cryer.co.uk/brian >> hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > HTH. hi, thank you for your response.. this SUCKS, it's not a good system at all if they use info from body of page if the page has a meta-description (after all, this is the main PURPOSE of meta-description tags, no??) it also bugs the hell out of me that there is no way to communicate directly with google about this, or anything else.. these folks make so much money doing what they do, the least they could is answer questions directly from folks who are affected by what they do... thanks again.. >>> hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > thanks again.. If the meta description is "Maine Coon Cat in Glendale" and the page content is "My Maine Coon, Rolo, is a beautiful female Maine Coon, with a tabby coat, and large feet. She is a loving cat, and comes to a whistle. I taught my cat to come to a whistle by whistling and then offering food when she came in." Now, say someone wants to know how to train their cat to come to a whistle. The word whistle is not in the description, but it is in the page content. The word whistle would appear in the SERPs, and send that user to my site. If it were just on description alone, they might not come. (By the way, anyone reading this message from a site that uses Usenet content, that IS the way I taught my cat to come to a whistle.) SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>> hi, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > (By the way, anyone reading this message from a site that uses Usenet > content, that IS the way I taught my cat to come to a whistle.) well, this is the deal.. I have a photo site, in meta-description it says something like "Photos of India, New York, Australia, Thailand".. but on the pages themselves, inside <body>, I have lots of numbers, corresponding to the photos, with the no. for the current photo highlighted (i.e., a different font-color..) so in the search-results, for the pages in my photo site, instead of the content in the meta-description tag I see something like: 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24.. instead of what I put in the meta-description tag... does this make sense to you???? now the weird thing is, this happens only SOMETIMES, only for some of the pages (all the pages are coded exactly the same, the code is generated from back-end programming..) I think this is really weird... thank you for your response... >>>>> hi, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > thank you for your response... URL? SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>>>> hi, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > URL? ok, search for "Frances Del Rio" on google, then click on "more results from www.francesdelrio.com" (all urls under francesdelrio.com/photoblog/ are coded exactly the same, yet under some of them it displays expected results, under other ones it doesn't... ) (some urls in results are old and I have redirects in them, only ones that matter are home page, /photoblog/ and /resume/...) thank you very much... >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > thank you very much... It seems that javascript is necessary to use your site, and your links require javascript to work. That's not friendly for people or search engines. Look at [http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog/section2/page1/photos.jsp] with CSS disabled, and you will see why Google is doing what it is doing. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > [http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog/section2/page1/photos.jsp] with > CSS disabled, and you will see why Google is doing what it is doing. ok, do you mean JavaScript or CSS? they are too very different things.. so now you can't use JavaScript or CSS on your sites or else google's search-engine programs and algorithms go haywire?? sorry, this doesn't make any sense.. does this apply also to sites like amazon, CNN, The New York Times, etc?? do you think of any of them have JavaScript or CSS disabled so indexing on search-engines work for them??? so you're saying that google's search engine only reads meta-description tags if CSS is disabled?? sorry, I don't get the logic or the rhyme or reason for this.....;) thank you for your response... I do appreciate you taking the time.... >>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > ok, do you mean JavaScript or CSS? What I want to do is to disable BOTH javascript AND CSS. THAT is what Google and brethern see. they are too very different > things.. > so now you can't use JavaScript or CSS on your sites or else > google's > search-engine programs and algorithms go haywire?? CSS is fine - means nothing to Google. All Google wants is the content, and doesn't care what it looks like. Javascript is NOT fine, especially if it is used to construct links. Google does not have javascript enabled, so it cannot follow onclick links. > sorry, this > doesn't make any sense.. does this apply also to sites like amazon, > CNN, The New York Times, etc?? Amazon, CNN, etc., don't use javascript links. They do things