Thursday, 13 March 2014

The 2013 Local Search Ranking Factors

 

The 2013 Local Search Ranking Factors

Introduction

Another year, another increase in the complexity of Local search results at Google.
Last year’s survey was released almost simultaneously with the announcement of Google+ Local (which, according to the experts, has affected rankings surprisingly little), and this year’s edition follows close on the heels of widespread reports of Carousel results and the release of the new Google Maps.
Two constants over the course of the past year, however, have been the continued appearance of Localized Organic results and the ever-increasing percentage of searches coming from mobile devices.
Combine all those data points together, and it becomes very clear that there’s no longer a single “Local algorithm” at Google anymore—if, indeed, there ever was one.
So in putting this year’s survey together, I re-examined how best to attack my original goal behind its creation: “to help small business owners confused by Local Search, or those strapped for time, to prioritize their marketing efforts.”
The net result is a format that diverges considerably from previous years, but is one that I hope will be more actionable as we attempt to bring clarity to the ever-murkier waters of a Social-Local-Mobile world.

The Survey

This year’s survey was divided into four parts.

I. General Ranking Factors

In this section, I asked participants to identify the influence of eight thematic clusters of ranking factors across the three primary types of Local results (localized organic, pack/carousel, and maps) for both desktop and mobile searches. In each case, they assigned a percentage of influence to all eight thematic clusters, totaling 100%. Businesses consistently ranked behind their competition in each of these types of results can use this section to prioritize their marketing efforts by theme.

II. Specific Ranking Factors

In part A of this section, I asked the experts to pretend they were working with a brick-and-mortar business just getting started in Local Search. They were asked to rank the top 20 individual ranking factors (out of a total list of 104) that would benefit this client the most.
In part B of this section, I asked them to rank the top 20 factors from the same list, only this time to pretend they were working with a business that already had a solid foundation in Local Search—defined as a good job with 65-75% of the factors from part A.
Results were then tabulated via inverse scoring, where the #1 ranked factor received the most "points" for that question, and the lowest-ranked factor received the fewest points. (The factors ranking outside the top 20 for all respondents ended up with zero points.)

III. Negative Ranking Factors

In this section, I asked the experts to rank 30 negative factors in order of most damaging to most benign.

Discussion

My initial reaction to the results of this survey can be found here on the Moz blog. If you would like to comment on this project, please join the discussion here.
David Mihm
Portland, Oregon
August 5, 2013

Overall Ranking Factors

 
Place Page Signals (19.6%)
(Categories, Keyword in Business Title, Proximity, etc.)
 
External Loc. Signals (16%)
(IYP/aggregator NAP consistency, Citation Volume, etc.)
 
On-page Signals (18.8%)
(Presence of NAP, Keywords in Titles, Domain authority, etc.)
 
Link Signals (14.4%)
(Inbound anchor text, Linking domain authority, Linking domain quantity, etc.)
 
Review Signals (10.3%)
(Review quantity, Review velocity, Review diversity, etc.)
 
Social Signals (6.3%)
(Google+ authority, Facebook likes, Twitter followers, etc.)
 
Behavioral/Mob. Signals (6.1%)
(Clickthrough rate, Mobile clicks to call, Check-ins, Offers, etc.)
 
Personalization (8.3%)

Desktop

Mobile

Localized Organic Results

Desktop
Mobile

Pack/Carousel Results

Desktop
Mobile

Maps Results

Desktop
Mobile

Foundational Ranking Factors

 1 Proper Category Associations
2 Physical Address in City of Search
 3 Consistency of Structured Citations
4 Quality/Authority of Structured Citations
 5 HTML NAP Matching Place Page NAP
 6 Quantity of Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators)
 7 Domain Authority of Website
 8 Individually Owner-verified Local Plus Page
9 City, State in Places Landing Page Title
 10 Proximity of Address to Centroid
11 Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Domain
 12 Quantity of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text)
 13 Product / Service Keyword in Business Title
14 Quantity of Citations from Locally-Relevant Domains
 15 Proximity of Physical Location to the Point of Search\n(Searcher-Business Distance)
 16 Quantity of Citations from Industry-Relevant Domains
 17 Local Area Code on Local Plus Page
18 City, State in Most/All Website Title Tags
 19 Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews
 20 Page Authority of Places Landing Page URL
 21 Diversity of Inbound Links to Domain
 22 NAP in hCard / Schema.org
 23 Product/Service Keywords in Reviews
 24 Product / Service Keyword in Website URL
 25 Quality/Authority of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts)
 26 Location Keyword in Business Title
27 Primary category matches a broader category of the search category\n(e.g. primary category=restaurant & search=pizza)
 28 City, State in Places Landing Page H1/H2 Tags
 29 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain from Locally-Relevant Domains
 30 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain
 31 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain
 32 Diversity of third-party sites on which reviews are present
 33 Quantity of Reviews by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc)
 34 Presence of properly implemented rel=author on website
 35 Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party)
 36 Geographic Keyword in Website URL
 37 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain
 38 Location Keywords in Reviews
 39 Quantity of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts)
 40 Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 41 Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews
 42 GeoTagged Media Associated with Business (e.g. Panoramio, Flickr, YouTube)
 43 Association of Photos with Local Plus Page
44 Loadtime of Places Landing Page URL
 45 Numerical Percentage of Local Plus Page Completeness
46 Location Keyword in Local Plus Page Description
47 Product / Service Keyword in Local Plus Page Description
48 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain
 49 Authority of +1's on Website
 50 Matching, Public WHOIS Information
 51 Authority of third-party sites on which reviews are present
 52 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL from Locally-Relevant Domains
 53 High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5)
 54 Click-Through Rate from Search Results
 55 Presence of properly implemented rel=publisher on website
 56 Velocity of Shares on Google+
 57 Authority of Shares on Google+
 58 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Domain
 59 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 60 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 61 Bulk Owner-verified Local Plus Page
62 Marginal Category Associations
63 City, State in Most/All H1/H2 Tags
 64 Quantity of Native Google Places Ratings (no text)
 65 Authority of Shares/Likes on Facebook
 66 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 67 High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5)
 68 Number of Shares on Google+
 69 Age of Local Plus Page
70 Number of circles in which author is contained
 71 Popularity (# of Views) of MyMaps References to Business
 72 Number of +1's on Website
 73 Positive Sentiment in Reviews
 74 Volume of Testimonials in hReview / Schema.org
 75 Velocity of Third-Party Reviews
 76 Authority of Followers/Mentions on Twitter
 77 Quantity of MyPlaces References to Business
 78 Volume of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Facebook, Twitter)
 79 Driving Directions to Business Clicks
 80 Number of circles in which Plus page is contained
 81 Number of Shares/Likes on Facebook
 82 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 83 Volume of HTML Testimonials
The following factors received no votes from any of the survey respondents. These factors may still contribute to local search engine rankings, but are not considered high-priority items.
Association of Videos with Local Plus Page
Author proximity to authority Google+ accounts
Clicks to Call Business
Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
High Numerical Rating of hReview/Schema Testimonials
High Numerical Ratings by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc)
Inclusion of Offer on Local Plus Page
KML File on Domain Name
Location Keywords in Local Plus Page Custom Attributes
Matching Google Account Domain to Places Landing Page Domain
Number of Followers/Mentions on Twitter
Participation in Adwords Express or Google Offers
Plus page proximity to authority Google+ accounts
Quantity of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews
Velocity of +1's on Website
Velocity of authorship circles
Velocity of Followers/Mentions on Twitter
Velocity of New Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
Velocity of Plus page circles
Velocity of Shares/Likes on Facebook
Volume of Offer Redemptions

