There may be that google only includeed your URL but not crawled yet. If your description is available google will show it near your URL after it crawls you website. If there will be no description it will use some parts of text from your website.
I'm not only sure if there is description from META tag allways included if it's available. Any ideas ?
There may be that google only includeed your URL but not crawled yet. If your description is available google will show it near your URL after it crawls you website. If there will be no description it will use some parts of text from your website.
This is correct. Don't worry, Google will come back for the goodies. With the initial index it pretty much just gets your Title tag.
See it this way. There is Minibot looking for changes in content for current and new pages and whenever he finds it he send BigBrother Bot the news to gulp it up.
I've got the same problem - I created my first site recently, without any tags at first, submitted it to google and then added the tags later. Google still shows the page with no tags or description.
The thing is that was a couple of months ago - I have no idea why google hasn't updated. I've tried resubmitting but no joy. My tags are in the same format as d_s described above.
Any advice gratefully received. The site in question is www.toryevans.com
Cheers
GR
Last edited by gibbon rib; 02-15-2005 at 04:42 AM.
Originally posted by philaweb How about some content?
I mean, good old text makes Google think your web site has content.
Sliced images with embedded text does really poor on Google.
Thanks, sounds like that could be the problem.
I went for the sliced images because controlling the appearance is highest priority. Any way around this? Surely Google should at least recognise the tags even if it doesn't want to rank us highly?
Originally posted by gibbon rib I went for the sliced images because controlling the appearance is highest priority.
You really should be controlling presentation though.
You might think what is the difference between appearance and presentation. Well, in this case it's how Google ranks your web site that's the real difference and consequence.
Appearance to me more sounds like controlling the output to the eye, but there's more to it. What about text browsers like Lynx or verbose browsers for the handicapped etc.
Presentation can be made by the use of CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) and then let the browser settings of the visitor decide what presentation the visitor might choose.
Originally posted by gibbon rib Any way around this? Surely Google should at least recognise the tags even if it doesn't want to rank us highly?
Yes, there are many ways around this.
I would recommend you to first read the sticky post by Jona posted in the "website review" forum. In that post you will find the information you need plus links to even more information for studies into the field of search engine optimization.
Thanks philaweb, I've had a look at that thread, and will continue to read on.
I'm being told that I should be using CSSs rather than tables, but I still don't really get why. Can you answer a couple of questions that should put me on the right track?
My website is predominantly images sliced into tables, which you've said means that I'm controlling the appearance but not the presentation. Is the problem that I've used tables rather than CSS? Or is the problem that using pages with large sliced images but no text is intrinsically bad design?
Can you point to anywhere that'll help explain the difference between presentation & appearance?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks