Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks so much for the clarification and recommendations, that is very helpful!

Thanks for your response.

To answer your questions:

1.) Hotel

2.) The hotel has several numbers so I imagine check-in does have a unique number

3.) I also do believe that check-in has a separate entrance than the other conference center facilities

4.) Check-in building is just the same address as the general conference center building

5.) The main / primary building hosts all of the rooms, hotel amenities, etc.

They were going to keep both addresses on the hotel website and specify check-in building versus hotel building. They were also going to change the name on the current / main Google local page to something more generic and then have the name for the new Google local page be hotel name +check-in or something similar, which I was not a huge fan of. I feel like having multiple local pages with the hotel name in the title could potentially cause issues, as will having multiple addresses on the website. I'm also sure that they cannot move the check-in across the street, for whatever reason, so that is an issue they will have to overcome.

Thoughts?

Hello Mozzers, I have a client with a unique situation that I am hoping I can get some feedback on.

One of our service industry clients has a location that is claimed on all major sites (Google, Bing, etc., etc.) - so all is good there. They are experiencing an issue, however, because their check-in building is actually located at their conference center across the street, which has a different address. The issue is mainly that it is confusing and a pain point for customers as they get to the destination without realizing they need to actually be at the building across the street first for check-in.

The client is considering changing their primary address to the conference center address across the street, which was previously not a separate / claimed entity. They would still maintain the main business listing and just adjust the name. Their thought process is that Google would bring people to the conference center / check-in building first rather than to the main business building.

I personally have major concerns about making the switch. I feel like this would be potentially confusing to both users and search engines. And, the main business listing has already acquired a ton of reviews that we would be starting from scratch with.

My immediate recommendation would be to better communicate the check-in process to guests and not go through the change of address process, but I figured I would throw it out to the community for feedback.

Thoughts?

Thank you, we'll definitely look into that! Do you happened to have the link for your response handy?

This begins showing on the second line of our meta description. It used the first ~100 characters of our custom meta description then uses "..." and begins to list the amenities.

Hey Mozzers,

Have a quick question for you hospitality folks.

We have a hotel property that has amenities being pulled into the meta description that aren't correct. We do have a custom meta description in the CMS but it is only pulling a portion of our meta description and is then including what appears to be a dynamic list of hotel amenities: "free covered parking; full service catering; complimentary airport shuttle".

The airport shuttle is no longer free and the property is charging a small fee. All copy on the page (and across the site) has been updated to reflect this change.

My main questions are:

1.) Are these amenities just pulled by Google? Do we have any control over this?

2.) Is there anything we can do to correct this error? Or do we just need to wait for it to hopefully update automatically?

Thanks for the help!

Hi Bernadette, thanks for taking the time to respond. The owner in question is most certainly representing his ownership and we had advised legal options, though the client is not quite ready to pursuit anything yet. Thank you for the lengthy feedback, we certainly appreciate any help we can get.

Thanks very much for the feedback. At this point, the client is steering away from legal options, though we had advised that. The entire situation took us off guard so we are definitely taking this as a lesson learned. Thanks again for your response.

Hello Mozzers,

I am having an issue with a particular client and wanted to throw it out to the forum for feedback.

We work with many resorts and hotels. One, in particular, is a large condo-hotel property with several individual buildings. Each building has a unique name. While the property management company owns and operates most of the units within each building, there are units that are individually owned.

The property management company runs the branded resort website, all local pages & listings, etc.

One savvy unit owner, however, has built a website that is branded with the individual building name for one of the buildings. He has also taken ownership of the building Google Plus page, Facebook page, etc. He only owns a handful of units in the building.

We have retroactively tried creating a new site but are struggling to gain traction from a ranking perspective. We did temporarily change the website address that was listed for the Google local listing, via the "edit" button, and were actually starting to increase rank (presumably somewhat related to the increase in website traffic), but it was quickly fixed to the other website.

The management company has reached out to the owner but he continues to refuse to give up any rights to the Google local page, etc. We have also created a new (technically duplicate) page just to see if we can knock the other one off, though we are having issues getting the verification post card from Google.

Any advice on how we can gain access to this Google local page? Or any other tips on how to get a relatively small, new site to overtake an existing site?

I know URLs / examples are helpful in these situations but we'd prefer to keep the client names anon.