At the beginning of last week, I started to notice posts in the Google Help forum and I received emails from a number of correspondents that their records had merged with nearby competitors. At first blush they appeared to have all of the symptoms of hijacked records however after lengthy, ongoing communication with Google it appears that these merged records are being conflated by Google.
Despite having the Local business Center to provide authoritative information to a business listing, Google for a number of reasons and in a number of situations has always merged some business records inappropriately. The merged records will take on parts of one record and parts of the other in a somewhat willy nilly fashion, the url of one business and the telephone number of the other for example.
Typically these are two businesses at the same address or sharing a phone line. Sometimes the data mixup is from an upstream provider and Google will take the upstream provider’s information as more accurate or important than that in the Local Business Center. In the past Google has advised to slightly modify the two addresses so that Google could do better at distinguishing the merged records. In the case of the bad data coming from upstream data providers, it was necessary to track down the bad data and have it changed or face remergers on a regular basis.
Google Guide Joel described the issue before the recent rollout and snafu: “This is how our system works by design. Businesses that are the same address / location are merged. In general, it’s the right thing to do. However, we’ll take your concern as feedback. We want to improve these systems and are actively looking at doing this in the right way. In the meantime, there’s no way to force an immediate fix to the issue.”
For some, Google Maps has become the ultimate Kafka like nightmare of late, as Google is now merging records between nearby competitors just because they are in close proximity to each other. Apparently the merging algorithm has changed and Google is now merging records that have nothing in common other than being in the same map sector and a similar business profile.
One of the owners of a recently merged records was from a Doctor’s office and noted the following: “Google merged the records for Dr John G Moe and Dr Kenneth Landis and this almost led to a tragic patient outcome this weekend. An emergency room doctor from Kansas tried to contact Dr. Moe to see if a certain drug could be given to our patient. Since the patient was unable to give the ER our phone number, the googled Dr John G Moe. Since Google linked our record, the saw the phone number for Dr Landis and left a message on his answering machine and since he wasn’t on call that weekend, we didn’t learn of the problem until much later”.
Here are some graphic examples of this behavior:
| Correct Location Information Site 1 | Correct Location Information Site 2 |
| The Inn on Lake Superior
350 Canal Park Drive Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 726-1111 (888) 668-4352 (218) 727-3976 - Fax innonlakesuperior.com |
South Pier Inn-On the Canal
701 S Lake Ave Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 786-9007 |
Google results after suffering a merger:
———————
Another example:
| Correct Location Information Site 1 | Correct Location Information Site 2 |
| Holiday Inn Express
909 N Spence Ave Goldsboro, NC 27534 |
Hampton Inn
905 N. Spence Avenue, Goldsboro, North Carolina 27534 |
Google results after suffering a merger:
As of late Tuesday afternoon, Google started addressing the issue publicly in the forums as Google Employee Nina noted: “The fix needs to be automatic – not manual. These things usually take several weeks to test and bring live. We know it’s causing user pain and I know they are working really hard on it right now as we speak.”
My interpretation: It appears that this new, more malicious merging problem has yet to be fully assessed or defined and that repair could be a lengthy process.
Ugh….more dire health problems. In this case…an utterly dire health emergency. This isn’t a first in the health world. Meanwhile Google insists that the problem is systemic….and is specifically not worthy of actual customer service response.
Hey guys…can’t you do two things at once? You know, like chewing gum and breathing.
Meanwhile, Google provides Customer service when its adwords accounts are involved. It responds to particular needs for its income stream. Yet it doesn’t respond to others when google’s flaws or weaknesses that accomodate theft result in income losses to others, doesn’t engage in customer service when consumer fraud is being accomodated.
Meanwhile…isn’t Yahoo providing levels of customer service?
Comment by Earlpearl (784 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 8:40 am
While Google is working out these issues, maybe Google should consider placing a prominent disclaimer on the maps page rather than in the forum warning people of potential incorrect listings. ( I highly doubt they would ever do it)
It would certainly be the right and moral thing to do especially if there is clear cut evidence that people utilize Google Maps during health emergencies etc.
Comment by Art (20 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 9:03 am
@Earl
There seems to be some concern that changing the records manually will screw things up worse.
It is and has always been unclear to me what the purpose of the LBC record is, if they don’t trust as the final word.
