Direct answer: a 2026-11-10 recheck of 25 homepages and 21 contact pages found 22 pages with tel: links, of which 8 (4 homepages and 4 contact pages) contain at least one dial target that never appears in the visible text; another 12 pages show a phone number without any tel link. On a phone the first group may dial a number the page never displays, while the second forces a copy-and-paste.
Method: read the text and tel: links, do not call
On 2026-11-10 between 11:40 and 11:41 we started from the same 25 homepages, located the contact entry and fetched 21 contact pages, one request per page with a one-second gap, desktop UA and no JavaScript. Phones are recognised only as 11-digit mobiles or landlines/400/800 numbers with separators, and the href="tel:..." values are collected separately; both sides are stripped of spaces, dashes and the country code before comparison. A tel target absent from the visible text is recorded as “unverifiable”; a visible number without a matching tel link is recorded as “unlinked”. Nothing is clicked, called or submitted.
Result 1: 22 pages have tel links, 14 are fully verifiable
| Measure | Homepages (25) | Contact pages (21) |
|---|---|---|
| Has tel: links | 11 | 11 |
| Every number verifiable in text | 7 | 7 |
| At least one unverifiable number | 4 | 4 |
| Number shown, no tel link | 5 | 7 |
| Neither | 9 | 3 |
Having a tel link is not the same as having a verifiable number: only 14 of the 22 pages expose targets that all appear in the text. The rest either lack the link or dial a number the page never shows.
Result 2: 8 pages carry an unverifiable target
| Page | Text numbers | tel numbers | Matched | Unverifiable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E02 homepage | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| E06 homepage | 9 | 9 | 8 | 1 |
| E06 contact | 9 | 9 | 8 | 1 |
| E08 homepage | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| E08 contact | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| E14 homepage | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| E14 contact | 14 | 16 | 14 | 2 |
| E22 contact | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
E14's homepage is the clearest case: two numbers in the text, two tel targets, zero overlap — any tap dials a number the page never shows. E02 and E08 add one extra target; E06, E14 and E22 add one or two. Those targets may live in an image, in JavaScript or on another business line, so an outsider cannot judge correctness; what is certain is that the page text does not provide that number.
Result 3: 12 pages show a number without a tel link
Five homepages (E01, E04, E11, E29, E30) and seven contact pages (E04, E11, E12, E13, E28, E29, E30). On a phone those numbers cannot be tapped; the visitor must copy them or type them out, and if the number is inside an image even copying fails. E29's contact page alone has seven phone-shaped strings and no dial link.
How to read it: a mismatch is not automatically a wrong number
An unverifiable tel target has four common causes: the number exists only in an image, is injected by script, is formatted in a way the parser does not recognise, or intentionally points to another line. The first three are visibility and verifiability problems; the fourth is a business choice. Record the finding as “target cannot be verified from page text” and let the site confirm, rather than declaring it wrong.
The unlinked number is different: it needs no inference, and on mobile it is simply one missing tap. The two issues can be fixed in order — add the links, then verify each target.
Five acceptance actions
- Same source for display and dial. Whatever number the page prints is the number in tel:, area code included; do not show the switchboard and dial a sales line.
- Link every primary number. At least one tel link in the header, footer and contact page; link each number, not just the first.
- Put text next to image numbers. A number inside an image cannot be copied, tapped or read by AI; add the same text and a tel link beside it.
- Mirror it in structured data. Keep Organization/ContactPoint telephone identical to the page's primary number so entities and AI systems see the same value.
- Check on a real phone. Tap once on iOS and Android and confirm the dialler shows the printed number; a desktop browser cannot verify this.
Limits
- Text extraction: only 11-digit mobiles and landlines/400/800 with separators; numbers in images, canvas or JS pop-ups are invisible.
- Verifiability only: a tel target pointing to another line may be deliberate; this page does not judge correctness.
- No calls: whether a number connects, or is out of service, is not tested.
- E03 long tail: 72 phone-shaped strings on one homepage were not verified one by one; ratios are per page, not per number.
- Sample: 25 homepages and 21 contact pages from one list and one city; a pilot, not an industry estimate.
Data and reproduction
Anonymised data: equipment-tel-link-consistency-2026.csv (50 rows by 9 columns: page scope, fetch status, text/tel counts, matched, unverifiable, unlinked and time). The repository keeps docs/research/2026-11-tel-link-consistency.csv. Only counts are published; no phone numbers or site URLs.
The parser ran outside the repository with the method above and needs no browser rendering. Re-running with the same strict phone patterns, separator stripping and set comparison reproduces the figures.
Sources and definitions
- Sample: the same 25 homepages (positions 71-100 of the 2024 Changzhou first-set major equipment list, after website identification).
- Fetch: 2026-11-10 11:40–11:41, serial, one-second gap, 12-second timeout, desktop UA; contact pages reached from homepage anchor text/href.
- Phones: 11-digit mobiles, or 0xx landlines and 400/800 numbers with separators; tel: values collected separately.
- Comparison: strip spaces, dashes, brackets and the 86 country code, then intersect the sets; duplicates within a page count once.
Frequently asked questions
Does a tel number that is not in the text mean it is wrong?
Not necessarily. The number may sit in an image or JavaScript, use a format we did not recognise, or intentionally point to another line such as sales. This page records it as “cannot be verified from visible text”, not as an error.
Is a visible number without a tel link a problem?
It is friction. On a phone the number cannot be tapped, so the visitor must copy and paste; 5 homepages and 7 contact pages do this.
Is 106 phone strings too many?
106 is the sum of per-page distinct values across 25 homepages; E03 alone has 72 (possibly dealers or product data) and was not verified one by one. The other 24 pages total 34, and the 21 contact pages total 68.
Why not actually place a call?
A headless browser cannot verify a real call; the tel: attribute is enough to know which number a tap would dial. This check only asks whether that target appears in the page text.
How should a number be written?
Make the visible text and the tel: value identical, including the area code; show the main number in the header/footer and on the contact page, mirror it in JSON-LD telephone, and make each secondary number tappable too.
Is this representative of the equipment industry?
No. 25 homepages and 21 contact pages from one list and one city; a pilot. The numbers describe these pages' static text and tel attributes on 2026-11-10.