Why is "Article 1 - x of y" showing up in this SERP?
-
Does anybody have an explanation why this is showing up in the SERP?
-
Ah, I see now.
Check out: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByTS_rzWsn22NXVkMmRwcTBSakk/view?usp=drivesdk
This looks like a prev/next orientation + it contains the actual text "ARTIKEL 9 VON 14".
My best guess would be that google is picking up on that (either naturally or through their data highlighter tool).
-
There is no schema markup on the page, however.
I found some non visible text in the markup which is
ARTIKEL 9 VON 14
and which I would regard as being pretty accurate.
The list page (http://www.cairo.de/Mueller-Moebelwerkstaetten/) has 14 articles on them. So that explains the 14.
The 9 could also be explained as the article in doubt is the 9th one if you start clicking through from the list page. That's the reason for the markup on the page.
There is one item on that page, not 9 Items.
So I don't understand why google shows Article 1 - 9 in the SERP.
It's also the only one of the articles linked from the list page for which we see this markup in the SERP.
-
Artikel = items
This is a results of there being multiple schema offers (see the example with Dell UltraSharp 30" LCD Monitor) on the page that are marked up. Google reads this and displays the # of offers and their min-max price range (if set) in the serps.
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
-
[Organization schema] Which Facebook page should be put in "sameAs" if our organization has separate Facebook pages for different countries?
We operate in several countries and have this kind of domain structure:
Technical SEO | | Telsenome
example.com/us
example.com/gb
example.com/au For our schemas we've planned to add an Organization schema on our top domain, and let all pages point to it. This introduces a problem and that is that we have a separate Facebook page for every country. Should we put one Facebook page in the "sameAs" array? Or all of our Facebook pages? Or should we skip it altogether? Only one Facebook page:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example.com/org/#organization",
"name": "Org name",
"url": "https://example.com/org/",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/xxx",
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_us"
], All Facebook pages:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example.com/org/#organization",
"name": "Org name",
"url": "https://example.com/org/",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/xxx",
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_us"
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_gb"
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_au"
], Bonus question: This reasoning springs from the thought that we only should have one Organization schema? Or can we have a multiple sub organizations?0 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
404s still showing in GWT
Hi, My client recently undertook a site migration. Since the new site's gone live GWT has highlighted over 2000 not found errors. These were fixed nearly 2 weeks ago and they're still being listed in GWT. Do I have to wait for Google to re-crawl the page before they're removed from the list? Or do I need to go through the list, individually check them and mark them as fixed? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | ChannelDigital0 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
1,300,000 404s
Just moved a WordProcess site over to a new host and skinned it. Found out after the fact that the site had been hacked - the db is clean. I did notice at first there were a lot of 404s being generated, so I setup a script to capture and then return a 410 page gone - and then the plan was to submit them to have them removed from the index - thinking there was a manageable number But, when I looked at Google WebMaster Tools there was over 1,300,000 404 errors - see attachment. My puny attempt to solve this problem seems to need more of an industrial size solution. My question, is that what would be the best way to deal with this? Not all of the pages are indexed in google - only 637 index but you can only see about 150 in the index. Where bing is another story saying that over 2,700 pages index but only can see about 200. How is this affecting any future rankings - they do not rank well, as I found out because of very slow page load speed and of course the hacks? The link profile looking at Google is OK, and there are no messages in Google Webmaster tools. am5cMz2
Technical SEO | | Runner20090 -
New EMD update effected my mom's legit author page? From page 1 in SERP to nowhere for her name
I think my mom's site, MargaretTerry.com was hit by this update for her name "Margaret Terry". Went from bouncing around the first page on google.com and .ca all the time to nowhere on the index. The results are now very strange, a mix of Youtube, linked in, and small book stores that she has done events at recently to promote her first book. I was checking after some of my SEO buddys were freaking out about their EMD's getting hit on Sunday. She is an aspiring author with a book coming out this month. There is obviously no ads or spam content on the site... I have never done SEO for it either except a bit of on page I guess. It sucks that people might be grabbing her book soon and when they Google her name nothing shows up. This couldn't have really happened at a worse time. Not to mention the hours spent building the site to her liking, free of charge of course 🙂 Is there anyone I can contact there to help me out? Shouldn't and EMD that is someones name still rank when you search their name?
Technical SEO | | Operatic0 -
Wrong listing in SERP
For one of the keyword of my website wrong URL appearing in SERP.I wanted to remove that listing in SERPs.How can i remove that listing in SERP?
Technical SEO | | Alick3000 -
NoIndex/NoFollow pages showing up when doing a Google search using "Site:" parameter
We recently launched a beta version of our new website in a subdomain of our existing site. The existing site is www.fonts.com with the beta living at new.fonts.com. We do not want Google to crawl the new site until it's out of beta so we have added the following on all pages: However, one of our team members noticed that google is displaying results from new.fonts.com when doing an "site:new.fonts.com" search (see attached screenshot). Is it possible that Google is indexing the content despite the noindex, nofollow tags? We have double checked the syntax and it seems correct except the trailing "/". I know Google still crawls noindexed pages, however, the fact that they're showing up in search results using the site search syntax is unsettling. Any thoughts would be appreciated! DyWRP.png
Technical SEO | | ChrisRoberts-MTI0