@Art
Yes of all the products that Google has left in beta for so many years, one wonders why Maps actually graduated.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Regarding changing things manually, I agree it has potential to screw things up even more. There are likely many thousands of cases of these kinds of erroneous mergings (many go unreported, yet to be discovered) and developing an automated method is certainly the way to go. If you manually fix a few here and there the automated method, once correctly developed, may pass over the manual fixes as they no longer fit into the whole database structure the same way as they once did. Or might hinder other database wide changes in the future.
I think it’s obvious why Google let Maps out into the wild before it was quite ready. The web is going local in a big big way and to gain a market dominance position Maps had to be out now, regardless of it being still connected to the incubator. Classic case of the Ready, Fire, Aim approach.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
It seems terribly screwy to me. It also seems deeply irresponsable.
If the system is unable to account for changing records manually, while its existance both creates faulty records and encourages mapspam….then its usage is premature.
The premature nature is a function of the negative impact on the following:
1. Potential health problems. cripes that’s big. The Duke medical center problem, this latest problem, etc. all point to the potentially dire consequences of faulty information.
2. Consumer fraud. The Missouri Attorney General’s investigation found that its one consumer was charged double that of what he/she was quoted on the phone by an emergency locksmith. That is theft.
3. The incredible impact on the visibility of businesses….and the dire impact on these businesses when erroneous or hijacked information diverts traffic from the intended sources.
Geez….the economy is bad enough. Does Google want to contribute to the problem.
The situation wouldn’t be so severe if organic Google with Maps inserts wasn’t the dominant form of search for products and services.
Google’s internal problems in fixing the workings of Google Maps are fostering all sorts of problems on an unaware public. If it can’t fix things both systemically and manually at the same time…..its got a huge problem….and its simply laying it on an unsuspecting public.
AND THEN THE PROBLEMS simply stay there.
IMHO its very ugly. I wonder when a high profile industry catches wind of problems wherein business revenues are being misdirected or stolen. It will not only be ugly…it will be costly and extremely well publicised.
Comment by Earlpearl (784 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
It is always difficult for me, even as much as I have studied maps to fully understand that a business record isn’t a finite editable entity.
Given that they are not though, the other difficult thing to understand is why the LBC record is not given the highest precedence when there is a discrepancy in the “cluster”.
The third thing that is difficult for me to understand is why they don’t communicate out about problems and difficulties and wait for me to harrass them to death and get totally annoyed that they are not responding. Wouldn’t it be easier to be out in front of the complaints and say: “We know we have a problem, here is is and here is when we hope to have it fixed”…nobody expect this stuff to be perfect but it just should not be so hard to communicate clearly. In the end it is the least expensive of the options.
@Stever
OK it was released early for competitive reasons. So when is it reasonable to expect it to function properly? 2, 4 years? 8 Years? We are going on 5 now.
Google apparently perceives their interests as running Maps as inexpensively as possible and making as much from it via adwords as possible. They do not apparently perceive customer service or PR as a necessary part of that mix.
Mike
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Most of the time I try and post a link here it doesn’t take. I’ll simply post this article from SearchEngineland today by Matt McGee citing this article and referencing issues facing Google Maps…
http://searchengineland.com/time-to-send-google-maps-to-drawing-board-18295
Funny thing, about 1 week ago Bill Slawski, at SEOBytheSea published about patents impacting local search both in Maps and organic google. The patents are recently released though the publications trail implementation (of some level that we’ll never know) by several years. One of the topics he referenced was “categories”. It seems IMHO that organic does a better job with categories than Google Maps.
It seems there are many bugs in Google Maps. In its own right….that is okay….all the engines and all parts of them are constantly evolving. The more serious issue is that Google Maps has an incredible impact on local businesses, local consumers, and more dramatically local health issues. It needs to address the negative impact it is having on these parties.
Comment by Earlpearl (784 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
*Cues: “Another one bites the dust”…
Comment by Gab Goldenberg (7 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Oh, grand, more health emergencies.
This is a good time to trot out the link Jen Chin gave me to the page which has the option to report incorrect emergency data:
http://maps.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=contact_policy
I still remember my own health emergency and my experience using Maps during that, and frankly, thinking that someone might have been given contraindicated medication as a result of conflated Google records really makes me mad. That could have cost someone their life.
