You can write meta descriptions for any length, however Google generally truncates snippets ~300 characters (this limit increased in December 2017). You want meta descriptions long enough that they're descriptive. We generally recommend writing meta descriptions between 50–300 characters.
Back in spring of 2015, we reported that Google search snippets seemed to be breaking the 155-character limit, but our data suggested that these cases were fairly rare. At the end of November, RankRanger's tools reported a sizable jump in the average search snippet length (to around 230 characters). Anecdotally, we're seeing many long snippets in the wild, such as this 386-character one on a search for "non compete agreement":
Search Engine Land was able to get confirmation from Google of a change in how they handle snippets, but we don't have a lot of details. Is it time to revisit our guidelines on meta descriptions limits heading into 2018? We dug into our daily 10,000-keyword tracking data to find out...
The trouble with averages
In our 10K tracking data for December 15th, which consisted of 89,909 page-one organic results, the average display snippet (stripped of HTML, of course) was 215 characters long, slightly below RankRanger's numbers, but well above historical trends.
This number is certainly interesting, but it leaves out quite a bit. First of all, the median character length is 186, suggesting that some big numbers are potentially skewing the average. On the other hand, some snippets are very short because their Meta Descriptions are very short. Take this snippet for Vail.com:
Sure enough, this is Vail.com's meta description tag (I'm not gonna ask):
Do we really care that a lot of people just write ridiculously short meta descriptions? No, what we really want to know is at what point Google is cutting off long descriptions. So, let's just look at the snippets that were cut (determined by the "..." at the end). In our data set, this leaves just about 33% (29,664), so we can already see that about two-thirds of descriptions aren't getting cut off.
Looking at just the descriptions that were cut off, the average jumps all the way up to 292, but let's look at the frequency distribution of the lengths of just the cut snippets. The graph below shows cut-snippet lengths in bins of 25 (0-25, 25-50, etc.):
We've got a clear spike in the 300-325 character range, but why are we seeing descriptions being cut off in the 100-200 character range (and some even below 100 characters? Digging in deeper, we discovered that two things were going on here...
Oddity #1: Video snippets
Spot-checking some of the descriptions cut off in the under-200 character range, we realized that a number of them were video snippets, which seem to have shorter limits:
These snippets seem to generally max out at two lines, and they're further restricted by the space the video thumbnail occupies. In our data set, a full 88% of video snippets were cut off (ended in "..."). Separating out video, only 32% of organic snippets (removing the video results) were cut off.
Oddity #2: Pre-cut metas
A second oddity was that some meta description tags seem to be pre-truncated (possibly by CMS systems). So, the "..." in those cases is an unreliable indicator. Take this snippet, for example:
This clocks in at 150 characters, right around the old limit. Now, let's look at the meta description:
This Goodreads snippet is being pre-truncated. This was true for almost all of the Goodreads meta descriptions in our data set, and may be a CMS setting or a conscious choice by their SEO team. Either way, it's not very useful for our current analysis.
So, we attempted to gather all of the original meta description tags to check for pre-truncated data. We were unable to gather data from all sites, and some sites don't use meta description tags at all, but we were still able to remove some of the noise.
Let's try this again (...)
So, let's pull out all of the cut snippets with video thumbnails and the ones where we know the meta description ended in "...". This cuts us down to 26,766 snippets (about 30% of the original 89,909). Here's what the frequency distribution of lengths looks like now:
We've cleaned up some of the lower end, but it's not a dramatic difference. We're still seeing some snippets cut at less than 200 characters. Some of these may be situations where we couldn't retrieve the original Meta Description tag, but others seem to be legitimate cuts.
The bulk of these snippets are being cut off in the 275–350 character range. In this cleaned-up distribution, we've got a mean of 309 characters and a median of 317 characters. There's still a bit of a tail to the left, so the distribution isn't quite normal, but it's clear that the lion's share of cut-offs are happening in that 300-325 bin.
What about the snippets over 350 characters? It's hard to see from this graph, but they maxed out at 375 characters. In some cases, Google is appending their own information:
While the entire snippet is 375 characters, the "Jump..." link is added by Google. The rest of the snippet is 315 characters long. Google also adds result counts and dates to the front of some snippets. These characters don't seem to count against the limit, but it's a bit hard to tell, because we don't have a lot of data points.
Do metas even matter?
Before we reveal the new limit, here's an uncomfortable question — when it seems like Google is rewriting so many snippets, is it worth having meta description tags at all? Across the data set, we were able to successfully capture 70,059 original Meta Description tags (in many of the remaining cases, the sites simply didn't define one). Of those, just over one-third (35.9%) were used as-is for display snippets.
Keep in mind, though, that Google truncates some of these and appends extra data to some. In 15.4% of cases, Google used the original meta description tag, but added some text. This number may seem high, but most of these cases were simply Google adding a period to the end of the snippet. Apparently, Google is a stickler for complete sentences. So, now we're up to 51.3% of cases where either the display snippet perfectly matched the meta description tag or fully contained it.
What about cases where the display snippet used a truncated version of the meta description tag? Just 3.2% of snippets matched this scenario. Putting it all together, we're up to almost 55% of cases where Google is using all or part of the original meta description tag. This number is probably low, as we're not counting cases where Google used part of the original meta description but modified it in some way.
It's interesting to note that, in some cases, Google rewrote a meta description because the original description was too short or not descriptive enough. Take this result, for example:
Now, let's check out the original meta description tag...
In this case, the original meta description was actually too short for Google's tastes. Also note that, even though Google created the snippet themselves, they still cut it off with a "...". This strongly suggests that cutting off a snippet isn't a sign that Google thinks your description is low quality.
On the flip side, I should note that some very large sites don't use meta description tags at all, and they seem to fare perfectly well in search results. One notable example is Wikipedia, a site for which defining meta descriptions would be nearly impossible without automation, and any automation would probably fall short of Google's own capabilities.
I think you should be very careful using Wikipedia as an example of what to do (or what not do), when it comes to technical SEO, but it seems clear from the data that, in the absence of a meta description tag, Google is perfectly capable of ranking sites and writing their own snippets.
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to control. For critical pages, writing a good meta description is like writing ad copy — there's real value in crafting that copy to drive interest and clicks. There's no guarantee Google will use that copy, and that fact can be frustrating, but the odds are still in your favor.
Is the 155 limit dead?
Unless something changes, and given the partial (although lacking in details) confirmation from Google, I think it's safe to experiment with longer meta description tags. Looking at the clean distribution, and just to give it a nice even number, I think 300 characters is a pretty safe bet. Some snippets that length may get cut off, but the potential gain of getting in more information (when needed) offsets that relatively small risk.
That's not to say you should pad out your meta descriptions just to cash in on more characters. Snippets should be useful and encourage clicks. In part, that means not giving so much away that there's nothing left to drive the click. If you're artificially limiting your meta descriptions, though, or if you think more text would be beneficial to search visitors and create interest, then I would definitely experiment with expanding.
Update (December 19): My sincere apologies, but I discovered a substantial error in my original analysis which caused me to exclude many data points from the cut-off analysis. All counts, percentages, and graphs have been updated. The 300-character conclusion did not change based on this re-analysis.
Great post Dr.Peter!
But keep in mind these are suggestions, averages compiled from examples we’ve seen online.
I have seen people talking about filling those extra space with keywords.
What do you do with all that extra space? No—the answer is not “fill it with keywords.” Your meta descriptions and titles should have at least one or two keywords
Again, I have to say that the changes to the Google meta description and title length are an experiment. Google could change it at any moment, but I think it will be a while before they do. They’ll want to gather enough information to make sure the longer lengths will have any impact on user experience.
Thanks Memli, Great comment!
Totally agree on filling the extra space -- this is not an invitation to keyword-stuff descriptions. If more text is useful, I think people should be open to trying longer descriptions. If it isn't, leave them alone.
I disagree regarding this being an experiment, though. Anything can change, of course, but Google has been testing these longer descriptions to some degree for over 2-1/2 years now. They have the data they need, I strongly suspect. This appears to be a full roll-out, and Google at least vaguely confirmed that.
Google has blessed us with additional space in the meta description tag. Use it to provide a better user experience for people in your target market.
Remember, though, Google won’t always display the search snippet from your meta tag. That’s why you should focus on quality content throughout your page.
I've been running a small test on my website after reading about this update on Moz a few weeks ago. I'd love to share the feedback when I have some concrete data. Informative article btw.
Looking forward for hearing of your experience!
Have you had any luck collecting data?
I hate how google decided to fetch new descriptions from random places, ignoring the contents of meta tags.
How is this https://i.imgur.com/ujbZFOc.png better than this https://i.imgur.com/PEEHXL5.png ?
I thought of a couple of reasons for Google to rewrite this meta description.
or
That could've been the case, but I see these everywhere.
Here's one from the tab I have currently open, didn't even have to alter the search query https://i.imgur.com/iCrVzTG.png
Thank you for this early holiday gift of data!! I currently work in the pharma/healthcare space where our descriptions are so often picked at & stripped down to follow med-legal team "compliancies" (even though the FDA still doesn't have any official guidelines for SEO...). This update definitely makes things more nebulous on our end as far as educating med-legal teams on the continued nuances of Google's rules, but overall this benefits the user & gives us SEOs the grounds to write better descriptions for patient & doctor audiences. For example, a previous description that is now being ignored by Google went something like this: "Find out what you need to know while taking _______. See benefits and risk." (Total snooze). Now our descriptions are more like "Take ___ every day, not just when you think you've been exposed to ___. Two clinical studies have shown a strong link between taking ___ every day and hw well it works. Don't miss a dose as this will increase your risk of infection." (So much more helpful!) This is copy being pulled right from the website, so it has already been approved for use. Unfortunately things in this space move at snail speed so I haven't been able to test out updated descriptions, but I have been able to audit pages to get a better idea of the descriptions Google is accepting & rejecting. (So far, I am noticing snippets are varying by query). Moving forward, I am going to re-educate clients/teams and use the data from these audits to make the case to rewrite the overly vague/clinical descriptions to be more direct & informational. Has anyone else in a compliancy-bound space begun similar conversations with clients/review teams? Anybody been able to test out updated descriptions yet?
Solid insight on this new change Dr. Pete! A great free tool to see where your Meta Description is at character wise is https://www.portent.com/serp-preview-tool, and you can utilize the Fetch & Render Tool in Google Search Console to request the re-indexing of your web page after you change the Meta Description to sometimes see it show up faster in SERPs.
Great post,
What about mobile SERP?
Does it apply to mobile?
Thanks
Yes, what happens with mobile ??
what do you mean?
(Scratching neck & arms...)
Give me vlogs... must... have... video! :-)
Excellent and timely post. As soon as I came to know of Google's new length , I did my own research and also came to the conclusion that most of the meta descriptions hover around 300 to 325 character mark.
And by the way it looks like that Vail Ski resort also reads the Moz blog. They have since updated their meta description which now reads
"Vail: The ultimate Colorado ski resort. Colorado skiing doesn't get any better than here at Vail Resort"
Great post Dr.Pete! Amazed at the insights experiments can give. I think I will try this on my blog. But I had a query- will an increase in the length of descriptions not push the number of results down i.e. from 10 to say 8 what with features snippets also being present. Thanks
Fill with colour symbols, that´s a good trick
Is this possible? Could you explain it? thanks
Was there any impact due to the pixel widths of individual characters?
E.g. more inclusions of "i" may allow for more chars vs "o", which is wider & may restrict total count.
Unfortunately, with the multi-line format, it's really tough to tell. That was tricky even with our title tag study. Google is hinting that it's a character limit, but they've been wary on specifics because I think they want to avoid people obsessing over it (which I understand, and yet I understand why people want a number to work with).
Well that's good to know! I Thank you very much Dr. Peter J. Meyers. I think I will make some modifications on my website.
Great research, Dr. Pete.
I used some data for mini tool checking meta description length: https://blog.spotibo.com/meta-description-length/
Do you plan make similar research for mobile devices? In my experience, Google's limit is about 1,350px, 230 characters on average. But I didn't make so comprehensive research.
Great article, Meta Title & Description both are important on-page SEO factor for website ranking.
Thanks for the article! I optimised my top 20 landing pages in-line with the extended character limit for meta - however it cuts off on mobile (which is 3/4 of my users). Any advice? Too short, and Google may not use my meta. Longer, and it gets cut off on mobile...
Do you think that the longer meta descriptions will limit the number of organic results appearing on page, especially on mobile devices?
It's slightly counter-intuitive, but Google seems ok with making mobile SERPs longer. Many titles wrap to two lines, for example (and some display titles are longer than desktop). I think it's because scrolling is so much more natural. We have no evidence at this point that Google has changed the number of organic results/page, but anything can happen. It's tougher to measure these days, since SERP features cut into the organic count.
Great article.
I'm very curious to understand the content of the Google modified descriptions. Is there any evidence to determine that they're modifying descriptions that have a stronger call to action such as, "learn more"?
Google's goal is to satisfy their user at the SERP level. This change provides more relevant info at the SERP level and is good for the user. I would imagine there are less clicks on results now. Keeping the user at the SERP longer just might increase the CTR on paid ads which is the bread and butter for Google.
Can the data be reviewed for this? Modified % for descriptions that include "click here", "learn more", "find out how", etc.?
Ken
I lived in Vail along time ago and the old adage was "Aspen Sucks".
Is someone playing a joke? Hmmm...
It's as good an explanation as any I have :) We'll see if they admit to that, or just quietly change it.
Last week, so well after November 30th.
Quietly changed :) Would have loved to post a 'pic' of it, but can't upload anything ;) https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&source=h...
Nice :) Changing the world, one meta tag at a time...
Pete. It's been changed.
<meta name="description" content="Vail: The ultimate Colorado ski resort. Colorado skiing doesn't get any better than here at Vail Resort." />
I liked "AS" better. Now we have to watch to see if Google uses their new description.
I think it is still good to make sure you put the 155 character limit description meta-tag, simply as a SEO practice; however, it seems that "google knows better" when it comes to pulling the snippet from the page directly, not even mentioning the full title (many times it truncates it) and skipping the meta description entirely!
It seems that optimising the page for keywords or phrases is becoming a more important signal than the meta description itself....
My experiment with longer meta descriptions did not produce good results. I created longer meta descriptions for two sites home pages. Then used the Fetch & Render Tool in Google Search Console to request the re-indexing of pages and saw results the next day in the SERPs. The extended descriptions had been cut off at 155 characters. In this case there weren't even the ... to suggest there was more.
Looking forward to hearing more about other people's experiences with using longer meta descriptions.
I'm curious -- what was your testing timeline? It looks like the big changes kicked in around November 30.
Last week, well after November 30th
Interesting -- thanks.
Perhaps the longer meta description feature hasn't rolled out completely throughout all websites?
300 characters. This is a double-edged sword, because we will enjoy a meta description to give more valuable information or to give unnecessary information that the search engines interpret as relevant and we are not interested
Okay so the meta descriptions can be longer. But should we stuff keywords in them? Or keyword stuffing is dead for good?
In my personal opinion, I adding a keyword only once, in the beginning, will be a good idea. Otherwise, keep it simple explanation of the article, or topic being described.
We should absolutely not stuff keywords in them. There's no evidence at all that keywords in your Meta Description help ranking in 2017 (and, in fact, keyword-stuffed metas have been a spam signal on some engines in the past). Descriptions should be written for users and to help drive quality clicks (this is, indirectly, good for SEO, too). If providing more text/info contributes to that, then I think people should try longer descriptions. If not, then leave them alone.
Great Bible for 2018 thanks!
Thank you Dr.Peter, for the meaningful post. After reading this post, I will definitely like to add more focused keywords in the place of meta descriptions, till 300 characters. Because it would be beneficial for my search visitors to create more interest.
I'm curious to see how this affects CTR. Will longer meta descriptions allow better calls to action or will it end up with fluff? I see using the meta description like a mini featured snippet and packing it with the relevant answers to the common questions - like for a contact page, include all the contact info in the meta description.
The site won't get the click but it serves the searcher the pertinent information faster - but Google will get no signal about how the searcher interacted with the site.
I'm also interested to see what this does to the SERP in the long run. It will now take slightly more effort to reach the bottom of the page as all the meta descriptions get longer.
The end result, in my opinion, is good, though. This will enables a site to truly call out its value to the searcher, clarifying exactly what is on the page before the searcher clicks through and bounces back.
All good questions, and I think time will tell. For some, critical pages, I think it's worth testing. I wish we had better CTR data for organic results, but GSC at least gives us the basics. One concern is that, if everyone goes for long descriptions and writes terrible ones or keyword-stuffs them, it could devalue all descriptions and harm clicks. So, SEOs, let's not f--- this up ;)
I think for queries looking for answers to shorter questions it will lower the CTR because the use will find the answer right in the SERPs.
I'll be making some tests on this.
"user will find" I mean (not "use will find")
Very interesting info - I'm curious about some CMS cutting off the longer descriptions. In Wordpress with Yoast plugin if you enter a meta description over 155 it turns red, would this be an indicator that if you save a 300 character meta description in a Wordpress page with a Yoast plugin that turns red it would not then translate to the SERP snippet?
That red bullet is only going to appear for descriptions longer than 320 characters after tomorrows release.
Whoo-hoo! Thanks, Joost.
I was just going to look for information on whether Yoast was going to update that aspect. Thanks Joost!!
Thanks Joost! I was just wondering when Yoast was updating their plugin!
Topper ;)
Awesome, thank you!
Wow! where were you Joost? Do we have to update the plugin then? Thanks!
Great post and very informative
Dr Peat I wonder what would happen if you looked at how you create the meta-tag description for a Moz Q&A everything that’s on there is indexed immediately I doubt you guys actually handwrite the description from what I imagine you probably try to include as much of the question is possible? That would be a great place to look for data
Good post Dr. Peter
I think we should keep experimenting between 220-250
Hello Peter,
To what extent can SEO help us upload the meta descriptions to 300 characters?
Thank you
I think meta desc... doesn't play too much important role in SEO. Its just description of content.Its simplay tell the what is inside this page.means summery of the web page.
I had already observed that rarity in the descriptions, google sometimes does not show the original description of the pages in the results. What is really interesting is that we can now include longer and enriched descriptions in our articles; and they did not limit to 150 characters.
Eu só configuro de acordo com o plugin Yoast SEO. Agora, na discrição passei a utilizar todos os caracteres ,e tenho um CTR muito bom. Mas, quando usava mais curto e o CTR caiu.
Nice Article!!
Thanks Peter
Does the nature of keyword matters for google to pull the snippet ?
Perfectly written Peter. I have personally observed following about description in snippets.
1. Google truncates a description in case it being too long. (The obvious one)
2. Google appends additional text from the body text to meta description if it feel to be done so.
3. Google also in many cases completely ignores a meta description of any length and puts their own version out of body text.
4. The length and content of meta description which google puts in snippet changes depending on the keywords used by the searcher.
I could not confirm yet but have this doubt that rich snippet elements like reviews, price if displayed into the snippet, would impact the length of meta description. Can you please confirm on this?
Hello Peter,
thank you for your great article!
I'm asking myself, how long a mobile description should be. Most of our traffic is from smarthpones. I did some research by my self and found out that a lenght of 200 and 226 characters will be displayed. Can you confirm similar?
Best regards from Germany!
René
Good Article. But I think this is not confirmed that meta description length is exceeded or not.
Google is confirming some changes, but isn't clear on the details. The data strongly suggests this is a full roll-out. Google has been experimenting with longer descriptions for over 2-1/2 years now.
Hi Peter,
From what I have been able to verify, Google applies different lengths of the metadescriptions depending on the niche. The length of the goals still fluctuates a lot, and this change may not be permanent.
In your opinion, should we update the contents with longer meta-descriptions or wait a while to see how the Google algorithm reacts? At least 1-2 months. Do you think this will affect mobile traffic too?
Thanks!
Honestly, no change is permanent, in the sense that Google may change it again. This is the ever-increasing reality we face. However, I don't think this is just a test -- Google has been testing long descriptions for over two years now, at a smaller scale. I think they hit some level of confidence.
It looks like mobile descriptions have gotten longer, but I'm seeing mixed signals and don't have a good data set on that. Google seems more willing, interestingly, to make mobile results bigger, since scrolling is natural. Mobile results actually have longer titles sometimes in 2017 (due to the two-line wrap).
Personally, I'd ease into this, testing critical pages where longer descriptions would be beneficial, even if the change is permanent. I don't expect this change will roll-back int he short-term, though.
Great Post DR Peter,
I've recently published a very detailed blog post on exactly this stuff, Let me explain my take on this.
Take a look at some of the recent changes in Field.
1) Huge spike in voice searches
2) More Question Like Searchers
3) Featured Snippets & Direct Answers by Google.
Few Facts:
1) In-depth and detailed content ranked higher.
2) Danny Sullivan used "Dynamic" word in his tweet about this updates and also didn't recommended rushing up and updating the meta description or you can say filling the gaps.
3) 15-20% google searches are new.
So, These and few other facts & points can be taken as a clear sign on google effort to bring intelligence improvement in SERP's to overcome all these challenges and provide very dynamics snippets as well which may be present very differently or customized to every single searcher out there.
Also past few years were the years of contents, 160 characters wasn't enough as well to summarize or represent a 2000 or 3-4000 words article that may rank for multiple keywords and multiple intents, So a more dynamic and a little lengthy snippet could be helpful for them as well.
Also, I guess Google is moving forward to make themselves more intelligent and smart to provide voice searches with more then just one and direct answers to something more in future.
What do you think guys?
Sometimes is frustrating to write a meta that you think is really great and later to see that Google is taking phrases from the copy and changing it... But as you said, it is better to keep writing good meta to have better odds.
So its true. We were hearing the same from months about the update in meta description tags may be some months back. Also since its not majorly a ranking factor, having it or ignoring it is a call most SEO's can take as per their need. I presume even the Title tag might increase in length in future to accustom this description length. That if happens would benefit many.
Hope someday Google becomes more sensible in ranking based on proper, precise description as well.
Hi Peter,
I think that the longer is not necessary the better. Just only when it adds more value. Sometimes less is better. It depends on your market, the content you're trying to promote, etc.
And we are very used to short texts: twitter, google Adwords, the SERPs itself. People could get overwhelmed with really long snippets. Everybody wants it short and fast.
Let's see.
Great insights Peter. I never knew there was room to have longer meta descriptions. My thinking was that optimum length of meta should be 150-160 characters. So what happens to longer meta descriptions if they get truncated in search results? Does it count towards SEO building in the background?
I am excited to hear that the meta description word count will extend out to 300. This means I can write more thorough descriptions! Thanks for providing this update!
Great post Dr.! Meta description is like our visit card and is our presentation for our costumers. A good meta description is the difference between a SERP and a visitor in our site, so let´s take care of it.
Has anyone who has experimented with longer meta descriptions seen any impact on rankings? If so, within what timeframe?
Hello,
Is there a different limit of number of characters displayed on mobile vs desktop?
I can't find any resources attesting this, and what i found in this article is the limit is the same for both.
I am debating with other specialists and they say it is different, but no proof attesting this.
It is normal to display a different number of characters on mobile since the meta description and meta title is calculated in px and not in characters, and if you judge by this it is normal to display 150px on a 150px mobile screen, but i was curios if the limit is different?
Can you give me a straight answer to this question and maybe some reff articles that is saying this?
There are definitely desktop/mobile differences. Oddly, we're sometimes seeing longer limits on mobile, because Google's more likely to consider scrolling ok. We see a lot of two-line titles in mobile, for example. I tried to pin this down with our display title research, but it turns out to be a lot messier, because the mobile CSS varies with the device (unlike Google's desktop CSS, which is fixed-width).
Important question of the day here. Do you have a night job of being DJ Bobo? I had never heard of DJ Bobo, but my Austrian Colleague is convinced this is you https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://img.d...
Very nice article. But i have a doubt..
Is this necessary to add Meta description , and keywords in our website? With out adding these also we are getting Traffic...
Waiting for suggestions..
It is not about getting traffic or not, it is normal to get traffic without a meta description if you have a good meta title.
The meta description helps the user to understand as many details as you can write within the limit of Google, meaning a posible higher ctr, translating in more traffic and in time beter rankings
I was really looking for a detailed step by step guide to do this because I was really confused about meta and description for 2018. Thanks for sharing such a great post.
Great post buddy, for me I usually use 50 - 60 characters in my meta description. They must be unique and should not be same as the competitor. Creating your meta is like creating your own content. So be unique and have valuable information.
Seems so strange that it's now going the other direction and meta descriptions are getting longer. Previously, when meta description lengths changed, they got shorter. We actually just updated our metas on Empowermented, guess I'll be going back through and consider making them longer. The thing is, I think it's key that they aren't so long that the "..." is displayed, as it really takes away from the look over your listing. It's probably better to keep things a little shorter so that this doesn't happen. Wouldn't you agree?
[Link removed by editor.]
Im going to test by increasing the descriptions length, but i dont knw why moz has not changed there meta description.
We will be experimenting with them going forward. This post, for example, has a description just under 300 characters, and it's already showing up (uncut) in search results.
Sorry, just realized you may mean -- why haven't we updated our recommendations on the site and in our tools? We are definitely in progress on that, and it should be soon. Takes a little longer with Site Crawl, since those are more than copy changes.
Thanks for the great article.
Yet, I am wondering if with some topics it would be more helpful to have a rather short meta description? I can't remember the query but with a search a while back a snippet that was just a 1-liner caught my eye in a sea of 2-3 liners.
In my humble opinion most searchers don't actually read the full meta description and just want to know whether or not a click will be worth their time and sometimes that question can be answered with a short snippet.
My question is whether anyone knows of studies or examples that work with a short snippet competing against longer snippets to stick out?
However, seeing the example of the "Silent Night Lyrics" I am assuming that Google will disregard these short snippets no matter how fitting they seem to be, especially now that even longer snippets are permitted.
The meta description by itself is not ranking factor, meaning that no matter the keywords included there will not influence the ranking, but, meta description helps your Ctr that can influence your rankings.
No matter how long witihn the limit given by Google or short the meta description should not influence your ranking and in my opinion if you have a great short meta description that has a great ctr, over 60% will beat anytime a longer meta description with a lower ctr than yours.
Hope it heps