Writing a Meta Description: Five Drafts, Measured
The quickest way to write a good meta description is to write a bad one first, measure it, and fix one problem at a time. This guide does exactly that for one example page, a guide to repotting a houseplant on an imaginary site called Green Shelf. Every draft is measured in the Meta Description Checker, which judges a description against a working figure of about 920 px of Arial at 14 px (an observed desktop figure, not a Google rule), and the matching title tag is measured in the Headline Pixel Counter.
The most useful thing the drafts show is uncomfortable: two of the worst descriptions pass the length check. Length is the easy part. The checker can tell you whether a description fits; only you can tell whether it says anything.
The page
The page explains how to repot a houseplant: the signs a plant has outgrown its pot, how to choose the new pot size and potting mix, how to loosen the root ball, and what to do in the days after. A reader searching for this probably has a plant in front of them looking cramped.
The five drafts
| Draft | Characters | Width | Checker verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Learn everything you need to know about repotting houseplants in this comprehensive guide from Green Shelf. | 107 | 686.4 px | Good length |
| 2. Repot houseplants, houseplant repotting, repotting plants, best soil for repotting, when to repot houseplants, repotting guide, repot. | 134 | 808.6 px | Good length |
| 3. This guide explains how to repot a houseplant. It covers the signs that a plant needs a bigger pot, how to choose the right pot size and potting mix, how to loosen the root ball, and what to do afterwards. | 205 | 1,245.9 px | Past the typical width |
| 4. How to repot a houseplant: the signs it needs a bigger pot, choosing pot size and mix, loosening the root ball, and aftercare. | 126 | 765.7 px | Good length |
| 5. Roots circling the pot or poking out of the drainage holes? How to repot a houseplant: pot size, potting mix, loosening the roots and aftercare. | 144 | 873.1 px | Good length |
Draft 1: fits, says nothing
"Learn everything you need to know about repotting houseplants in this comprehensive guide" could describe any repotting page on the web. It spends its first 39 characters on "Learn everything you need to know about", and the only specific word is "repotting". The checker passes it at 686.4 px, which is correct: it is a reasonable length. It is still a weak description, because a reader comparing it with other results learns nothing about what this page covers. Google's guidance on snippets is explicit that it prefers descriptions that describe the specific page.
Draft 2: fits, reads as spam
The keyword list uses "repot" or "repotting" seven times. It also passes, at 808.6 px. This is the kind of description that gives Google a reason to ignore it and build a snippet from the page text instead, and if it were shown, a reader would find it hard to trust. Repeating a phrase does not make a description more relevant; it makes it less readable.
Draft 3: says everything, does not fit
The third draft finally describes the page, but it runs to 205 characters and 1,245.9 px, 135.4% of the working figure. Cut at 920 px using the same width table the checker uses, the snippet would end after "how to choose the right pot size and potting mix," and lose "how to loosen the root ball, and what to do afterwards." The opening, "This guide explains how to", also wastes the most visible part of the line on words the reader could assume.
Draft 4: tight and accurate
Draft 4 is draft 3 with the preamble cut and the list compressed: 126 characters, 765.7 px. It is accurate, specific and comfortably inside the figure. Many pages could stop here. Its only weakness is that it reads like a table of contents.
Draft 5: starts where the reader is
Draft 5 opens with what the reader is probably looking at: roots circling the pot or poking out of the drainage holes. Someone with that problem will recognise it at once. The rest is draft 4, slightly tightened. At 144 characters and 873.1 px (94.9% of the figure), it still leaves a little room for bold search terms, which display wider. An earlier version of this draft, with "choosing pot size and mix, loosening the roots, and aftercare", came to 914.4 px, close enough to the edge that it was worth trimming.
Now the title, measured with the description
A description is read under a title, so check them as a pair. Three title tags for the same page, with the " - Green Shelf" suffix where shown:
| Title tag | Characters | Width at 20 px | Counter verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repotting Houseplants: A Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Know - Green Shelf | 84 | 795.9 px | Past the typical desktop width |
| How to Repot a Houseplant: Signs, Pot Size and Steps - Green Shelf | 66 | 611.4 px | Past the typical desktop width |
| How to Repot a Houseplant: Signs and Steps - Green Shelf | 56 | 525.8 px | Good length |
The first title has the same problem as draft 1: "A Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Know" is filler, and a cut at 600 px keeps only "Repotting Houseplants: A Complete Guide to Everything You Need". The second is nearly there; a cut at 600 px would lose only "Shelf", leaving "Green" stranded. The third fits with room to spare.
Notice that the title and description now share the work. The title says what the page is (how to repot a houseplant, with signs and steps); the description adds the hook (the roots you can see) and the specifics (pot size, potting mix, aftercare). Neither repeats the other word for word, which would waste the reader's attention twice.
The method, in short
- Write what the page actually covers, in plain sentences, without worrying about length.
- Cut the preamble ("This guide explains", "Learn everything about").
- Put the most specific, reader-recognisable detail first.
- Measure in the Meta Description Checker. Aim for the good-length verdict with some room below 920 px.
- Measure the title tag, suffix included, in the Headline Pixel Counter, and read the two together.
- Ask the question no checker can: would someone who reads only these two lines know whether this page answers their question?
What the checks cannot do
- They cannot judge quality. Drafts 1 and 2 passed. The checker measures width and counts characters; it does not know whether the text is specific, accurate or readable.
- They cannot make Google use your text. Google builds most snippets from the page content and uses the meta description when it describes the page better. It may also rewrite or replace a title link. Your job is to offer a good candidate.
- Their limits are approximations. The 920 px and 600 px figures are observed on desktop and change over time; phones wrap snippets and titles differently, and bold search-term matches, dates and font rendering all shift the real cut. Characters outside the standard width table, including emoji and curly quotes, are measured at an average width.
- They predict nothing about ranking or clicks. A clear title and description help the reader decide. Whether they rank, or how many people click, is not something a length check can tell you.
For the rules behind the meta description verdicts, see how long a meta description should be. For the title side, front-loading a title shows the same draft-and-measure approach applied to title tags.