The lesson for emergency medical providers here is an obvious one: do NOT use Google to try to find professionals in the middle of a health emergency. At least on a local level, medical providers ought to have a working internal database of all other medical providers in their county or state. But, considering how the insurance companies have bankrupted the country’s medical system, it’s of little surprise that they would be having to turn to free services like Google local to try to find colleagues. Where I live, the shortage of medical care is truly scary, so I think your article actually highlights 2 emergencies, Mike:
1) A broken medical system
2) A company (Google) willing to play with people’s health and lives by publishing totally incorrect contact information for emergency services
I see major alarms, sirens and flashing red lights in both of those scenarios and we are the losers in both.
Important stuff, Mike. Keep it coming!
Miriam
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
I don’t know. There is something incredibly robotic about Google’s actions. How can they create an emergency notice, specifically for health issues and then bury it so virtually nobody can find it?
Where is the common sense? Oh yeah. Yahoo has it. They have customer service.
Comment by Earlpearl (784 comments) — April 29, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
[...] Blumenthal has posted more information on this topic at his [...]
Pingback by Google Maps Merging Competing Business’s Local Information | Kooshy - Sneaky Search Marketing — April 30, 2009 @ 1:00 am
[...] Google Maps: Manic Merging of Business Listings due to Algo Change [...]
Pingback by ¹ SEO ROI Services: Pay For Professional Search Marketing. — April 30, 2009 @ 2:24 am
This is not just impacting small businesses. I manage this area for a company with 7000+ locations, and I’ve seen this issue of clustering records increase over the past couple weeks. We have a lot of listings with mixed information from our competitors. Definitely not good. I think Google needs to reduce the number of data sources they use, or do a better job of prioritizing the data sources i.e. the Local Business Center.
Comment by JWilly (1 comments) — April 30, 2009 @ 10:05 am
I would love to see some of your examples if you would like me to look at them. If you haven’t already done so I would encourage you to post at the forums on the Google is Merging Map Records Thread so that Google is aware of your problem.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — April 30, 2009 @ 10:18 am
[...] loud voice for some serious quality control in Google Maps. Those posts, as well as others about merged listings, have been getting lots of comments and is spawning others in the search industry to demand that [...]
Pingback by Google Maps Locksmith Spam Creeping into Canada (Toronto) | Stever.ca — April 30, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
This isn’t the first time, nor the last time that a mistake in the updating of the alg will cause a “glitch in the matrix” of sorts.
As far as google’s customer service goes……………… good luck?
Comment by Dustin Pitcher (2 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 1:27 am
One other thing came to mind. If a business is experiencing a substantial decrease in revenue, a targeted ad on maps would provide a temporary bandage for the situation.
I seem to remember a quote “It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters” – Epictetus
Comment by Dustin Pitcher (2 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 1:47 am
@Dustin
No it won’t be the last time, however Google should be more forthcoming and forthright to the businesses involved. Google should provide a better avenue for reporting this type of problem and timely feedback when its fixed. As they have moved so aggressively into our lives as the provider of local information, they should assume the responsibility of membership in the community. That doesn’t mean that they won’t screw up, just that they accept responsibility if they do.
The loss of revenue comes from two things that a targeted ad in Maps is unlikely to help
1)The loss of 10 Pac exposure. This is national in nature and on a phrase like Hotel would be very difficult compete on.
2)Since the website and phone number is going to a competitor, it is likely that the opportunity will move to them.
I would suggest that your quote: “It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters” – Epictetus would apply equally well to Google in this situation.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 6:12 am
@Gab
Being a tad culturally tone deaf I had to look up your reference to “another one bites the dust”. That search took me to the Wikipedia article on the Queen song. In the article I thought it interesting that they noted:
During the administration of chest compressions during CPR, it can be difficult to achieve and maintain the recommended rate of 100 compressions per minute[6]. The bass line of this song is at such a rate; thus it is frequently recommended to think or hum this song during CPR, to maintain the correct rate[7].
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 6:33 am
And Google is supposed to manage our Medical Records..?
Comment by Anna (4 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Anna
That won’t be too painful until they merge your record with the fellow that is having is left leg amputated.
Mike
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
It does bother me that Google Maps is seemingly running on a completely different tune than organic. I can understand the whole “increase your overall citations in local sites/directories” thing works to a certain degree, but it still messes with me.
I’m studying the algorithm of local search and hope to find some decent conclusions over time.
Great article!
Comment by Jim (20 comments) — May 1, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Yup, Inn on Lake Superior is good friends with aimClear, and I spotted this. Of course I immediately called another good friend Mike. Keep up the great work MB, this is killer stuff.