Competitive Difference Makers

 1 Quality/Authority of Structured Citations
 2 Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Domain
 3 Quantity of Reviews by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc)
 4 Consistency of Structured Citations
5 Quantity of Citations from Industry-Relevant Domains
 6 Quantity of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text)
 7 Domain Authority of Website
 8 Quality/Authority of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts)
 9 Quantity of Citations from Locally-Relevant Domains
 10 Page Authority of Places Landing Page URL
 11 Association of Photos with Local Plus Page
12 Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews
 13 Quantity of Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators)
 14 Product/Service Keywords in Reviews
 15 Diversity of Inbound Links to Domain
 16 Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 17 Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party)
 18 Diversity of third-party sites on which reviews are present
 19 Click-Through Rate from Search Results
 20 Authority of third-party sites on which reviews are present
 21 Quantity of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts)
 22 Presence of properly implemented rel=author on website
 23 Location Keywords in Reviews
 24 NAP in hCard / Schema.org
 25 Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews
 26 Marginal Category Associations
27 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain from Locally-Relevant Domains
 28 GeoTagged Media Associated with Business (e.g. Panoramio, Flickr, YouTube)
 29 Local Area Code on Local Plus Page
30 Presence of properly implemented rel=publisher on website
 31 Physical Address in City of Search
 32 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain
 33 Positive Sentiment in Reviews
 34 Location Keyword in Local Plus Page Description
35 Proper Category Associations
36 City, State in Places Landing Page H1/H2 Tags
 37 Age of Local Plus Page
38 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL from Locally-Relevant Domains
 39 Authority of +1's on Website
 40 Product / Service Keyword in Local Plus Page Description
41 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain
 42 Primary category matches a broader category of the search category\n(e.g. primary category=restaurant & search=pizza)
 43 High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5)
 44 Individually Owner-verified Local Plus Page
45 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Domain
 46 Number of Shares on Google+
 47 High Numerical Ratings by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc)
 48 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 49 Velocity of Third-Party Reviews
 50 Product / Service Keyword in Business Title
51 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain
 52 HTML NAP Matching Place Page NAP
 53 Number of circles in which author is contained
 54 Authority of Shares on Google+
 55 Matching, Public WHOIS Information
 56 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 57 Product / Service Keyword in Website URL
 58 Quantity of MyPlaces References to Business
 59 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 60 Loadtime of Places Landing Page URL
 61 Proximity of Physical Location to the Point of Search\n(Searcher-Business Distance)
 62 Quantity of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews
 63 Numerical Percentage of Local Plus Page Completeness
64 Quantity of Native Google Places Ratings (no text)
 65 Number of +1's on Website
 66 Popularity (# of Views) of MyMaps References to Business
 67 High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5)
 68 Volume of Testimonials in hReview / Schema.org
 69 Authority of Followers/Mentions on Twitter
 70 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 71 Velocity of Shares on Google+
 72 Clicks to Call Business
 73 Matching Google Account Domain to Places Landing Page Domain
74 Association of Videos with Local Plus Page
75 Volume of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Facebook, Twitter)
 76 Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 77 Authority of Shares/Likes on Facebook
 78 City, State in Most/All Website Title Tags
 79 Volume of HTML Testimonials
 80 City, State in Places Landing Page Title
 81 Number of circles in which Plus page is contained
 82 Geographic Keyword in Website URL
 83 Driving Directions to Business Clicks
 84 Proximity of Address to Centroid
85 Location Keyword in Business Title
86 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain
 87 City, State in Most/All H1/H2 Tags
 88 Location Keywords in Local Plus Page Custom Attributes
89 Velocity of Shares/Likes on Facebook
 90 Bulk Owner-verified Local Plus Page
91 Velocity of authorship circles
 92 Number of Shares/Likes on Facebook
 93 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL
 94 Velocity of +1's on Website
 95 Author proximity to authority Google+ accounts
96 KML File on Domain Name
 97 Inclusion of Offer on Local Plus Page
The following factors received no votes from any of the survey respondents. These factors may still contribute to local search engine rankings, but are not considered high-priority items.
High Numerical Rating of hReview/Schema Testimonials
Number of Followers/Mentions on Twitter
Participation in Adwords Express or Google Offers
Plus page proximity to authority Google+ accounts
Velocity of Followers/Mentions on Twitter
Velocity of Plus page circles
Volume of Offer Redemptions