server side, not client side. If they do something client side, it's something to enhance the user's experience, and it not something vital, like navigation. > do you think of any of them have > JavaScript or CSS disabled so indexing on search-engines work for > them??? You are getting confused. It is the user who disbles CSS or javascript, or just does not have it available. > so you're saying that google's search engine only reads > meta-description tags if CSS is disabled?? sorry, I don't get the > logic or the rhyme or reason for this.....;) CSS has nothing to do with it. If you don't have Opera browser, go and download it, install it now, fire it up and then come back and read the rest of thie message. Go to the page I told you to go to before: [http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog/section2/page1/photos.jsp] Then click on View->Style->User Style. That disables CSS. See all the numbers? Put CSS back, your page is back. Now, for the javascript part. Click Tools->Quick Preferences and uncheck Enable Javascript. Now, refresh the page. What do you see? Nothing. That's not a good thing, and not very user friendly. Visitors with javascript disabled may not know to disable CSS in order to view your page. > thank you for your response... I do appreciate you taking the time.... What I suggest you do is: 1. Make your links accessible 2. Put the picture navigation below the picture 3. Use something like photos.jsp?id=picid and only show one picture plus the thumbnails. Right now, you are loading ALL the pictures, plus the thumbnails, and that, my friend, is causing the page to be large and take a long time to load. Have a look at [http://mywonderyears.org/gallery.php] to see what I mean. If you look at [http://mywonderyears.org/general.php?pic=27#pic27] that's a picture of my son. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > [http://mywonderyears.org/general.php?pic=27#pic27] that's a picture of > my son. thank you Adrienne.. yes, I know I need to do something to my photo site so photos don't load so slow.. (it's just that I don't like it when every time you load a new photo the whole page loads again, I really don't like that at all, that can also slow things down.. of course the way to do this so not all elements of the page reload everytime you load a new photo is to use frames, but everybody frowns on frames these days, so probably that's not an option.. yes I need to make my entire site accessible (but I thought that making sure all elements are text would also do it.. I need to learn more about accessibility, it's on my to-do list....;) is there a way to test for accessibility in W3C validators like you can validate your HTML and CSS code?? (however, none of this answers my question about the meta-description tags and search-engine results... does it...;) your son is cute!! :) thank you for your responses.. >>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 190 lines] > everytime you load a new photo is to use frames, but everybody frowns > on frames these days, so probably that's not an option.. Well, on the site I sent you to, yes, the page loads for each picture, but, it loads very quickly because not ALL the large images are loading, as it is doing on your page. It's only loading what it needs. > yes I need > to make my entire site accessible (but I thought that making sure all > elements are text would also do it.. I need to learn more about > accessibility, it's on my to-do list....;) You know, to-do lists really don't work. Items on the to-do list stay there and never get done. Make an appointment to do the thing, and it WILL get done. If you keep meaning to go to the doctor, you never will, but once you call and make an appointment, you go. Accessibility is so important, and not that difficult to make happen. > is there a way to test for > accessibility in W3C validators like you can validate your HTML and > CSS code?? The W3 does not have an accessibility checker. I have found the one at http://www.cynthiasays.com/ to do a very good job. That's an automated thing, the best way to test for accessibility is to download and install a speech browser, turn off your monitor, and see if you can still navigate without being able to see. > (however, none of this answers my question about the meta-description > tags and search-engine results... does it...;) There's the semantic data extractor [http://www.w3.org/2003/12/semantic- extractor.html]. It gives an insight into what search engines might see. Again, look at the page with CSS disabled, and you will see why Google is using the content it is. You need to use heading elements, good page titles, etc. > your son is cute!! :) Thank you! That was taken when he was three, he'll be six in November. Growing like a weed, and smart. > thank you for your responses.. No problem, I'm happy to help. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > [http://mywonderyears.org/general.php?pic=27#pic27] that's a picture of > my son. ok, is this better??? http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog-pp/section3/page1/photos.jsp?pn=7 switch from photo to photo is a bit slow now, that not all photos are loaded in same pg.. but well, it's the lesser of two evils I suppose....;) thanks for your suggestion.. I had been meaning to try this for a while but hadn't gotten around to it.. (I wonder if it'll make any difference with my search-engine problem though, probably not...;) thanks again.. >>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 196 lines] > > thanks again.. You still have the 1,2,3... etc at the top of the page. You have not changed the title element. On the page you gave as an example, you could take the title of the picture and add it to the title element, eg: <title>New Jersey - Frances Del Rio - Photoblog</title> Since you are doing this all server side anyway, grabbing the photo's description and adding it to the title element and meta description should not be a problem. You could also do something like: <h1>New Jersey</h1> <div id="nav"> .... </div> <div> <img src="whatever" ...> <br> New Jersey </div> You could even hide the h1 element by positioning it off the screen or something. I think what you have done so far is very good. Keep up the good work! SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > You still have the 1,2,3... etc at the top of the page. You have not > changed the title element. well, I WANT the 1,2,3 to remain... what is wrong with those (you mean I have to remove those b/c of the search engine? oh brother.. I do like those...;) but the title you're right, I forgot... yes, I'm doing server-side, so the stuff you mention IS easy.. some things am still still doing client-side, maybe will change since so many people (mainly here in usenet) complain about how many users turn JS off....;) ...... > I think what you have done so far is very good. Keep up the good work! thank you!! and thank you for your help....:) >>>>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 198 lines] > I have to remove those b/c of the search engine? oh brother.. I do > like those...;) You can keep the 1,2,3... just put an h1 element before it, eg: <title>Jersey City Public Library</title> </head> <body> <h1>Jersey City Public Library</h1> <?php include "nav_inc.php";?> You're not really using a good construct for your 1, 2, 3 menu. This: <a href="photos.jsp?pn=1" id="bulletsTN1" class="bullets">1</a> <a href="photos.jsp?pn=2" id="bulletsTN2" class="bullets">2</a> <a href="photos.jsp?pn=3" id="bulletsTN3" class="bullets">3</a> is not a good idea. It's a list, so use list markup (my example is using PHP): <ul id="bullets"> <?php for($i=0;$i=<count($picsarray);++$i) { ?> <li><a href="photos.jsp?pn=<?php echo $i; ?>" <?php if($_GET['pn']==$i) {echo "class='thispage';}><?php echo $i; ?></a></li> <?php } ?> </ul> > but the title you're right, I forgot... yes, I'm doing server-side, so > the stuff you mention IS easy.. some things am still still doing > client-side, maybe will change since so many people (mainly here in > usenet) complain about how many users turn JS off....;) There are probably a lot of things you can let CSS do that you're having js do now. Use elements wisely, for example: ul#bullets {list-style-type:none;} ul#bullets li {display:inline; padding:0 .5em 0 .5em} ul#bullets li a.thispage {color:#fff} > ...... > >> I think what you have done so far is very good. Keep up the good work! > > thank you!! and thank you for your help....:) No problem. It's a conspiracy... make the www accessible for everyone! SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 257 lines] > > No problem. It's a conspiracy... make the www accessible for everyone! ok, didn't do caption for each photo in title, http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog-pp/section1/page1/photos.jsp?pn=4 that would be a bit more involved.. and not too practical since not all photos have captions.. settled for putting label of each section (reworked) in the <title>.. and yes, my next project is the accessibility...;) once again thank you very much.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 257 lines] > > No problem. It's a conspiracy... make the www accessible for everyone! I put the captions in "alt" property inside img tag for each photo, for accessibility purposes; but I guess this also means every photo should have its own caption.. that would make it very repetitive for most other users.. hmmm.... [Some 300 lines of old conversation from posts as many as 14 levels deep snipped. Don't people trim here in a.i.s-e? I haven't lurked here long.] > I put the captions in "alt" property inside img tag for each photo, for > accessibility purposes; but I guess this also means every photo should > have its own caption.. that would make it very repetitive for most > other users.. hmmm.... You are rearranging the deck chairs. Since this is a.i.search-engines, let's go back to what Adrienne said about JavaScript: It shouldn't be necessary to have JS on in order to use your site. All of your links seem to be JS (e.g. "<a href="#" class="bullets" onclick=...") and the photos themselves don't appear without JS. Not only don't the images present themselves to my eyes in my graphical browser, no alt text is