I have access to the data which shows how devastating mix ups like these are financially to the real business owners who get hurt. The dollar amount losses associated with this debacle would you make you sick to your stomach in light of normal monthly revenue…really.
Comment by Marty (8 comments) — May 3, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
[...] the first time something like this has happened. Mike Blumenthal was among the first to cover the latest Google Maps snafu and reminded everyone that Google has a history of inappropriately merging business listings, [...]
Pingback by Caution: Google May Be Sending Your Customers Away | Small Business Trends — May 6, 2009 @ 9:41 am
They need to do something, i am losing business as we speak to my competitor, who has the link to their website set up, who can i call?
Comment by Dawad (1 comments) — May 6, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
There is another issue now. People are not receiving the Google postcards. At first I thought it was me, or that someone was intercepting them. But after going through the forums, I can see it is Googler wide.
I have not gotten one in over a month despite at least 5 requests.
Why do they disable phone and sms and then not send post cards?
Comment by panzermike (225 comments) — May 6, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
@panzermike,
1. what is the reason you are not verifying your listing by phone?
2. Does the listing you wish to verify is totally new, or does it has any history in Gmaps?
Maybe I can help you with this one..
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — May 6, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
@PureSheer
The sms and phone verification features are disabled and no one at Maps has responded to my request to re-establish them.
The listing IS NOT totally new and I simply edited the listing, at which time Maps took it down and stated a post card would be sent. After 5 or more requests, still no post card.
Over 30 days has passed and no one is helpful at the Maps Help Forum. To top it off, I have seen other threads indicating that many people do not get their cards mailed to them either.
Why did they deactivate phone and sms?
Comment by panzermike (225 comments) — May 6, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
@panzermike,
they didn’t disabled those options.
If I understand your case, I can solve you this issue in an instance.
Let’s go off line. Write me your email & I’ll send you the actions you need to take.
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — May 6, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
@PureSheer:
issuethewrit@gmail.com
Comment by panzermike (225 comments) — May 6, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
@panzermike,
Happy it went good for you. I’m happy to help at any time
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — May 7, 2009 @ 2:08 am
The lisitng for the Inn on Lake Superior was good yesterday (5/7/09), today it is back to being merged. The South Pier Inn tech guy called the hotel yesterday complaining that we are screwing with his listing. He must be watching it now every day. Apparently when we moved the Inn’s marker ( a solution that was submitted but doesn’t quite work), the South Pier info changed to the Inn’s website. He didn’t like that. Go figure. He went into his own record and moved the marker position for his hotel back to their position and thus the Inn’s info is wrong again. This would also explain why when we changed the marker for one of our hotels in Goldsboro it cause the other hotel to be incorrect. Moving the marker only works if the other party isn’t paying attention or if it isn’t your own business next door.
Comment by AnneS (1 comments) — May 8, 2009 @ 11:01 am
@PureSheer
Gentleman and scholar.
Comment by panzermike (225 comments) — May 8, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
@AnneS
This could go on and on forever….I guess they are really merged and both records move together.
so much for that idea.
back to waiting impatiently and seeing what Google does.
Mike
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — May 8, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Google map has merged my clients business listing with his next door neighbor’s business. Now, google map will take visitors to his competitor’s website yet under his business name!
This is crazy, and that they have no easy way to report the problem and fix it is very irresponsible on google’s end. How hard it it to have a system to report and correct mergers?
-Frustrated webmaster
Comment by Jessica (2 comments) — May 15, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Google has done and does a lot of good things well. But their search product has been sliding downhill for a long time – annoying “spam” search results, a map that is often wrong, outdated info. Complaining about a service that is basically free seems kind of wrong. But their brand is freakishly popular and marketers pay them gobs of money for Adwords. You would think they would want to protect their business reputation better.
Comment by Brent (10 comments) — May 18, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
[...] recent poster to the Manic Merging of Business Listings posted the following in regards to Google merging competing [...]
Pingback by Google Maps, Small Business & Society - who’s crazy? » Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — May 21, 2009 @ 6:00 am
I had a merged listing problem, but it has now mushroomed into a delisting (details at http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/maps/thread?tid=2a5577cf030b8563&hl=en). Since I manage both merged domains, an SEO recommended changing the merged one (less important domain) to the primary one. That was fine, but when I took the next step she recommended, deleting the duplicate, my listing vanished from local listings. When I re-enabled it, all my listings disappeared from the SERPs as well.
Since I doubt the Gov’t will bail me out, if Google doesn’t fix this fast, we’ll be in bankruptcy.
Comment by Scott Thomas (1 comments) — June 8, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Could you share your business details (business name, location) so we could take a look? did you see Google’s posting on dealing with duplicates and how to avoid deletion?
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — June 8, 2009 @ 9:20 am
[...] continue to display the Local number you’ve given them in the Local Business Center. But given some of the issues with Google’s merging algorithm, do you really want to take that [...]
Pingback by Be Wary Of Call Tracking Numbers In Local Search — October 8, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
[...] continue to display the Local number you’ve given them in the Local Business Center. But given some of the issues with Google’s merging algorithm, do you really want to take that [...]
Pingback by Call Tracking Controversy? « Screenwerk — October 8, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
hi,
my reviews (100+ of them) as Dr Adam Salem dentist at Amoskeag Urgent Dental Care have been split off and 77 of them attached to another dentist Amoskeag Family Dentistry ??? Help , I ‘ve spent years polishing my online reviews
by pleasing patients and customers ? Every review mentions me by name . This is the third time I have to contact Google about this ? How is my business edited the web site and address and phone number ?? I have claimed it several times in : “Claim your business “HELP !!!
Comment by Adam (18 comments) — October 9, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
Apparently, Google is confused about how to distinguish between the two businesses. They share a similar name and a similar enough location that Google sees fit to merge the data. You need to provide Google more signal strength to insure that its algo can discern between the two locations.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 9, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
[...] have one) where they will have 3 locations for one business all geocoded differently or worse will merge two business entities that are still in business into one mixed up record. Or the absolute worst scenario, they have [...]
Pingback by Tectonic Shifts Altering The Terrain At Google Maps — October 14, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Hi every body,
I am new here.
I have the same problem by one of my ads. This is about a Limousine service with different addresses. last time (oct.11.2009 ) as i was searching my ads limoADs were not to see and find!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!at liest one of them was 1-3 located.
In LBC accounts (mine and the owner’s) was all thing ok. I mean status of ads “Active” statistics and diagramme were normal. But the last ad’s activity were on oct.07.2009!! all to gether were stoped without any notification or something else. I saw one of these ads is waiting for verification code(via mail) for more than 8 weeks!!!!
when i was trieng to change them some ads was updated without need of verification but some other are still waiting. any way i just can find 2 of them when i enter the whole ads title and zip code. I don’t know what to DO….. I found out that other limousine service has his office in the wrong address that a enterdby the ad. maybe they had recived my varification letter and sent die informations an “local+pin@gmail.com”. and google think that the bussines is not real? can some one help me? I feel too bad because it was my fault and i did not make mony i just wanted to help the owner
Comment by shawn (14 comments) — October 17, 2009 @ 11:43 am
[...] (165). A minor tweaking of Google’s algorithms can throw businesses into despair, not to mention cause serious problems for [...]
Pingback by Response 5: Google Owns You « Please No Irony — October 20, 2009 @ 11:18 am
[...] for a business, they may be deleted or merged with a “similar” looking business listing within the index until further verification takes place to identify the accurate listing. This can take several [...]
Pingback by Business Owners: Are You Sabotaging Your Own Local Listings? — November 6, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
i tried to correct my business listing and add another business i own with a different phone number, the listings merged and the info crossed over so my website a appeared in business b’s listing and vise versa…i am now waiting for the verification mailer and i hope it comes quick because i am hemorrhaging business…
Comment by jim carr (1 comments) — November 24, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
@Jim
I would (at least temorarily) change the primary details of the second listing to the same primary details as the main listing and remove all enhanced content. If they are going to merge then let there be at least one accurate record rather than two incaccurate ones.
To add a second listing at the same location takes some serious planning to implement.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 25, 2009 @ 9:40 am
My local map listing with google doesn’t show any links or reviews from other local business listings (and I have plenty). I think this is causing me to be ranked lower.
In doing a map search of my business, I always find one extra listing that is unverified but has all the links I hope for. So I go in claim it, edit itand verify it with the PIN, then it ends up merging with my current active listing but all the links disappear. Then once again a second unverified listing shows up with all the linking. I have been through this process 3 times.
You’re the only one who can help Mike.
Joe
Comment by Joe (30 comments) — November 25, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
@Joe
You need to track down where the extra listing is coming from and why they trust it more than yours.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 25, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
First of all, I noticed in the initial cases the number of shared letters in the name seems to be significant. For example: The Inn on Lake Superior vrs. South Pier Inn.