Negative Ranking Factors

 1 Listing detected at false business location
 2 Keyword stuffing in business name
 3 Mis-match NAP / Tracking Phone Numbers Across Data Ecosystem
 4 Incorrect business category
 5 Presence of Multiple Place Pages with Same/Similar Business Title and Address
 6 Mis-match NAP / Tracking Phone Number on Places Landing Page
 7 Mis-match Address on Places Landing Page
 8 Reports of Violations on your place page
 9 Presence of malware on site
 10 Absence of Crawlable NAP on Website
 11 Presence of Multiple Place Pages with Same Phone Number
 12 Including Location Keyword in Categories
 13 Absence of Crawlable NAP on Places Landing Page
 14 Incorrectly placing your map marker
 15 Presence of Multiple Categories in Same Input Field
 16 Association of Google Places account with other suppressed listings
 17 Address includes suite number similar to UPS Mail Store addresses
 18 Keyword/city stuffed Place page descriptions
 19 Non-Compliant Categories (those that do not fit
20 Listing 800 Number as Only Phone Number on Place Page
 21 Presence of Multiple Crawlable NAP on Places Landing Page
 22 Keyword-Stuffing in Title Tag of Places Landing Page
 23 Choosing to Hide Place Page Address
 24 Low Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 1-2)
 25 Negative Sentiment in Place Reviews
 26 Low Numerical Ratings of Place by Third-Party Users (e.g. 1-2)
 27 Choosing Service Area for Business on Place Page (as opposed to in-location visits)
 28 Mis-Matched or Private WHOIS Information
 29 50+ MyMaps referring to your location
 30 Multi-lingual listing for the same place

Comments from the Experts

General Comments

Andrew Shotland
Pleasanton, CA
Between Pandas, Penguins, Pluses & Carousels, the trend seems pretty clear to me:

1. "National" SEO will continue to get trickier
2. Google will continue to take over more and more SERP real estate for its own products
3. More and more queries will be classified as having "local intent"
4. Amidst all of this, Local SEO will continue to be the growth engine of SEO opportunity. For consultants, there are millions of potential customers that haven't even started to think about SEO. For local businesses, the Local results are quickly becoming one of the few types of Google SERPs where there's still plenty of wiggle room.

At some point I suppose Google's desire to push AdWords and other revenue makers might squash the Local SEO opportunity, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Caleb Donegan
Boise, ID
Social could see it's greatest influence in the new Google maps as it ties in with your circles from G+ and is highly swayed by reviews. Seems like a natural evolution that social peers influence your searches when looking for local businesses. I would not be the least bit surprised if this becomes a bigger part of the new offering.
Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
Anaheim, CA
A quick observation on the happenings of the last year.... Google's usage of the Zagat scale seems to have depressed the number of reviews left via G+ vs the previous years. We've seen an increase in reviews via Yelp vs a flat line (or negative) level of engagement in Google. Perhaps the restaurants have gained, but B&Ms I talk to have not experienced the same. Losing the review stars was a mistake IMO.

The only 'local' folks in my category that I see blazing with many new reviews have highly suspicious levels of activity with many 'reviewers' having no info but a single 'perfect review'. G seems to have a hard time spotting myriad sock puppets.
Darren Shaw
Edmonton, AB
While most of the desktop carousel results are the same as the desktop Maps results, this appears to be because most of the categories that show the carousel are for businesses that are not typically strong in organic ranking factors. You can find examples where the carousel results and Maps results don't match, such as 'dallas golf courses'. This happens when there are businesses with strong organic factors being included in the carousel. I'm concluding that the carousel results are driven by the same blended algorithm that drive the standard local packs.
Ed Reese
Spokane, WA
"This was the biggest year-over-year change since universal search was launched."

"Google's addition of carousel makes it possible for a MUCH higher number of small businesses to be found via local search. We have a few very small clients in competitive environments that were never found in the 7-Pack before suddenly in the carousel. With a good review strategy and high-quality photos these very small companies look to have a chance again."

"The future is uber-hyper-local-mobile. Google wants to place advertising wherever you and your phone walk, run, drive, or fly. I believe the algorithm will push organic to propel paid search in this regard. The advertising scene from Minority Report is coming to life before our eyes! "Hello Mr. Yakamoto, welcome back to The Gap. How did those assorted tank tops work for you?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITjsb22-EwQ
Greg Gifford
Dallas, TX
We're very interested in watching the new Local Carousel. Will it equal the playing field for the top results? Will the best photos win the most clicks? Will users even click on the Carousel? It has the potential to be the biggest game-changer in Local Search in years… Not only will it possibly change user behavior in a drastic way, the data we receive in Google Analytics will be fundamentally altered, since clicks on the Carousel update the SERP to a branded search – and that's what's reported to GA.
James Svoboda
Minneapolis, MN
To date, we're seeing very little difference between Desktop and Mobile SERPs for local listings. However, we fully expect that to change in the near future as Google’s algorithm starts to adjust more for mobile engagement metrics like clicks for calls and driving directions.
Jon Colman
Seattle, WA
In a world that's more mobile and connected than ever before, user experience and behavioral factors will trump the traditional heuristics. User clickthrough, use of driving directions, and clicks-to-call are strong indicators of both local relevancy, quality listings, and -- of course! -- value provided to the customer by businesses. Local search optimization experts would do well to engage in user research, ethnography, and testing rather than simply relying on 'best practices'.
Lisa Kolb
Colorado Springs, CO
"The Google Local Carousel is going to be a game changer for many of our lodging clients. Those that have stayed on top of the Local Search requirements are going to flourish. Those that have ignored Google's changing direction, not so much."

"Mobile traffic for our lodging clients is growing at an increasingly high rate of speed. I expect to see responsive design, speed of load, and a quality user experience having an impact on their placement in mobile search in the very near future."
Mary Bowling
Glenwood Springs, CO
Personalization includes providing the searcher with the results that are most relevant for them while they are within a particular geographic location.

I believe the importance of the searcher's location in relationship to the business' location has much more influence in some categories than in others. I also think it tends to have more impact in mobile search results than it does in desktop results.
Matt Marko
Durham, NC
Given display changes featuring the Carousel and prominent local “panel”, it’s clear that (quality) photos are playing an increasing critical role in discovery and click-through. While photos may not be a prominent local ranking factor, they are nonetheless very important and very frequently underleveraged.
Matthew Hunt
Toronto, ON
The web general seems to be moving towards a more social and visual based web. Google+, Pinterest, & Bing Boards all have similar feel. Tile/board visual based and plastered on a platform that makes dumbass easy for everyone to participate in the conversation.

- SMB's need to start building fans, circles, community around their local business pages to get maximum reach in the future with Google local. Personalized search is will is already a choice for signed in users. Already logged in Google users can sort in local by the traditional “everything” SERPs or by “from top reviewers” or by “People like you” or by “Your circles”. I think if you read between the lines you know where this is going.
Mike Ramsey
Burley, ID
My views re mobile being a focus this year... The real focus will be the study next year. Not seeing too much discrepancy but with Cutts announcement of penalizing mobile sites redirecting wrong etc, I have a feeling it will start to be a hot topic.
Susan Hallam
Nottingham, UK
One of the biggest challenges we face regards well established businesses and the problematic relationship between the various Google properties: Google Plus, Places...

MapMaker has only just been released in the UK and we have a watching brief to see the full impact here.

The greatest challenge we face is in the personalisation of the local results.
Thomas Ballantyne
Phoenix, AZ
I found that lumping the local ranking factors together was a difficult task. Proximity still carries a huge weight, as does category, but the keyword in the name of a business is tricky. Overall that factor has lessened. The Keyword in the business title does become extremely relevant if the entity becomes the
Dave Oremland
Washington, DC
Personalization can take many forms. On the one hand geographical personalization is extremely relevant and pervasive. I've been following a number of smb's that have a regional importance. Change where you are searching from and it makes a critical difference. Its very overpowering in various cases. Personalization based on one's web history continues to show up all the time and in my experience in an every increasing amount of times. That clearly skews results. Additionally google + signals become ever more important. My search results on local businesses with local contacts see ever different responses based on the suggestions from those I'm connected with on google +. That is evident now and will simply grown in importance.

With the overall volume of changes this year versus previous years I can only think this task of optimizing for local smb's is becoming increasingly more difficult.
Nyagoslav Zhekov
Jonor Bahru, Malaysia
For me, the biggest change that occurred since the last year’s LSRF survey in terms of ranking factors was the dawn of “anchor text” and its turning literally overnight from SEO manna to SEO plague. Other than this, Google seemed to have been working harder on getting their clustering system up to par so that problems that were previously more frequently encountered, such as duplicate listings or mergers between unrelated businesses, happen as rarely as possible. I would say it is a long way to go before they succeed in their endeavor and they do have to do a lot of training work to get their Map Maker reviewers do their job properly. Thus, I place citations, and especially consistency of citations, very high in my “rankings” of the local search ranking factors.
Nick Neels
Denver, CO
Google continues to focus on improving the user’s experience overall. While today’s best practices for local listing management and local search engine optimization may still apply, these tactics continually need to be updated based on Google’s latest round of changes that target the user experience.

Online and local marketing channels are converging (colliding) while personalization continues to be the future of search, and all of these factors will play into Google’s ranking. Anyone focused on local digital marketing will need to both stay on top of best practices while experimenting along the way to find the right mix and be successful.
Phil Rozek
N. Attleboro, MA
The differences between Google’s local rankings (all types of them) on a desktop and smartphone still seem to be trivial, but I’m guessing they’ll diverge quite a bit over time.

A truly effective local-search visibility effort isn’t something you can do as a Lone Ranger. You’ll need some of your customers to be so kind as to write reviews for you, on a variety of sites. If you’re in a really competitive market and need a few links, you’ll need to do or create something valuable enough that someone will choose to link to you. Pretty soon some of the “social signals” on Google Plus - like circles and +1s - will probably become significant. Google knows what can be achieved by a guy sitting at a computer in his underwear, and what can be achieved only by a business owner with real customers and a little recognition. Anything that reinforces the latter is going to help you.

Google owes you nothing. It doesn’t owe you a break if you’ve broken its hard rules or taken too many liberties with its softer guidelines. It also doesn’t owe you customers. If you don’t give people a reason to click on your listing or website, or if your site doesn’t offer anything that your competitors’ sites don’t offer, then why Google should rank your business above anyone else’s?

Understand and follow the rules and you won’t be penalized. Alert Google to any competitors who aren’t following the rules, and you’ll be competing on a more or less level playing field. Find a way to stand out and impress customers (not necessarily Google). Do the above and you’ll do just fine.

Google seems to have gotten much better about enforcing its Quality Guidelines over the past year - at least here in the US. (In some other countries, it’s still the Wild West.) Google also has also gotten serious about support. Slowly but surely, the scales are tipping in favor of honest business owners who try to play fair.

Foundational Factors

Andrew Shotland
Pleasanton, CA
Besides making sure your data is consistent, your keywords are on target and your site doesn't suck, IMO Local SEO campaigns have two basic paths:

1. Do something awesome on a regular basis that gets you structured and unstructured citations & links (very few businesses can achieve this)
2. Go out and manually create/claim/update citations on a regular basis

There's a lot more to either path to put you over the top, but in my experience citations are still the new links.
Darren Shaw
Edmonton, AB
Google reviews can be a short cut to local rankings in industries with few reviews. Sometimes just one or two Google reviews will shoot your listing straight into the local pack/carousel. This tactic has diminishing returns though. Switch your focus to other factors once you have more reviews than the competition.

Looking through heaps of data from a recent research study we did with Mike Blumenthal, I think that location and product/service in the business title is providing less value than it used to.

Having a local area code on your Local Plus page is best practice, but there are tons of businesses ranking perfectly well with an 800 number. It doesn't make my top 20 ranking factors.

I don't believe that owner verification of the Local Plus page is a ranking factor. I think it just gives the business owner the ability to improve the listing - primarily through categories. When you see a lot of owner verified listings ranking well, think of that as correlation, not causation.

While "Association of Photos with Local Plus Page" isn't a strong ranking factor, with the new carousel layout, the visual appeal of your primary photo is important for getting the click. For a business just starting out in Local Search, this should be in your initial to do list. Google chooses this image somewhat arbitrarily, so I'd go so far as to make sure there is only 1 photo on the listing, then add more once it gets set as the main carousel photo.

