Comments on: Google Changes Guidelines AGAIN!

By: Blackpool

Blackpool — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:31:13 +0000

Point Taken….

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:21:41 +0000

@BB

speaking of gaming in would appreciate if you would use your name or a handle

By: B&BinB

B&BinB — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:06:54 +0000

At the end of the day until google start policing this properly then people will try and game the system by kw stuffing.

Given the clear disadvantages against it who can blame them?

By: earlpearl

earlpearl — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:39:20 +0000

Mike: Every so often I am struck by how little penetration Google Local Business Center has: I suppose if G’s LBC has little penetration than Yahoo, bing, and so many web marketing entities have little penetration.

Looked at the top 15 listed restaurants in google maps for restaurants and dentists, using a local phrase.

3 businesses had claimed their local listings. 3. Not much penetration.

surpprising!!

By: Unleashed

Unleashed — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:55:31 +0000

I recently had a client (who does local search) call me and ask why his Google LBC account has been suspended. I checked through my records and found that he was severely stuffing his LBC title(s) with things like ‘founded in 1982′ etc etc.

I’m a little disappointed that Google has adopted the ‘proper business name’ stand point. I very much liked the idea that I could tell a consumer about my business by putting extra information in the title tag, much like an optimized website.

By: Get a keyword stuffed Google Map listing with a virtual office thrown in for free! | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:01:23 +0000

[...] for chutzpah. PanzerMike, never one to let a potential spamming competitor sneak through & frustrated by Google’s spam fighting efforts, sent me this [...]

By: Pete Mason

Pete Mason — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:10 +0000

I’d agree with Michael D about company endings (LLC, Inc in the US; Ltd, PLC here in the UK). These are a part of the “full legal business name”, but just provide extra noise (and little value) when a searcher is scanning the listings. Does Google expect us to include these?

By: panzermike

panzermike — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:20:09 +0000

Well the reporting form is a pain in the ass and requires you to list things like the fake number, the real number, the fake name, the real name, the fake url, the real url, even if there is only one, or NONE of these issues. If not, it won’t send.

My guess is many like me, just gave up reporting due to the hassle the new form gives. My current issues simply dont get resolved in the forums no matter how many times I ask for help so I am still left coming here.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:23:31 +0000

Yea I too am cheering for them but it often seems to be two steps forward and 1.5 steps back. Like the one box issue

By: Paul Sherland

Paul Sherland — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:29:23 +0000

I’m sure you’re right Mike. I’m also wondering if Google is a little more tolerant of listing quality violations in organic listings from businesses that are also PPC clients. I was wondering if anyone has noticed a trend in that direction.