Inn=Inn and South = Su…o Pier= Peri Su…o + Peri =Superio, which makes Inn Superio = Inn on Lake Superior
As a test, I fixed one merging problem by changing one branch of Tucson Computer Repair to Broadway Computer Repair.
Recently I have noticed that geographically close branches of a company using the same telephone number might or might not be merged. I follow four branches of a company which share two phones. Two of the companies merged two didn’t. This all suggests that the merging algorithm takes into consideration a lot of relative factors, each assigned certain mathematical values. When the combined sum goes over the top Zammo! they merge.
Comment by Boruch Fishman (12 comments) — December 2, 2009 @ 7:59 am
@Boruch
That is consistent with the clustering patent
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — December 2, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
[...] featuring merged listing information also raised quite an outcry among SEO’s and SMB’s numerous times throughout the year, [...]
Pingback by Year In Review: Local Search & Maps — December 31, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
[...] job of writing about Google’s ongoing problems with spam, hijacked listings, and general technical incompetence than you. So Google’s local track record is far from perfect … [...]
Pingback by Loci2009: Matt McGee’s Most Important Developments in Local Search for 2009 | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — January 11, 2010 @ 7:01 am
[...] Mike Blumenthal: Google Maps: Manic Merging of Business Listings due to Algo Change [...]
Pingback by April ‘09: Best Search/Marketing Posts — February 7, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
I stumbled across this post from another blog I was reading. I find the information in this post very disturbing. I am in an extremely competitive business in a large city (NYC) and the last thing that I need is to have my information merged with some competitors info in Google maps. As a small business owner we have enough to do already and you would think that a company with the technology that Google has that they would be able to get things right. I can understand a mistake here and there but what I’m getting from this post and the comments is that this is a problem that is wide spread. I guess I’m going to have to take out some time from my busy day and do some research now and see how this is affecting my business as I can see how it is highly probable that this is happening in my industry with the amount of competitors that I have.
Comment by Charles (4 comments) — February 11, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
[...] are listed adjacent to each other on a web page that Google does not parse correctly and will, like listing mergings, cause hard feelings amongst close [...]
Pingback by Google Maps: Citation Conflation or Where have my Citations Gone? | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — February 26, 2010 @ 6:01 am
If anyone is listening at Google Maps, it’s March 2010, almost a YEAR on from the initial posting, and it’s STILL happening.
- I have several businesses registered at different street addresses
- These separate businesses have separate websites
- Diverse contact emails pertain to each business
- I had separate Google Maps accounts made for each business/site/etc
- My name seems to be the only common denominator on these sites/listings
But STILL all my diverse business information is a pot luck of whatever Google thinks it should tell them. To boot, it says that this information has been verified by the business owner. My different businesses all attract distinctly different markets, but now a specific search will provide potential clients with totally inaccurate information, and they’ll move on until they get what they’re looking for.
It’s like searching for plumbers, clicking the link that reads ‘locksmiths’ and getting sent to a bakery website.
GOOGLE PLEASE SORT THIS OUT. There must be human control that is allowed if humans are the ones who make the profiles in the first place.
Comment by Chris (111 comments) — March 13, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
@Chris
The algo to merge and purge uses language as well as other signals to determine what should be merged. For example the longer the Business name the more likely it is for this to happen.
I don’t have a complete picture of your situation but I would posit that to some extent you are stretching the limits of what Google can do and wants to do. ….by defining these distinct market segments as different businesses it appears (at least on the surface) that you are attempting to define markets as businesses to gain an advantage in Maps…
You may see a huge distinction in your activities but obviously Google does not and to be frank when I looked at your sites, I did not. Its like saying that the local plumber (who does most of his work on site like you do), that installs hot water tanks AND geothermal piping deserves to have two business listings in Maps…
Even if you are not attempting to “game” the system, the reality of Google’s technology is such that you would be better off with one clean listing that describes everything you do rather than 3 (or however many) all mixed up.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — March 13, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
@Chris
Have you tried creating new accounts instead of the merged/ suspended ones?
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — March 13, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Question for you Mike since you seem to know a lot.
I work with a few businesses that want to optimize their google business listing. Problem is they want it done now and it takes a while for the pin to be sent via snail mail since their listing is unclaimed.
What if I created a new optimized listing and then once the pin came in go into the old listing and make it identical minus pictures and video?
Right way to do it or wrong?
Comment by Darrin (3 comments) — March 17, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
@Darrin
Not all listings require a post card. In fact most, if google has good corroborating data, will allow phone verification. You could do it your way, it just seems like more work in many cases. I don’t imagine it would hurt anything
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — March 17, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
Mike, thanks for all the useful insights. Here is one observation I’d like to share and get your perspective on:
Merging businesses doesn’t seem to be just a random, proximity based algo. Could it be that Google (as Yahoo and others) has a directory of businesses registered with the city, post office etc. and based on whether the business is listed there or not the merging takes place to eliminate ‘fake’ businesses?
thanks
Comment by Uwe (8 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
@Uwe
I would assume that Google uses every available signal to 1)reduce dupes and 2)purge fakes. What we don’t know is what those signals are nor how accurate the algo is. Signals like business filings, whois records, phone company records, utility company records are all available and likely to be used by Google.
But if they “squeeze” too much they will be removing a whole gamut of home based businesses and less formal entities that operate with a cell number, no dba and a home address. I don’t really know where and when they draw the line….
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Got another question for you Mike. What happens when someone uses a mail box at somewhere like a UPS store? Does Google kill the listing or merge it?
Comment by Darrin (3 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
PO Boxes and commercial equivalents are prohibited by the business listing guidelines.
In the case of PO Boxes Google generally buries the listing. If they “know” about a UPS store they will do the same thing. If they don’t know about it they will allow the listing into the cluster BUT there is a strong likelihood that visible listings there will be merged particularly if there are two businesses in a similar field.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
@Darrin,
UPS address can work as stand alone locations. So far Google is not specifically filtering them out. Watch how you use phone numbers though, that alone could force a merge if the business uses a UPS address to obtain an extra location in nearby city, or something like that, but are using the same phone number in both locations. Addresses may be unique, but identical phone numbers can be enough to trigger a merge.
Some feel the spam hammer my be coming down on the use of UPS addresses, and it would be a super easy filter to apply, but there are many home based businesses and other location independent businesses (contractor with van and cell phone) that are using UPS locations, or virtual offices, as their ONLY reasonable means of obtaining a physical address. So I’m not so sure Google will take such a wide swipe at UPS box users as a whole. But who knows, they just might.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
@Stever
Google has been very explicit with me that UPS address is verboten…if they are not actively filtering yet as you point out, they soon will be.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Ok then, a surge in volume for the Virtual Office industry is coming next
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
It makes it a bit difficult because I know a guy who does AC repair and plumbing and is going state wide. How do you promote your services in other cities without having a wasted space of an office?
I guess virtual office is the next route. Anyone know if that works?
Comment by Darrin (3 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Yes the phone number thing is a problem. I have one location in Marina del Rey that keeps merging with another one of my locations in Santa Monica. They fixed one issue and another one arose. I am so busy I have not had time to report this one yet to G.
I have to assume it is because I used the same number for both stores. Anyone have another theory?
Comment by panzermike (225 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Phone number is the key. Change it!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Virtual offices are much more “legit” than UPS boxes. They are a true location with an actual human at the reception desk. Many businesses use virtual offices for various reasons, and have done so long before there was a Google Maps. Lawyers and other professional use them a lot to meet with clients in other cities. Besides getting an address to use, with a receptionist to direct people, mail forwarding, etc…, you also get to rent the conference rooms if and when needed.
They are however a bit more expensive than UPS boxes. They are also less likely to be available, or even exist, in some smaller cities and towns.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — March 18, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Hi Mike: Thanks for all of the great input. I, too, am in the same boat. In a building with different suites at the same address. Everything is merged and although all of my info, review, etc. appear, my competition’s website is active link on the listing. It is killing my local business.
So, my idea (and what I’m hoping for feedback on). I am located at a cross street…corner of 48th and 135th. My address is 4800 – 135th ave. I am going to create a new listing but list my address as 13500 – 48th ave. It is a fictional address (so no other business at this address), and comes up as the right location on Google Maps. I will also use my second line or cell number in the add and have secured a new domain name. I am trying to change as much info as possible from my merged listing. Will also be using a new domain name.
Is this a realistic option? It’s like starting all over again, but Google doesn’t seem interested in fixing the merge so I don’t see what other option I have.
Thanks Mike!!
Comment by Christopher (5 comments) — April 16, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
@christopher
I think it is a bad idea. Your business location is what gets ranked and it needs the support of the whole local ecosystem to achieve its real potential. Changing your address for this one purpose is counterproductive.
