The best way to write meta descriptions in a constantly changing world (AKA Google Giveth and Google Taketh Away).


Google made significant changes to the way they displayed search bits in December. Our examination showed many scraps with more than 300 characters. They appear to have reversed that change over the course of the week (Danny Sullivan confirmed this on Twitter May 14). Except for the obvious inquiry — What are the limits? It might make you think about how to adapt to changing guidelines. We all don’t have the same knowledge, but I will try to answer both of your questions based on what I know.


Insights, lies, and messy untruths…

I pulled all relevant hunt scraps from MozCast10K (page-1 Google search results for 10,000 catchphrases), as that is an informational collection that we collect every day and has a rich historical record. On May 15, 2015, there were 89.383 presentation scraps in that informational index.

You could know that the informational index base length was 6 characters. The highest was 386 and the median was around 159. This isn’t a particularly helpful result for several reasons. First, it is not very helpful to advise you to write meta depictions in between 6-386 characters. We are also managing many limits. Here’s an example of a search for the “USMC”.

Marine Corps Community Services may be a great association, but I regret to report that their meta portrayal of them is “apple” (Google attaches this period out of, I assume, franticness). Here’s a piece about the retail chain “Younkers”.

As we look at their multi-brand chaos, I think we can all agree that “BER Meta TAG1” doesn’t make perfect sense. If these cases are any indication, it’s about what to avoid doing. What about the limit on the other side? This scrap contains 386 characters. It is part of a quest for “noncontend understanding”.


You will notice the connections and “Leap to Exceptions”, at the beginning. Google has added those, making it difficult to determine what marks against the person count. This one is without the additional items and starts at 370 characters. It’s a quest for “The Hunger Games Books”.

We also see that there are more extensive bits. Both of these pieces are from Wikipedia. This exemption is for certain SEO rules. These long portrayals are just for the periphery? It is not possible to know the truth by looking at the mean (or the middle in this case).


Section 1: The higher perspective

Sometimes, it is necessary to let the information justify itself with some persuasion. Let’s take a look at what was left (finishing with “…”)) and remove video results. We know from past inspections that these tend to be a bit less. This leaves us with 42,863 bits. Below is a diagram showing the cut-off lengths, as a whole. It has been assembled into 25-person receptacles (0-25 to 26-50 and so on). ):

Based on our December information, this appears to be an exceptional case. It is clearly grouped in the 150-175-person range. While we see some Google show scraps after the 300+ territory is overshadowed, they are not as extensive.


Section 2: The higher perspective

There’s clearly a lot happening in the 125-175-person range. We should zoom in to take a look at the central piece of the recurrence conveyance. It is separated into smaller, 5-character containers.

It is clear that most shorts occur in the 145-165 age range. Google seems to have reverted to old rules regarding meta portrayals, which were under 155 characters before December.


Google uses corresponding textual styles so there is no limit to the number of people who can use them. Some people have correctly guessed a limit on pixel width, such as title labels. However, I find it more difficult to pin down multi-line bits. This is because the situation can be very different for versatile outcomes. It’s also difficult to stay in touch with a limit of pixels. According to the information, 155 characters seems like a reasonable estimate.


The Wayback Machine… ? !

Is it a good idea to just return to the 155-person cut-off? If you have authored longer meta portrayals in the past, is it a good idea to start over? It is a fact that no one knows what the next week will bring. We have four options.

(1) Let Google handle it

Some destinations do not have any meta descriptions. Wikipedia is one of these destinations. Google’s interpretation of Wikipedia’s content is more complicated than for most destinations. However, many locations charge no tag. If you decide to make terrible, repetitive labels or leave them blank, I would suggest that you leave them blank and let Google do the rest.


(2) Let the… go where it may

It’s possible to simply communicate with the page length that you think is ideal for a random page. If the scraps do get cut, don’t worry about it. Maybe the ellipsis (…) adds some interest. Although I have my tongue in cheek, a cut-off isn’t necessarily the end of the world. An engaging portrayal should captivate people to want to learn more.


(3) Chop everything at the 155-character limit

You could also return to the original 155 characters and retrace your efforts. This is likely to result in more horrible hunt bits and time spent. It is possible to update more specific Meta Descriptions on your most important pages. However, keep in mind that some outcomes may not yet show enough scraps. This situation will continue to develop.


(4) Write length-versatile portrayals

It is possible to create a portrayal that works well at both lengths. With some thought and arrangement, I believe it is possible. This is not something I would recommend for every page. However, there may be a way to have our cake and eat half of it.


The 150/150 method

Recently, I was a bit obsessed with the “modified pyramid” method of composition. This is where you begin with the outline or lead of your central matter, then separate it into the subtleties and information. This approach works well on the internet, but it is not as effective for paper. Your supervisor might need to cut your article to fit into the available space. The rearranged pyramid style ensured that the main portion would be preserved.

This strategy can be used to meta portrayals. Why not write a 150-character “lead”, which summarises the page. Then add 150 characters of useful but less fundamental detail. You could do 100/100, 100/200 or 150/150. It is important to keep the text before the cut intact.

It’s a piece, or promotion. There are two lines of duplicate. Let’s take this blog entry.


Line 1 (145 singes.)

We announced in December that Google had increased search bits to more characters. It seems that the standards have changed again, tragically.


Line 2 (122 singes.)

Our May 2018 examination revealed that the cutoff is now 155-160 characters. How can SEOs adapt to these changes?

Line 1 is the abbreviated version of the story. It ideally informs searchers that they are on the right path. Line 2 is more detailed and provides less information to the user. It is possible that Google uses a more detailed portrayal. If so, it should work well. However, if they don’t, then we shouldn’t be too tired.


It would be a great idea to try and irritate.

Does this work add value? Although successful portrayals are still important in principle, and this can in turn influence in any event, positioning, you may find that you can write very well within a 155 character limit. Google is changing an increasing number of portrayals, which we must also face. It is difficult to predict how many changes will affect your meta portrayion, but it is possible that they may use it as composed.

Is there a way to tell when a longer scrap (>300 characters), will be used? Some SEOs believe there is a link between longer scraps, and the included bits at page’s highest point. Our general informational collection showed that 13.3% of all SERPs featured highlighted parts. If we look at SERPs that have a maximum length of 160 characters for their presentation pieces (for example, no outcome had more than 160 characters), then the included bit event was 11.4%. If we look at SERPs that have more than one showcase scrap, the highlighted pieces were at 41.8%. Although the informational index that follows is quite small, it is an important distinction. It is clear that there is a correlation between Google’s ability to remove included scraps of replies and their readiness or capacity to show longer hunt bits. These more detailed bits are usually removed from the page or modified, but there is no guarantee that Google will use your extended meta description.

The 155 character rule will be in effect until further notice. If you have proactively expanded some of your meta portrayals, there is no reason to react. You might want to reduce the length of your basic pages’ depictions, especially if they are causing poor outcomes. If you do decide to rework them, you might consider the 150/150 method. In this case you will be a little more future-sealed.


Next Post