presented either. Your JS is *keeping content from appearing* to non-JS UAs. Note: Google is the most famous and important non-JS visitor to your site. And by the way, it isn't necessarily the "caption" that belongs in the alt attribute (although you might put that in the title attribute, which may give viewers a pop-up of that text). The alt attribute is what visitors should see (or hear) if the image can't be seen. The alt texts I saw on your page were like "Photo 1", which is hardly a useful substitute for the image. Not very index-worthy for search engine either, I would think. The actual captions would be more useful (and no, not repetitive) if they appeared for every photo. You sometimes have "This and next four are my cousin's toenail" on one shot, but then there are no captions at all on the next four shots of toenails. The captions provide not only orientation for the human visitors (who may have dropped in at toenail #3), but *content* for SE's to index and weight your page with. If you're worried about repetition in your captions, avoid saying "Toenail" identically on every page; say something like "Another shot of Pat's toenail, this time from the east, at sunrise, using my fisheye lens". More work, but more rewards. Also BTW: I think your photos are quite good, and very interesting. I hope you get the site worked out. SignatureJohn > [Some 300 lines of old conversation from posts as many as 14 levels deep > snipped. Don't people trim here in a.i.s-e? I haven't lurked here long.] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Note: Google is the most famous and important non-JS visitor to your site. actually, as I mentioned in a post from earlier today, I changed most of you what you mentioned just in the last few days; still am trying out, will probably publish overnight or tomorrow night.. http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog-pp/section1/page1/photos.jsp as I also mentioned, for photos that do have captions I have now included the captions in alt-property in img-tag... (still have to add captions to captionless photos, I suppose...) thank you.. and thank you for your comments about my photos... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 237 lines] > <?php } ?> > </ul> :) I do do something like this, only in JSP, it just PRINTS like what you show above...;) (sorry, I hadn't seen this part of your post before..) so it's better for accessibility if those links (1,2,3,4 etc..) are inside a <ul>?? I looked up accessibility some more this afternoon, added labels to all my form elements.. (I don't suppose you need to do it for hidden form elements?? :) >> but the title you're right, I forgot... yes, I'm doing server-side, so >> the stuff you mention IS easy.. some things am still still doing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ul#bullets li {display:inline; padding:0 .5em 0 .5em} > ul#bullets li a.thispage {color:#fff} yes I know I still need to work on stuff like onmouseout="document.getElementById('bulletsTN<%=i%>').className='bullets';" in thumbnails links.. thank you again.... >>> I think what you have done so far is very good. Keep up the good > work! >> thank you!! and thank you for your help....:) > > No problem. It's a conspiracy... make the www accessible for everyone! well Adrienne, I certainly have been working very hard in the last few days making my site accessible (all pgs have <h1> element, where applicable have also included <h2>'s and <h3>'s.. forms are accessible.. have eliminated most JS (can't do for rollovers for thumbnails, since that one triggers an action in ANOTHER ELEMENT.. I think it's ironic that now as a front-end developer they want you to be this killer JS developer, yet for accessibility you're supposed to avoid JS whenever you can...;) if I could steal a few mins of your time when you get a chance, can you navigate around my site and see? www.francesdelrio.com.. and thank you so much.. (only thing I haven't done yet is put those photo nos. in a <ul> list.. I don't like lists too much as paddings and margins are unpredictable from browser to browser.. I have developed my own formula that works for this, but still I'd rather avoid lists when I can.. I did do it on a test page, http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog/section1/page1/photos.html (photo nos. are in list on this page) but I haven't been able to test it on IE7, or any mac browser... so not to keen on doing this as yet... (are more accessible?? or is there another reason why you suggested a list?) again, thank you very much for your help and suggestions here... (if you'd rather continue this conversation by email you can send me email from any pg on my website..) >>>> I think what you have done so far is very good. Keep up the good >> work! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > applicable have also included <h2>'s and <h3>'s.. forms are > accessible.. Good deal! Yes, it's a lot nicer. I really enjoy going to your site to see your wonderful pictures. You are talented! > have eliminated most JS (can't do for rollovers for > thumbnails, since that one triggers an action in ANOTHER ELEMENT.. I > think it's ironic that now as a front-end developer they want you to > be this killer JS developer, yet for accessibility you're supposed to > avoid JS whenever you can...;) I was confused about thumbnails, and finally noticed the little box/stamp thingy that brings up the thumbnails. Maybe include some text so those of us who haven't had enough coffee yet know what it is. I like the effect, and am pleased that it works with javascript off. Nice job. The theme does not work with js off. I would fix that, if only to make it accessible for users with js off. Of course, Google can't follow it, and Google doesn't need to follow it. I do something like: <a href="pagename?style=whatever" class="main" onclick="chooseStyle ('black-theme', 60);return false"> That will give no js users the opportunity to see the page with the different colors. You also have links right next to each other, see below. > if I could steal a few mins of your time when you get a chance, can > you navigate around my site and see? www.francesdelrio.com.. and > thank you so much.. The title element on the first page is rather iffy. <title> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FRANCES DEL RIO -- WEBSITE <<<<<<<<<<<<<< </title> That shows up in my task bar as >>>>>>>>>>. What is that? What web site is doing that nasty thing so I don't know what it is? What is Google going to show? The same thing. The title is the most valuable piece of realestate on the page. Don't squander it - use keywords that describe your website (don't stuff, don't make it terribly long). What's this? <meta name="description" content="photography, resume :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"/> That makes no sense. Do you really want Google to show this as a result? Description is also a valuable - don't squander it either. > (only thing I haven't done yet is put those photo nos. in a <ul> > list.. I don't like lists too much as paddings and margins are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog/section1/page1/photos.html > (photo nos. are in list on this page) That's the way to do it. You can always add padding/margins to suit. > but I haven't been able to test it on IE7, or any mac browser... so > not to keen on doing this as yet... (are more accessible?? or is > there another reason why you suggested a list?) 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3] [http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-divide-links] The regular photo page fails an automated test with the links not in a list format, and the test page fails only for the style choices. [http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe]. When I ran the tests, I tested for Priority 1,2 and 3. > again, thank you very much for your help and suggestions here... > (if you'd rather continue this conversation by email you can send me > email from any pg on my website..) Like I said, it's a conspiracy, and hopefully others are learning from this as well. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>> hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > they use info from body of page if the page has a meta-description (after > all, this is the main PURPOSE of meta-description tags, no??) But it does mean that search engines have the flexibility to return a description of your page that is tailored towards what someone is searching for. SignatureBrian Cryer www.cryer.co.uk/brian >>>> hi, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > description of your page that is tailored towards what someone is > searching for. once again: if someone searches for my name, does it make sense for the search engine to return something like 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24.. on one of my pages instead of what I have in meta-description tag?? not to me it doesn't.... thank you for your response... >>>>> hi, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > on one of my pages instead of what I have in meta-description tag?? not to > me it doesn't.... But if someone is searching on your name then isn't it helpful in the search results for the search engine to show the context of where your name appears in the document? SignatureBrian Cryer www.cryer.co.uk/brian >>>>>> hi, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > search results for the search engine to show the context of where your > name appears in the document? my name appears on every page, in the <title>... I still don't understand why google doesn't show what's in meta-description tag, it shouldn't decide for you that content in rest of the page is what should show in results instead of what's in your meta-description tag.. sorry, I'm not convinced... I searched for my name again this morning, and in my home page, instead of meta-description tag, it showed "your email has been sent. Thank you" which is a hidden div for when email is sent.. sorry, nobody will ever convince me this makes sense, I think this is just sloppy work (as in sloppy sw-writing) on the part of search engines... thank you for your response. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.