HTML NAP Matching Place Page NAP (preferably in schema.org) is a valuable local "hook" to give Google more trust in the association between your Local Plus page and your website.
Ed Reese
Spokane, WA
"A great review strategy/process is quickly becoming one of the most effective ways for a company to earn trust in the eyes of Google."

"I believe Google will continue to push the envelope when it comes to understanding reviewer sentiment. They've made a HUGE leap in the past year and I expect that to continue. If you want to be relevant a year from now you better start get your review strategy started today if you haven't already!!"
Lisa Kolb
Colorado Springs, CO
Rel Author and Publisher Tags are in the process of becoming an important ranking factor, especially with the introduction of the display of Author and Publisher images in Google's Search Results.
Greg Gifford
Dallas, TX
Citations are incredibly important… In many cases, we've seen clients with hardly any links completely trump local competitors with tons of juicy links – all because our client has 100% consistent citations, and lots of them. It seems like there are too many small SEO consultants who don't understand the intricate differences of local search, so they ignore or de-prioritize citations. That's bad for their clients, but great for ours.
(but, we deal exclusively with auto dealers, who are notoriously several years behind the curve… so that may not hold true for other business verticals)

You can have an awesome Plus Local page, an awesome website, and tons of juicy links – but still get out-ranked by the little guy with a crappy site… all because your NAP consistency blows. This is by far the biggest, most common problem we see with our clients – they just don't know how important consistency is.

In most cases, we care more about building citations than we do about building links. In unpopular verticals, it's tough to get good links, but you can still get tons of citations. We see much better results from boosting consistent citations than from gaining a few links.

Claiming your Plus Local page isn't a ranking factor – I think it's more of a reflection that business owners who have claimed their page will have more info on the page (and more accurate info). The ranking boost is a result of the content, not the claiming.
Caleb Donegan
Boise, ID
City and state in title tags has become the standard for us. However, ensure that any pages you tag with geo data display the NAP so as to not run the risk of false affiliation.

Citations from local sites can be very effective, but unless there are a healthy amount of these from credible sources they still don't carry as much weight as the primary structured citation sources.

The difference between bulk and individual owner verification, in our findings, is negligible. The important aspect is that listings are verified regardless of the way this is accomplished.

Bulk upload in Places still allows custom categories where the dashboard does not. Bulk upload has also expedited it's turn-time dramatically over the last few months.

Places categories have helped us rank for terms we attempted to include in our sites and were not able to gain much traction from. Categories are very powerful and with the recent expansion it appears things will continue moving in this direction.

Curious to see how bulk will evolve with the new maps, local carousel and local pack and if analytics for listings will find their way back into the dashboard.
Mary Bowling
Glenwood Springs, CO
Businesses just getting into Local Search need to take care of the big issues before they worry about the little ones. For example, you must first get an accurate Google business listing to go live (by following Google's business listing quality guidelines) before you can even appear in either the the Local Pack/Carousel results or in the Maps results. The rest of the factors don't matter much until that basic requirement is met.
Matthew Hunt
Toronto, ON
With the recent Penguin 2.0 updates it's ever more important than ever that "quality" that counts, not the "quantity" when it comes to building citations and backlinks.

- NAP inconsistency is probably one of the number one killers of local SEO. Be sure to make sure your core NAP info is clean across the web.

- With Google's new carousel results, some business are going to need to focus on photo/image optimization and reputation management more.

- All small businesses need to be sure they have author or publisher markup on their sites and to begin to build some kind of author rank and domain trust with Google.

Miriam Ellis
Bay Area, CA
I believe that there are two additional areas of marketing work that must be on every local business owner's to-do list: content development and human usability improvements.

Content development will encompass the development of static content (like individual landing pages for multi-location brick-and-mortar businesses and city landing pages for service area businesses) and ongoing publication of materials like blog posts that reinforce geography and authority. Once you've got all your basic local ducks in a row, develop a publishing plan that will broaden your website and keep it fresh.

Similarly, the work on your website's architecture, design and calls to action will never be done. The wise local business owner will brainstorm and test tactics that can make his website easier to use, more helpful and better converting. Chances are, your website can foster even more business than it currently is with the right usability efforts.

Mike Blumenthal
Olean, NY
Not on the list but I would look at the quality, quantity and architecture of the website first and foremost. The home page is critically important in helping Google understand what you do and where you do it.

If there are multiple locations or any chance of adress confusion I would encourage schema however not so much as a ranking factor but to be sure that Google doesn't confuse the locations. In a single location business with well structured HTML it is nice but not required.

[Regarding business title] I think it makes sense for every business to review their name and if it doesn't meet their current needs to consider changing before the citation process begins. This is right for every business or every situation but sometimes a name change can be very helpful. I am not suggesting changing it at just google and just the website but everywhere, offline and on.

Quantity [of structured citations matters] to a point. Google's recent emphasis on quality applies to every place where a business is mentioned.

[Quantity of native Google reviews matters] up to a point. While it is a factor, in most industries once you get to 10 or so it becomes a non issue.

Obviously you can't control the location of a business nor its proximity to the center of a search. If however they are planning on opening a new office in the search area then it should be close to the center of that industry in the city.
Nyagoslav Zhekov
Jonor Bahru, Malaysia
I think one important factor is missing and I didn’t manage to find a proper substitute:
“Product/Service Keyword in Places Landing Page Title”
If it was included, I would have placed it around position 10 in terms of importance.
Phil Rozek
N. Attleboro, MA
Here are your priorities for your Places/Plus page: avoid penalties, be thorough in selecting your categories, get duplicate/incorrect listings removed whenever possible, never stop getting reviews, and upload at least one nice photo. Got that covered? Good. Now stop tinkering with your Google page and go work on the stuff that will really set you apart.

Your location matters. Always has, always will. But how your proximity to the center of town affects your rankings depends above all on how many local competitors you’re up against. The more saturated the local market, the more geography matters.

Categories are your only real opportunity on your Places/Plus page to tell Google what kind of business you run. You can’t really do it in the “business name” field without risking a trip to the Google Gulag. The “description” doesn’t really matter. The wording of customers’ reviews isn’t something you can (or should) control.

