Weird title tag in SERps (see attachment)

[Tone_Agency]

Hi Mozzers

Does anyone know why my clients title tag appears like it does in the image attached?

It seems as though Google is pulling the parent page url and putting that at the front.

All other title tags are normal.

Anyone any ideas and is it anything to be worried about?

Thanks

Anthony

@Anthony_Mac85

9KhTgk5

[GPainter]

Just a guess here, I know Google if it feels you're Meta isn't right can select its own and this maybe what's happened although I don't think this is what it is. I would also try removing the canonical as there is no need for it as its pointing to its self. You can also try a Fetch as Google see if it refreshes the Meta.

You can always wait a day and see if it resolves its self as sometimes an over reaction can do more harm then good especially if it resolves on its own. Lucky you're in a good placement and the incorrect meta still gets the keyword across.

Hope some of that helps a bit.

Good luck!

[JaneCopland]

Hi Anthony,

It looks like a simple error on Google's part, especially since your other pages are displayed correctly, but do try the actions listed by Chris like Fetch as Googlebot, perhaps after also making some minor changes to the title tag to spur a new title to be indexed (nothing drastic, try "PicoSure Tattoo Removal UK | Fastest Treatment in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham" perhaps).

I don't believe this will be the problem in this case, but beware of copying pages' content on other websites like Yell:

http://i.imgur.com/JAqToZv.png

http://i.imgur.com/e94blAB.png

It's a bad idea to place your content on other websites, especially authoritative sites. Google heavily filters (and sometimes penalises for) duplicate content and the last thing you want is Yell or another review / directory site being considered more relevant for your text than you are.

[Tone_Agency]

Thanks for your responses Chris and Jane - both very useful!

I will try your suggestions and thanks for the other tips re: dupe content on directory listings and and canonicals. I'll get those sorted too

Anthony

[Tone_Agency]

Hey Chris

Just done some reading into putting a rel canonical on a page pointing to itself and it seems that it's harmless. Matt Cutts even says so in this video.

Also, a couple of people have said that "having a tag on your page protects you somewhat from scrapers and people stealing your content.  If your page is indexed first with your tag, any syndicated or duplicate versions from 3rd parties in theory should not be able to rank that content." Found that in this thread here.

They don't seem to be doing any harm so think I'm going to leave them

Anthony

[GPainter]

Hiya,

Yes I would agree it doesn't cause harm however it doesn't do anything else either. The canonical doesn't make a difference really. I wouldn't see how it protects you from scrapers or people stealing your content having your page indexed first is irrelevant of the tag.   look at it another way if a scraper stole your content they could just stick a canonical pointing to them selfs and thus claim it was their content, it wouldn't work.  It all boils down to who Google index's to and if most people are pointing to the original (in theory)

Reason I pointed it out was it may have been an error of Google getting in a muddle with the canonical and might of been worth a try

[Tone_Agency]

Yeh I guess it doesn't matter either way.

I tried the structured data testing tool and the title tag displays correctly.

Hmmm, think I'll wait a few days and see it sorts itself out. Then try amending the title tag option

Thanks

[GPainter]

Sounds like a great plan! Good luck. Let us know if it gets resolved.

[GalcoIndustrial]

Hi Anthony!

These are all great responses to your question.  It's funny that just yesterday I was researching this very topic for my own company and came across this post which shed some light on the subject as well.  It'll also be interesting to see how things shape up with the new SERP redesign by Google.

Keep us updated!

Thanks,

Gerry

[Tone_Agency]

Hi Gerard

Thanks for sharing that link with me - very interesting.

So according to that post, Google are saying that for the search query "Picosure Tattoo Removal" the URL - "treatments/picosure-tattoo-removal" delivers more relevance, as opposed to the original title tag - "PicoSure Tattoo Removal UK | Serving Manchester..."

Think I'd prefer the original title tag to be honest. What do you think guys?

Thanks

Anthony

PicoSure Tattoo Removal UK

[AlanMosley]

I agree with chris, if its not needed why have it?

As for doing harm, Duane Forester from Bing advised not to do it, and said that sites that misuse the canonical tag, Bing will ignore them all together.

There is also the line of thought, that we know that canonical tags do not pass all link juice, just like 301's or any request, there is a certain amount of decay, 15% in the original google algorithm.

It just may be that when you have a canonical back to yourself, it is followed and that you get that decay unnecessarily