What are the business titles of you and the company with which you are merging that are being used in Google? Is it possible that both of you, in search of higher ranking, added similar keywords to your business name? If so that could very well be the cause of the merging.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — April 17, 2010 @ 4:35 am
Mike: Thanks for the prompt reply!
My situation is a little different than most. The business address, name and phone number are the same with me and my competition. I own the business, lease, phones, numbers, etc. I have sub-contractors who are also independents, so we all share the same physical location, etc. It just turns out, as someone mentioned earlier, Google merged everyone’s information, reviews, etc., but also picked a website to be dominant (which is one of my sub-contractors and not mine). So, I need a solution to ramp up the business I’ve lost due to the merging.
One thing to keep in mind, I’m a medical provider who does business face-to-face with a customer base within 50 miles. Online sales don’t apply, so local traffic is my bread and butter.
Based on Googles lack of response over the past year, I can’t rely on them to undo bad merges, so I need to come up with another solution.
I plan on re-launching my website with a new domain name, new look, etc., and will be launching a big local campaign based on the new site. But I need to make sure with all the work I plan on doing, the new site, info etc. doesn’t end up merged with the other mess. What do I need to change to make sure this doesn’t happen? I plan on launching the new site based on my name rather than my business name, and plan on using a different phone number (one of the other phone lines in the office) and different email address. Is that enough? If I use the same address as my sub-contractors, all else being different, do I still stand the risk of being merged?
I don’t have the mental energy to have to do this a 3rd time, so I need to get it right this time around.
Thanks again!
Comment by Christopher (5 comments) — April 17, 2010 @ 11:11 am
Christopher
There is a way to do it right. But without full information about the locations AND lots of time, very difficult to summarize here.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — April 17, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
OK. How do I go about getting the information? I really want to make sure this is done right.
Thanks!
Comment by Christopher (5 comments) — April 17, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
@Christoper
just couple of suggestions-
1. You can register a DBA that will present your service & name (that way it’ll be much more unique & Local SEO oriented).
2. Try to use your current address + a suite # (or something like that) with your listing.
3. Each & every detail that will differ you from others is holly (ph. #, key words, categories, custom Attributes, year of establishment, operate hours, etc.., etc..).
All the above will definitely help!
Be strong (& VERY creative!)
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — April 18, 2010 @ 3:17 am
Mike – are you aware of another major issue that seems to have cropped up to coincide with these recent algo changes. With the intention of deleting a listing out of an LBC account, choosing the “Remove this listing from my Local Business Center account”, the listing was deleted from Maps altogether! More than three weeks have transpired with no resolve. Ouch! In a second case, with the intention to move a listing from one business owner acct to another LBC acct, the same was done and in this case, the listing still appears in Maps but the “Owner Verified” lock out remains. So the owner can’t even reclaim his business under another LBC account. These two separate issues are new in my experience and have resulted in major proplems for the business owners. Not sure you are aware as yet but would certainly value your thoughts.
Comment by Jim Ryan (39 comments) — April 18, 2010 @ 9:36 am
@Christopher,
Like puresheer mentioned, add a suite # to the addresses so they become unique. AND, this is extremely important, each listing (yours and your sub-contractors) MUST be using unique phone numbers.
You said “The business address, name and phone number are the same with me and my competition.” That is the problem. Address and phone numbers are the primary location signals Google has to work with. Business names and categories are not as important. Think of a chain of fast food restaurants where name, descriptions, categories would be the same but they have 3 location across the same city. Their listings don’t merge if they each use unique addresses and phone numbers.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — April 18, 2010 @ 11:45 am
My business Ferguson moving and storage Ltd. is located at 1584 columbia st north vancouver V7J 1A4
a competitor Ellis Moving and Storage is at 1580 Columbia St North Vancouver V7J1A4
My business ranked at the top and the competitor didn’t rank at all. Now it’s their name, my website their phone number, mixed photos from both of us…it’s nuts.
It’s been 1 week and my fear is does google give my great ranking to them? It’s really confusing for clients who just want to call us. THey get another company!
Comment by Lorne MacInnes (1 comments) — August 27, 2010 @ 2:21 am
[...] Algo. He noted that sometime this quarter, Google will be rolling out a service solution to the long standing problem of two listings merging. It doesn’t appear that mergings will cease but rather that, once [...]
Pingback by Google Places to Rollout Repair Option for Merged Listings | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — January 18, 2011 @ 8:42 am