<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Maps Policy: Multiple Listings at a Single Address a No Go</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/</link>
	<description>Developing Knowledge about Local Search</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:13:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Maps announces Quality Guidelines &#38; Reinclusion Option &#124; Understanding Google Maps &#38; Local Search</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-541491</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Maps announces Quality Guidelines &#38; Reinclusion Option &#124; Understanding Google Maps &#38; Local Search</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-541491</guid>
		<description>[...] for defining a real business listing from a spammy one. Previously the only known criteria was the single location/single listing rule. However the guideline still offer some ambiguity as to what is spam and what isn&#8217;t. For [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for defining a real business listing from a spammy one. Previously the only known criteria was the single location/single listing rule. However the guideline still offer some ambiguity as to what is spam and what isn&#8217;t. For [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-453561</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:18:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-453561</guid>
		<description>George

In theory, Google wants each listing to lead to a unique business that can be driven to for an answer. In theory your business meets that criteria. In practice you always run a danger of Google merging your listing and those of your office mates if they can not adequately distinguish between the two or think they are the same. Merging is painful as half of one listing gets mixed into half of the other and vice versa. It is somewhat unpredictable.

If you choose to list both businesses, it is important to make as many distinctions as possible in both the business listing and across the local ecosystem that Google scrapes for the content of your particular cluster. Minimally that means a unique website, a unique registrar record, a unique phone number, a unique office suite number (ie 1a instead of 1) and a unique LBC account AS WELL AS having all of that uniqueness shown in every major primary and secondary data provider that Google uses. 

Even then there is no guarantee, but it is the only way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George</p>
<p>In theory, Google wants each listing to lead to a unique business that can be driven to for an answer. In theory your business meets that criteria. In practice you always run a danger of Google merging your listing and those of your office mates if they can not adequately distinguish between the two or think they are the same. Merging is painful as half of one listing gets mixed into half of the other and vice versa. It is somewhat unpredictable.</p>
<p>If you choose to list both businesses, it is important to make as many distinctions as possible in both the business listing and across the local ecosystem that Google scrapes for the content of your particular cluster. Minimally that means a unique website, a unique registrar record, a unique phone number, a unique office suite number (ie 1a instead of 1) and a unique LBC account AS WELL AS having all of that uniqueness shown in every major primary and secondary data provider that Google uses. </p>
<p>Even then there is no guarantee, but it is the only way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-453559</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-453559</guid>
		<description>I realize this is an old thread, but I stumbled upon it today while reading up on ways to optimize local listings for a client. I&#039;m wondering how this rule applies to office buildings. The building that I work in has at least 6 separate small businesses in it. I share office space with another company and we have the same suite number (despite having 3 offices among us). My company is a graphic design firm (I&#039;m the sole employee), while the company I share office space with is an IT services firm (6 employees), so it&#039;s not like we&#039;re tapping into the same market. We both have LBLs with Google and share the same address. Both of our listings seem to show up fine for local searches, as well, but I&#039;m nervous that the multiple businesses at the same address rule might end up knocking one or both of us out of the listings. It seems like this could be a problem for a lot businesses in smaller office buildings that share a single address.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize this is an old thread, but I stumbled upon it today while reading up on ways to optimize local listings for a client. I&#8217;m wondering how this rule applies to office buildings. The building that I work in has at least 6 separate small businesses in it. I share office space with another company and we have the same suite number (despite having 3 offices among us). My company is a graphic design firm (I&#8217;m the sole employee), while the company I share office space with is an IT services firm (6 employees), so it&#8217;s not like we&#8217;re tapping into the same market. We both have LBLs with Google and share the same address. Both of our listings seem to show up fine for local searches, as well, but I&#8217;m nervous that the multiple businesses at the same address rule might end up knocking one or both of us out of the listings. It seems like this could be a problem for a lot businesses in smaller office buildings that share a single address.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yipit Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Multiple Listings Problem in Manhattan Local Search</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-261596</link>
		<dc:creator>Yipit Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Multiple Listings Problem in Manhattan Local Search</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-261596</guid>
		<description>[...] an effort to curtail manipulation of local search results, Google has recently articulated to local businesses that listing multiple business names at a single address is no longer acceptable. While this is a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] an effort to curtail manipulation of local search results, Google has recently articulated to local businesses that listing multiple business names at a single address is no longer acceptable. While this is a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Maps spam appearing in Europe - not only a problem in US : Local Search Optimization - Martijn Beijk</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-247128</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Maps spam appearing in Europe - not only a problem in US : Local Search Optimization - Martijn Beijk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:31:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-247128</guid>
		<description>[...] to this article it says that Maps Guide Jen made the statement that businesses were only allowed to have only one [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to this article it says that Maps Guide Jen made the statement that businesses were only allowed to have only one [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Understanding Google Maps &#38; Yahoo Local Search &#187; Renaming your business for Local &#124; Developing Knowledge about Local Search</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-246615</link>
		<dc:creator>Understanding Google Maps &#38; Yahoo Local Search &#187; Renaming your business for Local &#124; Developing Knowledge about Local Search</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-246615</guid>
		<description>[...] has recently made clear that a business can have only one listing per address and that multiple listings for that business at one address would be considered spam. They have [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] has recently made clear that a business can have only one listing per address and that multiple listings for that business at one address would be considered spam. They have [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martijn</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-239078</link>
		<dc:creator>martijn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 21:32:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-239078</guid>
		<description>Exactly! And I&#039;ve came across local mapspam here in Spain also! Will blog about it tomorrow. Hope Google will take action before things get out of hand here as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly! And I&#8217;ve came across local mapspam here in Spain also! Will blog about it tomorrow. Hope Google will take action before things get out of hand here as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Blumenthal</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-236151</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Blumenthal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 11:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-236151</guid>
		<description>Hi Brett

