Does Google want contact numbers in the meta description?!
-
Reading up it seems like there's complete free reign to enter what you want in the meta description and they are not considered a direct ranking signal
However I have added contact numbers to the meta descriptions for around 20 reasonably high ranking pages for my company and it seems to have had a negative effect (taken screen grabs and previous rankings)
More strangely when you 'inspect' the page the meta description features the desired number yet when you find the page in the serps the meta description just does not feature the number (page has been cached and the description does not carry on)
I'm wondering whether such direct changes are seen as spam and therefore negative to the page?
-
Adding your contact number is allowed, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it -- especially if you use tracked phone numbers on your website to track the leads coming in organically, direct, paid, etc.
i recommend mkaing your meta descriptions catchy and include a call to action that will entice them to click through to your site, which is where they will find your contact information.
-
Linda, EGOL - thanks for your help
-
Google uses meta descriptions as suggestions and then shows whatever it thinks is most useful to the searcher.
So if Google is not showing the phone numbers, it's because Google doesn't think they best answer the intent of the search, not because they are "spam".
And I agree with EGOL, don't give away all your information in the SERPs, get people to click for it.
-
I wouldn't add phone numbers in the meta description because I want people to click into my website - rather than see a number in the meta description, then dial.
Write your meta description to elicit the click. Google knows when searchers click, they don't know when they dial.
Do everything possible to elicit the click... offer free phone consultations, free beer, anything to get the searcher into your website. Just make sure that you deliver what you use to elicit the click.
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
-
Google Penguin penalty is automated or manual?
Hi, I have seen some of our competitors are missing from top SERP and seems to be penalised as per this penalty checker: http://pixelgroove.com/serp/sandbox_checker/. Is this right tool to check penalty? Or any other good tools available? Are these penalties because of recent Penguin update? If so, is this a automated or manual penalty from Google? I don't think all of these tried with black-hat techniques and got penalised. The new penguin update might triggered their back-links causing this penalty. Even we dropped for last 2 weeks. What's the solution for this? How effectively link-audit works? Thanks, Satish
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Url suddenlly diappeared from Google search results
Hi, I am facing a big problem wheel Google stop showing a basic url of my site, It was ranked good for more than 35 keywords from 1st to 8st positions, and suddenly I can find it indexed in Google , this is the URL : http://tv1.alarab.com/view-8/مسلسلات-عربية Thnaks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | alarab.net0 -
Why isn't a 301 redirect removing old style URLs from Google's index?
I have two questions:1 - We changed the URL structure of our site. Old URLs were in the format of kiwiforsale.com/used_fruit/yummy_kiwi. These URLs are 301 redirected to kiwiforsale.com/used-fruit/yummy-kiwi. We are getting duplicate content errors in Google Webmaster Tools. Why isn't the 301 redirect removing the old style URL out of Google's index?2 - I tried to remove the old style URL at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals, however I got the message that "We think the image or web page you're trying to remove hasn't been removed by the site owner. Before Google can remove it from our search results, the site owner needs to take down or update the content."Why are we getting this message? Doesn't the 301 redirect alert Google that the old style URL is toast and it's gone?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Why do these links violate Google's Quality Guideline?
My reconsideration request was declined by Google. Google said that some of the links to my site (www.pianomother.com) are still outside its quality guidelines. We provide piano lessons and sheet music on the site. Three samples are given. 1. http://www.willbeavis.com/links.htm 2. http://vivienzone.blogspot.com/2009/06/learning-how-to-play-piano.html 3. http://interiorpianoservice.com/links/ The first one is obvious because it is a link exchange page. I don't understand why the 2nd and 3rd ones are considered "inorganic links" by Google. The 2nd link is a blog that covers various topics including music, health, computer, etc. The 3rd one is a page of the site that provides piano related services. Other resources related to piano including my website are listed on the page. Please help. Thanks. John
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | pianomother0 -
Does Trade Mark in URL matter to Google
Hello community! We are planning to clean up TM and R in the URLs on the website. Google has indexed these pages but some TM pages are have " " " instead displaying in URL from SERP. What's your thoughts on a "spring cleaning" effort to remove all TM and R and other unsafe characters in URLs? Will this impact indexed pages and ranking etc? Thank you! b.dig
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | b.digi0 -
What EMD Meta Title should we use and what about getting links to the same C-Block IP?
Situation: Recently I encountered two problems with both internal and external SEO for my company websites.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TT_Vakantiehuizen
This Dutch company has four websites on one server. Three closely related EMD(Exact Match Domain) websites and one overarching website. (Holiday homes rental websites) Vakantiehuizen-Verhuur.nl (overarching)
Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl (EMD)
Vakantiehuizen-Italie.nl (EMD)
Vakantiehuizen-Spanje.nl (EMD) Question 1:
What would be a preferable Meta Title for the EMD websites (homepage/subpages)? Keep in mind that the domains are EMD. The homepage will target the most important keywords and should not compete with subpages. Options for the homepage:
1. Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk | Alle vakantiehuizen in Frankrijk op een rij!
2. Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk | Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl onderdeel van Vakantiehuizen-Verhuur.nl
3. Suggestions? Options for the subpages:
1. Vakantiehuis Normandie | Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk
2. Vakantiehuis Normandie | Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl
3. Suggestions? And concerning the keywords in the beginning; is it wise to use both plural and singular terms in the meta title? For Example:
Hotel New York. Best hotels in New York | Company Name Question 2: Many SEOs state that getting (too many) links from the same C-Block IP is bad practice and should be avoided. Is this also applicable if one website links out to different websites with the same C-Block IP? Thus, website A, B and C (on the same server) link to website D (different server) could be seen as spam but is this the same when website D links to website A, B and C?0 -
Google Penguin for non-English queries?
Does anybody know if non-English queries were also 'hit' by the Google Penguin update? All Penguin horror stories out there are from sites focusing on English queries, and in some (Dutch) industries I'm monitoring, some sites with spammy backlink profiles are still ranking.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RBenedict0 -
How is this obvious black hat technique working in Google?
Get ready to have your minds blown. Try a search in Google for any of these: proform tour de france tour de france trainer tour de france exercise bike proform tour de france bike In each instance you will notice that Proform.com, the maker of the bike, is not #1. In fact, the same guy is #1 every time, and this is the URL: www.indoorcycleinstructor.com/tour-de-france-indoor-cycling-bike Here's the fun part. Click on that result and guess where you go? Yup, Proform.com. The exact same page ranking right behind it in fact. Actually, this URL first redirects to an affiliate link and that affiliate link redirects to Proform.com. I want to know two things. First, how on earth did they do this? They got to #1 ahead of Proform's own page. How was it done? But the second question is, how have they not been caught? Are they cloaking? How does Google rank a double 301 redirect in the top spot whose end destination is the #2 result? PS- I have a site in this industry and this is how I caught it and why it is of particular interest. Just can't figure out how it was done or why they have not been caught. Not because I plan to copy them, but because I plan to report them to Google but want to have some ammo.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DanDeceuster0