Many business owners in even mildly competitive markets tend to pick out basically accurate categories. Categories aren’t as much an opportunity to outrank anyone as they are something that you really, really don’t want to screw up. The categories you choose for your IYP listings have always seemed to matter more than you’d think. Given that custom categories your Places/Plus page are going the way of the do-do bird, I expect that these outside categories will influence your rankings more, by filling in some of the gaps left by Google.

Clean citations are to local SEO what clean scalpels are to safe surgery.

There’s a point of diminishing return with citations, at least in terms of quantity. Actually, there are two points of diminishing return; I think of it as a bell curve:

Unless and until your NAP info is consistent on the data-aggregators and main citation sources (like Yelp, CitySearch, YP), simply having more citations probably won’t help you. This is the short end of the bell curve

Then, assuming your info is more or less consistent on those main sites, you’ll probably benefit from racking up more citations, until you’ve got several dozen - somewhere between 40-80, I’d say. This is the fat part of the bell curve, where getting more citations can be helpful.

But if you start getting into the triple digits, citation-building is no longer a great use of your time, and it’s not how you’ll take your rankings to the next level. This is the part where citation-building probably isn’t going to help your rankings much more. Better to spend time asking for reviews, making sure your current listings have as much info on your business as possible, and maybe writing some great blog posts.

I still can’t decide whether I love or hate the title tag. A well-crafted one is a major rankings advantage, and anyone can make one. But few business owners do. That I like.

By the way, including the two-letter abbreviation of your state is a very wise use of 3 characters. It’s another little signal that tells Google where your business is located, and it may help you get some easy extra visibility to those people who include the state name in their search queries.
To me, reviews are one of the best ways to (1) maintain your rankings and (2) slowly but surely grow your rankings over time. Above all, customers want to see them - and it doesn’t matter that some reviews are fake, because people have excellent BS detectors.

I see reviews as a crucial “sign of life” for your business - an indicator that new customers do business with you and live to tell about it. And everything I’ve seen tells me that Google sees reviews the same way.

Google is pushing reviews - especially if you consider their role in the “new” Maps results and in the carousel. They’ve always mattered, and they’re only going to matter more as time goes on. They take work to get, but they’re worth it.

I view links as helpful mostly in highly competitive markets, where the average competitor is actually doing a pretty solid job of local SEO. It becomes a game of inches.

Unless you consider your local competitors to be very tough and abundant, I wouldn’t suggest spending much or any time on getting links.

Even if you are in a really competitive market, you’ll probably get the most mileage out of getting a link by joining your local Chamber of Commerce, joining a couple relatively well-known “associations” for your industry, and doing or writing something noteworthy enough to get you featured at least once in the local rag.
Dave Oremland
Washington, DC
Categories are extremely important in my point of view. Get them right, and it helps enormously.

I can't change the location of a retailer or a service with heavy build out in their office. They have significant good will and/or hard investment in established locations. Offices and offices with local services can more easily move though. If I were an insurance office I might consider relocating to the center of a well populated city or large town. Centrality helps.
Nick Neels
Denver, CO
Proper Category Associations
Business categories continue to be one of the most important ranking factors for Google as well as other local search sites. If you are not properly associated with relevant categories to your business, you are missing one of the biggest and easiest wins. In addition, it is essential to maximize the use of the category fields, as your business should be listed under all relevant categories so the business can have visibility across all applicable categories.

Product / Service Keyword in Business Title
If your business includes a popular and relevant search term in it, congrats! Google and other channels put a lot of weight on the business name, which can make it difficult for a business absent of a product / service keyword in their business name to outrank the a business that has these terms in their name.

Google’s local search algorithm attempts to be the great equalizer and put all businesses on a level playing field, but let’s face it, if my business name is “Pizza Near Denver”, I’ve got a head start in the local search results over other pizza places near Denver. But please keep in mind that proper optimization strategies can overcome this challenge as with many other challenges local businesses face.

Proximity of Address to Centroid
While Google wants to provide the best user experience and show the most relevant local results, Google can often hurt businesses located on the edge of the Google-defined city perimeter. The flip side of this is that Google continually refines what they consider the city centroid while tightening or loosening the maps zoom level used to display the listings, so businesses can jump into the top of the results if they get lucky. Proper optimizations can help counteract Google stacking the deck against a local business on the outskirts of town and put that business within the searchers consideration set.

Consistency of Structured Citations
Citations continue to be important to Google as they are ranking listings. Businesses that have inconsistent data or inaccurate listings across the web are confusing Google when it looks for citations, and therefore the business does not get credit for these citations. In addition, an inconsistent NAP can easily confuse channels and cause duplicate listings.

Product/Service Keywords in Reviews
In some recent scenarios we’ve seen listings containing user reviews chalk full of product/service keywords outrank other listings that are much more optimized, but that lack the keyword-laden reviews. As Google continues to become more social and produce personalized results, they may add more focus to the reviews and the content in them – with some safety nets in place to counteract keyword spammy reviews.

Domain Authority of Website
Google continues to blur the lines between businesses’ local listings and their websites (Venice), so the businesses’ website should be optimized to help the local listing.

Marginal Category Associations
It is important for a local business to fully utilize the category fields in their local listings. If the core categories have been selected and there is room for more to be added, find others categories that relate – but there is a fine line between marginal relation and not related, so be careful to only choose relevant categories.

Numerical Percentage of Local Plus Page Completeness
Although the weight of this factor may continue to fluctuate over time, it will always remain a best practice to fully complete and optimize the content of the local listing or local Google+ page.

Competitive Factors

Darren Shaw
Edmonton, AB

I still believe that anchor text is a valuable ranking factor, but you have to be super careful with it these days. It must come from a high quality *real* site (don't judge based on PR alone), and you must be very careful to not over do it. For most businesses, I wouldn't recommend building more than one or two links with the same optimized anchor text. You can build additional optimized links across a handful of terms though. I like to match the anchor text with a G+ Local category where it can be done "naturally".
Greg Gifford
Dallas, TX
As far as link building is concerned, concentrate on sites that have local relevance. Even if a site doesn't have high PR or DA, the local relevance can really make that link powerful.