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment. It is legitimate that a business rank on multiple terms...but Google wants to be the arbiter of that.

Jen is referring to creating multiple listing entries in the Local Business Center in an effort to game the results in an effort to rank on those multiple terms NOT whether a company will show up on multiple search terms. It is possible and appropriate for a business to show up on a number of terms without entering a business multiple times. 

If a business listing is the most relevant listing to a searchers intent, it is google&#039;s goal to show it. It is possible for a business owner to craft his entry and manage his presence in the local ecosystem in such a way as to improve their chances.

But by changing a business name to the specific search phrase and entering that business name , 7 or 10 times a business might be able to come up on a range phrases as well. It is this latter gaming that Google has declared as &quot;[not] useful in any way for our users&quot;

Just because a business has two legitimate functions, google does not want them to enter their business twice in the LBC. 

Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Brett</p>
<p>Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment. It is legitimate that a business rank on multiple terms&#8230;but Google wants to be the arbiter of that.</p>
<p>Jen is referring to creating multiple listing entries in the Local Business Center in an effort to game the results in an effort to rank on those multiple terms NOT whether a company will show up on multiple search terms. It is possible and appropriate for a business to show up on a number of terms without entering a business multiple times. </p>
<p>If a business listing is the most relevant listing to a searchers intent, it is google&#8217;s goal to show it. It is possible for a business owner to craft his entry and manage his presence in the local ecosystem in such a way as to improve their chances.</p>
<p>But by changing a business name to the specific search phrase and entering that business name , 7 or 10 times a business might be able to come up on a range phrases as well. It is this latter gaming that Google has declared as &#8220;[not] useful in any way for our users&#8221;</p>
<p>Just because a business has two legitimate functions, google does not want them to enter their business twice in the LBC. </p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-235975</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 04:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-235975</guid>
		<description>What about a business that has two legitimate functions that people search for?  I have a friend that I occasionally help with his web site who has a body shop and an oil change service which both have the same physical location.  It seems very legitimate to me that he would rank on both terms.  

As I understand the comment posted by Jen, it would be OK to rank for different terms such as &quot;oil change&quot; and &quot;body shop&quot; but it would not be acceptable to rank twice with the same physical location for one of those searches.  Am I understanding correctly? 

By the way, you have a great site. I have been subscribing to your feed for several months and enjoy the focus on only local search.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about a business that has two legitimate functions that people search for?  I have a friend that I occasionally help with his web site who has a body shop and an oil change service which both have the same physical location.  It seems very legitimate to me that he would rank on both terms.  </p>
<p>As I understand the comment posted by Jen, it would be OK to rank for different terms such as &#8220;oil change&#8221; and &#8220;body shop&#8221; but it would not be acceptable to rank twice with the same physical location for one of those searches.  Am I understanding correctly? </p>
<p>By the way, you have a great site. I have been subscribing to your feed for several months and enjoy the focus on only local search.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Blumenthal</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/05/16/google-maps-policy-multiple-listings-at-a-single-address-a-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-235789</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Blumenthal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=667#comment-235789</guid>
		<description>SeoNonsense

Well in this case, &lt;a[s guide Jen was specifically referring to multiple keyword laden listings (4-10) meant to game the results. So I assume if your have a legitimate reason that will be respected.

I have noted in the medical, insurance and a few other fields Google by default offers both practitioners and the practice at a location.

That being said, it is still unclear if Google is going to  proactively search and remove listings, or wait for end user reports before they take action. 

There really is a dirth of clear Google offered guidelines in this area. And I for one am hoping that Google will make a few more public utterances so that legitimate businesses have a clear path to compliance.

Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SeoNonsense</p>
<p>Well in this case, <a[s guide Jen was specifically referring to multiple keyword laden listings (4-10) meant to game the results. So I assume if your have a legitimate reason that will be respected.</p>
<p>I have noted in the medical, insurance and a few other fields Google by default offers both practitioners and the practice at a location.</p>
<p>That being said, it is still unclear if Google is going to  proactively search and remove listings, or wait for end user reports before they take action. </p>
<p>There really is a dirth of clear Google offered guidelines in this area. And I for one am hoping that Google will make a few more public utterances so that legitimate businesses have a clear path to compliance.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 503/504 objects using disk: basic

Served from: blumenthals.com @ 2012-02-09 10:33:47 -->
