Good CTAs for Meta-Descriptions: Direct, Indirect, Narrow, Broad?

[netzkern_AG]

It is no secret that good meta descriptions should be written to incite the searcher to click on the result without misleading them. Time and again I read that there are measurable effects by including "strong" CTAs (calls to action).

What constitutes a call to action seems by some to be taken really narrow (i.e. "Click here to learn more!" - a very specific action that is spelled out) and by others rather broadly ("... Offer available till December 31" - only implicit, the action [buying/securing] not even mentioned).

I now wondered: Many "guides" still recommend rather blunt calls like "Click here", "Read more", "Discover how". Personally I find those really unattractive and often a waste of space. However, I am not the benchmark and favour the informational side perhaps a little too strongly.

Do those direct but general CTAs really work well in every case* or should one be more elaborate/indirect? I am looking forward of hearing your experience/opinion!

Nico

• Yes, of course it is "test, test, test" and to some degree each case is different; looking for general patterns, though

[Xtend-Life]

I never see 'Click here' in meta descriptions from the SERPs when I search, I would definitely avoid doing that. Meta descriptions always change with what you search but if you are using the same ones for your open graph data it needs to work well on Twitter, Facebook etc.

I like to use descriptions which give enough information to capture your attention but not answer your question/search forcing you to find out more without saying 'find out more'.