It's been said a million times, but I don't think authorship has any correlation to ranking… BUT, we've seen it vastly increase clickthroughs once it's been implemented. Sure, it probably doesn't help you rank, but why wouldn't you want more clicks?
Mary Bowling
Glenwood Springs, CO
I am amazed at how often a business has done nearly everything else right, but hasn't bothered to make its NAP data consistent across the Local ecosystem. It's not unusual to find businesses in competitive markets with multiple websites displaying differing NAP data. That's a surefire way to hurt your own rankings. If you're frustrated trying to figure out why you can't rank in Local Search, be certain to check and correct your NAP consistency.

In competitive markets, the domain authority of the website and the types and authority of incoming links become much more important.

What people say about you in reviews can have an impact on rankings. Using product/service and location terms in reviews can help to you rank better for related terms, but it's a double-edged sword, as it's fairly obvious when someone has forced their inclusion in a review.
Mike Blumenthal
Olean, NY
Velocity of reviews, yes, but that might more likely mean very, slow and very steady rather than fast and furious.

I do think that social signals affect a range of things positively in a correlative way. The benefit is particularly evident if they are being made around related content that you are generating. It is doubtful whether it has value in of itself but it is a measure of your success in other areas that will lead to sustained ranking gains.
Phil Rozek
N. Attleboro, MA
I’m amazed at how many times I’ll begin working with business owners who’ve done a great job in every other area of their local visibility, but who’ve let their NAP consistency begin to meander. It’s always a “Eureka!” moment.

The consistency of your NAP+W (name, address, phone, +website) info not only separates the visible businesses from the invisible ones, but also usually separates the highly prominent from the kinda-noticeable. Spare no effort or expense in making sure the basic info on your citations is consistent.

Wonderful things can happen when you let your Places/Plus page age. They always seem easier to rank. Maybe it’s a coincidence: Assuming you’ve squared away your listings on the most-important citation sources and data-aggregators, time has a nice way of smoothing over the inconsistencies in your citations across the board. Time is a key ingredient in NAP consistency. But whatever it is about business listings that have had ample opportunity to sit and age, I get all giddy when a client has one.

Reviews are the main thing will separate you over the long haul. Both Google Plus reviews and reviews on other sites. It’s always been my experience that they directly help rankings, but they also help boost click-through rate, which also seems to be a ranking factor.

But, all rankings considerations aside, the bigger question is: even if you’re ranking well locally in Google, why should someone click on your business listing or website when you’re up against 6 or more competitors on the same page (or “carousel”)? Google Plus reviews often are what separate the dusty phones from the ones that keep ringing.

Reviews on third-party sites (e.g. Yelp, CitySearch, even crusty old Yahoo) are also crucial for branded searches. What happens when customers see you and a few of your competitors in the search results, and are trying to decide whom to call? Right: they type your business name into Google. Once they do that, do the search results tell them that you’ve a stack of positive reviews on a variety of sites, or lousy reviews on those sites, or no reviews at all? Focusing on Google reviews at the expense of reviews on other sites is a bad move for many reasons, the biggest of which is that it means you’re neglecting a key step in the lead-generation process.

I’m convinced that click-through rate is a ranking factor. I think it’s why some businesses at least seem impossible to dislodge from top positions in the local results: they somehow get up there, people consistently click on them more than on other listings, and Google concludes that they’re a relevant search result, and the cycle continues. At least in my experience, click-through rate seems to explain the upward spirals that some businesses enjoy.

Many citations on industry-specific sites will require you to pay a small fee. So? Determine 2-3 sites that seem reputable in your industry, see how many of your local competitors are listed there, and throw in your ante and play a hand.

Even though I put Schema NAP on my clients’ sites, I simply do it so that we dot our I’s and cross our T’s. It can’t hurt. But what seems far more important is simply having your NAP as crawlable text throughout your site. I don’t swear by Schema (yet?).
Dave Oremland
Washington, DC

2. I'm still a huge believer in the power of links from authoritative web pages and or authoritative sites with static pages that aren't buried among tens of thousands of new content as with articles. I've been following some sites for years that I've identified as having "killed the competition with links from quality sites with quality pages". They still rank well.

Of interest some of those sites will appear in searches at the top of the PAC or they will appear as an organic result above the PAC. The only difference I see is the passage of time...and evidently google making alterations on how it shows information. It appears to me that Google periodically changes presentations slightly with regard to these killer local sites, moving them in and out of the PAC. That does make analysis and description more difficult, doesn't it.

Negative Factors

Linda Buquet
San Marcos, CA
I put #4 as most harmful "Presence of Multiple Place Pages with Same Phone Number".


However I want to elaborate as there are several different scenarios and each is different in terms of how detrimental. So below I explain a few of most common scenarios.

1) Duplicate of same business, just different variation of N or A (but same P) This is a problem and usually will drop the listing out of blended.

2) Owner lists 2 different businesses at same location with same phone = problem. Often it's a violation (however depends on situation), but also makes listings prone to merging.

3) Owner has one location - but 2 categories and 2 websites for different aspects of the same business. Creates 2 Place pages even though technically it's the same business = violation.

4) Listings for a multi-location business using the same phone #. OK for ranking if different cities, but increases likelihood of merging.

5) Practitioner listings (different than dupes for the same business). In this case they can have same phone #. HOWEVER practitioner listings will often knock the main listing out of the SERPs if all are same categories and all link to same home page. Change the category and link and they can play nicely together.

Greg Gifford
Dallas, TX
DO NOT FAKE REVIEWS! No reviews is better than false reviews. If you get caught by Google, you can get booted. If you get caught by customers, it's a PR nightmare. There's never a good reason to do it, and there's never a good outcome.
Mary Bowling
Glenwood Springs, CO
I think that some of the things that we normally assume to be negative ranking factors can be circumvented via the white-listed feeds that big brands use to provide their location information to Google. For example, it's possible for a corporate site to have individual location landing pages that do not comply with most of the accepted best practices for Local Search, yet they can still rank well in the local packs.


