Using alt-codes such as ? in META title / description
-
Noticed a search result recently that really caught my eye and certainly stood out among the other 10 results on the page, the META description contained the following snippet:
"Learn more about our ★★★★★ rated service..."
Any opinions on how using such alt-chars might effect search positioning when used in either the title or description META tags? The starts certainly looked very different to anything else on the page...
The claim of 5 star rated service was pretty much accurate so it was genuine and fair to use it...
-
Just my opinion here, since you have some great answers already:
I might be completely alone on this, but I definitely would encourage testing. Mock up some SERPs and do some user testing with Mechanical Turk to judge if it looks spammy, enticing etc..
Here's an example from Australia - Look for Travel Insurance Direct (should be #1) http://dis.tl/vph36j
I think it might be the only way we can add our personal touch in SERPs and I love creativity. Good luck!
-
I agree if it works them who am i to say it spammy, but then, what works for one person, may turn others off. but if the overall numbers increase then go for it.
Yanniocks example looks ok, not so spammy.
-
From a design standpoint I would say it could definitely be spammy if used obnoxiously. Similar to people using multiple exclamation points to get a point across.
From a marketing standpoint if it improves your CTR to put it into the description I say go for it.
I would however keep it out of the title tag.
Knowing that the title tag is heavily weighted I would try to get the best text in there as possible and provide context that helps your rankings and your CTR.
Finally I believe it has been mentioned in several places that using special characters in title tags is not the best idea as you aren't always sure how they will be treated by bots, or play with the algorithm.
So to me I would say use it tastefully (showing off your star rating is probably OK), and I would probably only put it in the description since this isn't heavily weighed in rankings, and is just used for messaging most of the time anyway.
-
A big player in the clothing retail in The Netherlands (where I live) is using it succesfuly. Look at this query and their results:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=zalando
Use it wisely. I agree with Alan that it can look spammy. So use a meta description viewer so you can immediatly judge if wat you made looks OK in the SE's. It definitely draws in my attention.
-
Well if Google is cool with it and it greatly increases click thru rates, it may be worth exploring.
Maybe not five stars in a row (that looks a bit over the top) but using a heart for example could be a good eye catcher.
-
I agree with Alan that if you put the stars in like that it looks spammy.
Perhaps the stars you are seeing are coming from reviews that are showing because the site is using Schema.org vocabulary on their pages.
See this excellent blog by CraigBradford:
Schema.org - Why You're Behind if You're Not Using It...
These stars are legitimate and the kind worth posting, but it will be some work for you.
HTH
-
My guess is this won't help and can only hurt in the title tag, since it is used for determining rankings, but could be used with no negative or positive rankings effects in the meta description which is not part of the ranking algorithm.
So I would experiment with this as a method of increasing click thru rate and test it on a small number of URLs.This could be an alternative to getting stars on a search result when you don't actually have ratings on a page that can be displayed by using microformatting.
-
i think it looks spammy myself. Just my opinion
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
The use of Markup language
Hi, We were thinking of adding markup language to our site. We have been reading about it to understand the actual benefits of doing so (we have seen many brands are not using it, including moz.com). So I have two questions: 1- Would you recommend using it for our site? www.memoq.com 2- If yes, would it be better to create a snippet of code for our home page as an "organization" and then different snippets for our product pages as "products". Looking forward to your comments,
Technical SEO | | Kilgray0 -
Http:// to https:// 301 or 302 redirect
I've read over the Q & A in the Community, but am wondering the reasoning behind this issue. I know - 301's are permanent and pass links, and 302s are temporary (due to cache) and don't pass links. But, I've run across two sites now that 302 redirect http:// to https://. Is there a valid reason behind this? From my POV and research, the redirect should 301 if it's permanent, but is there a larger issue I am missing?
Technical SEO | | FOTF_DigitalMarketing1 -
Yoast WP SEO Plugin: Duplicate Title / Description For Pagination
Hello, I just have installed on YAOST WP SEO plugin on my blog to optimize and get better results, as I was using All in one seo Plugin before. On Tuesday SEOMOZ crawler has been updated my site report and I found several errors with my site related to duplicate meta title / description. Home Page Pagination, Categories/archive pagination and tags pagination bring the same meta title and description. I tried several methods to get the required result but unfortunately nothing helped. I used %%pagenumber%% and %%page%% etc. Any help will be highly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | KLLC0 -
I cannot find a way to implement to the 2 Link method as shown in this post: http://searchengineland.com/the-definitive-guide-to-google-authorship-markup-123218
Did Google stop offering the 2 link method of verification for Authorship? See this post below: http://searchengineland.com/the-definitive-guide-to-google-authorship-markup-123218 And see this: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/using-passive-link-building-to-build-links-with-no-budget In both articles the authors talk about how to set up Authorship snippets for posts on blogs where they have no bio page and no email verification just by linking directly from the content to their Google+ profile and then by linking the from the the Google+ profile page (in the Contributor to section) to the blog home page. But this does not work no matter how many ways I trie it. Did Google stop offering this method?
Technical SEO | | jeff.interactive0 -
Url canonicalization: www. to http://
Hey there. Sorry for the simple question but I recently redesigned a site and published with WordPress, in the process the domain structure changed from being www. to http:// . My question is does this change affect the value we get from links pointing to the old www. domain structure? The reason I ask is that the old site had a domain authority of 36 with OSE and a couple of hundred links but the new site address shows as having zero domain authority and zero links. Is there some best practise I should be following to retain link value?
Technical SEO | | Luia0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Crawl Errors for duplicate titles/content when canonicalised or noindexed
Hi there, I run an ecommerce store and we've recently started changing the way we handle pagination links and canonical links. We run Magento, so each category eg /shoes has a number of parameters and pages depending on the number of products in the category. For example /shoes?mode=grid will display products in grid view, /shoes?mode=grid&p=2 is page 2 in grid mode. Previously, all URL variations per category were canonicalised to /shoes. Now, we've been advised to paginate the base URLs with page number only. So /shoes has a pagination next link to /shoes?p=2, page 2 has a prev link to /shoes and a next link to /shoes?p=3. When any other parameter is introduced (such as mode=grid) we canonicalise that back to the main category URL of /shoes and put a noindex meta tag on the page. However, SEOMoz is picking up duplicate title warnings for urls like /shoes?p=2 and /shoes?mode=grid&p=2 despite the latter being canonicalised and having a noindex tag. Presumably search engines will look at the canonical and the noindex tag so this shouldn't be an issue. Is that correct, or should I be concerned by these errors? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Fergus_Macdonald0 -
Use of + in url good or bad?
Hi, I am working on a SEO project for a client.
Technical SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
Some of the urls have a + between the keyword.
like www.example.com/make+me+happy/ Is this good or bad for seo?
Or is it maybe better to use - ? Thanks!0