Some of these negative factors are now being prevented from occurring at the business listing level through built-in mechanisms that do not permit you to include them, such as multiple categories within one field and location terms in category fields. Others are being prevented during the new listing review and approval process. It's currently much harder to get a new listing to go live with such components as a false location, a keyword-stuffed business name, or a location-stuffed description than it has been in the past. Older listings are also being reviewed for some of these factors and they may be suspended until guideline violations are corrected.


When someone reports your listing for a violation of the guidelines, I think it is reviewed and then either suspended or not. However, that repeated reports, especially from differing sources, can prompt a closer review.
Mike Blumenthal
Olean, NY
Keyword-stuffing in business title is particularly [bad] if it is geo stuffed/ less so if service stuffed.
Nyagoslav Zhekov
Jonor Bahru, Malaysia
It is really difficult to order all these factors using the same systematization, because they are really a few different kinds of negative factors:

1) Direct negative factors, i.e. such factors that have direct negative effect on one’s local search rankings. Examples: “Incorrect business category”, “Incorrectly placing your map marker”;
2) Factors that might (but necessarily will) result in penalties. Examples: “Keyword stuffing in business name”, “Including Location Keyword in Categories”
3) Negative factors that do not directly affect the search rankings. Examples: “Negative Sentiment in Place Reviews”, “Low Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 1-2)”
I personally placed the majority of the factors from the first group the highest (i.e. as most negative), although things such as keyword stuffing one’s business name might result in their Places listing being suspended, which would subsequently mean that they will be completely gone from the search results. And this is a much more negative factor than, for instance, “Mis-Matched or Private WHOIS Information”, which belongs to the first group of negative factors.
Phil Rozek
N. Attleboro, MA
If you’ve concluded that you need to rank well in the Google+ Local search results (as opposed to only in the organic results), you absolutely need to realize that your Places/Plus page and website work in tandem, and that a penalty to either will bring the house down.


If your Places/Plus page gets penalized, you might still have some organic rankings. But if your website is over-optimized and incurs a penalty, your business becomes radioactive to Google, and you won’t rank well in either the Google+ Local or in the organic search results.

I’d like to suggest a negative ranking factor: letting unethical competitors violate Google’s guidelines, get away with it, and walk all over you as a result.

Consider this scenario:

You worked hard for a #7 ranking for a competitive search term. 3 new listings are created by new competitors (or the same one) in your local market. The listings are at fake addresses, or stuffed with keywords, or otherwise meant to game the system. If even one of those listings isn’t penalized, you’re suddenly on page 2 and your phone starts ringing less.

Exposing black-hat or gray-hat competitors isn’t “ratting” or “tattling”; it's noble. If your competitors are going to outrank you, at least make them work for it by having to do it fair and square.

“Hiding” your address simply doesn’t affect your rankings. Even if it did, it wouldn’t matter: Either Google requires you to hide your address, or it doesn’t. If you’re a service-area business and you don’t hide your address as you’re required to, your rankings may not matter much for long, because your business can whisked off the map at any time. It’s a matter of compliance, not choice.

The only time there’s even a choice to make is if you operate within a service area and travel to your customer (let’s say you’re a carpet cleaner), but you also have a storefront that some subset of customers come to. Even then, better safe than sorry: Just hide your address on your Google listing, but make it very visible on your site.
Dave Oremland
Washington, DC
Without a doubt the single biggest change I saw with regard to some of the sites I've been handling and sites I've followed over the years has to do with penalties on an overabundance of anchor text links.

Yes, I've used them. I've been working on some of those sites for about 8 years and frankly cheap and massive amounts of anchor text links from crummy sites such as weak directories used to work exceptionally well, especially in some relatively weak areas of competition. Now its the reverse. They cause penalties. So an overabundance of anchor text is a severe problem, especially if it has the aura of being unnatural in google's eyes.

In light of that, I've taken the time to contact Google about an anchor text link that was entirely provided by the editorial decision of a site owner on which there was no previous interaction between the sites or individuals, its on a website of no relevance to the smb in question, its a footer link on a page. In other words under every algorithmic formula I can think of it looks, smells, and has the appearance of a faked spammy link. And yet it most definitely isn't.

If I was an algo...I'd penalize the receiving website for that link...seeing as how google has been doing that. But it was entirely not spammy. It reflects the site owner's appreciation of the smb.

Isn't that absurd??? Yet to me that is where the penalty on anchor text links has taken us.
Nick Neels
Denver, CO
Mis-match NAP / Tracking Phone Numbers Across Data Ecosystem
Businesses that have an inconsistent NAP across the local data-verse are in-turn confusing Google when it looks for citations across the web. If the NAP is mis-matched, these citations become unrecognizable to Google, and therefore the business does not get credit for these citations.

Mis-matched NAP information can also confuse directories and result in duplicates. Google and other channels continually take part in the free flow of data within the local search ecosystem. Whether a channel/directory voluntarily shares data with a partner, or the data is simply scraped by a niche directory. This free flow of data results in constant “data collisions” where existing data in a channel meets the new outside data.

When these collisions occur, the directories are left to determine which data sets match what they already have in place, versus which data sets are unique enough to require a new listing. If the NAP is consistent, the new data matches the existing data, so no change is made. When the NAP is inconsistent, this data collision may result in duplicates. Soon two listing exist for the same business with slightly different NAPS, and both these listings become a part of the free flow of data and future data collisions, providing poor user experiences and a snowball effect of mis-matched data spreading across the local ecosystem.

Presence of Multiple Place Pages with Same Phone Number
Multiple place pages cause confusion for both the directory and the user, as no one really knows which listing is the official one. To eliminate the potential for split traffic between the listings and any confusion for the user, duplicates should be merged.

Incorrect business category
The business categories continue to be important ranking factors in directories and search engines. It is essential for a business to be correctly listed under the most relevant categories, otherwise they may have very limited visibility for potential customers searching online.

Mis-match NAP / Tracking Phone Number on Places Landing Page
As directories become more advanced in their ranking factors, the website provided in the listing continues to gain relevancy, therefore the NAP consistency between the listing and the website should be taken into consideration.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)