Update: It appears that Google is rolling out the new integrated local that I started writing about in July. They have been reported in Europe and are being reported as widely visible in the US. This was first written in August but it is essentially still valid today.
******
Since the beginning of July I have been writing about Google’s test to radically change the display of local search results on the main search results page. Miriam Ellis of Solas Design decided she really wanted my opinion not just my screen shots:
I’d like to ask the million dollar question, though: what do YOU think of this? In your mind, would this represent an improvement for users/business owners, a step backwards, something else? I know you like to report all this fascinating news with the measured voice of reason, but I wouldn’t mind some editorial opinion on this subject from you.
Ok, Miriam, I’ll bite.
While I personally find floating objects annoying, I don’t see many down sides to the local business. I think Google is making an effort to bring forth the most relevant local results and that is good for all.
Benefits:
- Local Results are highlighted on the page and are now more visually obvious than general search results
- Generic directories are pushed down in the SERPS leaving more local results above the fold
- The map floats down the page, not always adding context but always reminding folks to think local
- Ranking, which is always the most interesting to folks, appears to favor local businesses
Negatives (nothing too surprising here):
- Businesses that had two mentions on the front page will now have one
- If a business doesn’t yet have a website they will likely loose out on local search all together
- If they have a poorly designed website with flash or a welcome page that masks the site they will loose standing
- More opportunities for a searcher to visit something other than the business website
Local is all about customer acquisition and not click throughs. While there very well could be fewer website visits I think for the most part, customer acquisition one way or the other will not be altered for most businesses.
But this isn’t just about ranking, whether a business has a website, whether the directories are less visible or that the searcher might go to TripAdvisor instead of the business website. The point that most folks seemed to have missed is that Google is pushing their sentiment analysis to the front and center of the main search results. Is this a benefit or a drawback for local businesses?
Google is attempting to summarize ALL user sentiment about a given business in one sentence and hanging it out there for the world to see on the front page. This can be great for those businesses that have exemplary customer care histories reflected in their reviews. But for those on the margins? Watch out!
Here is a sample search of the test results that demonstrates the potential implication of showing sentiment analysis on the front page (click to view larger):
(To see the full screen shot click here.)
Now compare this result to what a searcher sees of Motel 8 in the current view (click to view larger):
(click here to view full screen shot)
My sense is that a very large percentage of activity around the 7-pack comes from calls. That may or may not still be the case if this new display goes into affect. But at least in this search result, the businesses being called could very well be a different one.
Super 8 has obviously invested in SEO for both organic and local and made all the changes that were necessary to succeed. They have done so because, by complying with Google’s rules, it was worth their while.
Obviously, reviews and review management will only increase in importance in the reality defined by this new SERP.
But imagine a Google defined marketing world where, to do well, a business not only needs to invest in SEO but in customer service upgrades as well.
Mike,
I noticed this view one day while I was looking up a business in the Toronto area. If this the view Google will use, do you see it hurting businesses near the bottom of the 7 pack? (assuming that with more information presented on the search results, that the bottom listings won’t be shown above the fold) I’m not convinced that displaying the map on the side is a good move, especially when the CTR of orgnic is higher than paid ads, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Jackson
Comment by Jackson Lo (8 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
There is a new local organic algo combination. It will hurt businesses that were above the fold and now drop below. The value of winning is all the more.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
pretty buggy stuff here.
1 time the search results are displayed the old fashion way, then with map on the right side, and then with map on the right AND description from the site…
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
@Plamen
They are just rolling across the severs now…. it should stabilize in then next 24 hours or so…. here is a URL that will always show it http://goo.gl/eQA6
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
Dramatic visibility differences. Wonder how it will all play out with businesses and conversions.
Hey, Mike: It makes the role of the local SEO expert far more important. Do you know any good ones?
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
Thanks for all the info, Mike. Things are definitely changing.
Around the time I shot you a message on twitter about seeing the results in Lancaster, there was little to no merging going on in the new listings. One local oral surgeon had 3-4 individual local listings, just as they did on the old style.
Within the past couple of hours, some merging appears to have taken place. Conestogaoms.com changed from three listings to one. Though I notice that they’re appearing in both the local listing (#1 position) and what remains of the organic results (#2 organic) albeit for different pages.
Interesting stuff. Sites that didn’t make the 7 pack but ranked well organically for geo-specific terms (mainly due to location) are taking an absolute beating.
Comment by Bede Fahey (6 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
You know, I actually meant to include an example search for oral surgeons in that comment.
http://bit.ly/bTqnCq
Comment by Bede Fahey (6 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 5:45 pm
@earl yes that it will
@Bede Yes the absolute best spot to be is if you had both organic and local optimized going in. Although it seems that organic can still pull a great local listing down.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
Now if they only add/integrate consumer product search results in there. But please not from Google Product Search DB – useless for offline shopping
Comment by Korrozia (1 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
It’s all well and good that we are ‘abuzz’ here in the industry but what we need to do is get the word out to the SMB’s of the world.
We need to speak their language and stop talking over them. Bottom line is that while this change is truly a “game changer” until the actual business owners are evangelized we will be talking to each other rather than the millions of customers who still don’t know to verify a Place Page.
Comment by Frank Reed (14 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
For those of us who have been catching a glimpse of these changes for some time, I for one thought it would be sooner than later. The lack of places support from G is now rather obvious in that their time was occupied with this needed improvement – change.
I’m excited, change is always good, thanks for your time and input Mike, I appreciate it.
–Dennis
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
My observation on the floating map is one of puzzlement, why would Google cover up their PPC money making ad’s?
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — October 27, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
So far it is only for chrome, where i’m seeing it. Are they going to bring it to all browsers?
Comment by karl kleinschmidt (1 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 12:22 am
Yes i confirm the new integrated Local Search results also in ITALY
Comment by Luca (9 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 3:34 am
“Place Search” ist now live in Germany too:
http://blog.kennstdueinen.de/2010/10/place-search-neue-lokalen-branchenergebnisse-auf-google-de/
I saw here all four types of SERP layout, which Andrew Shotland reported in his Blog…
Comment by Sebastian (24 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 5:40 am
@karl I am seeing changes in Firefox. While it may be coincidence it seemed that when i clicked on the Places link on the left side nav of the Google homepage that seemed to ‘trigger’ it. Like I said it may have been a coincidence.
Comment by Frank Reed (14 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 8:05 am
Am I missing something, or has this killed any notion for getting high placement for a local business that services a particular city without actually having a physical location there? I see the potential for huge slides for a lot of the clients I do local SEO for… =(
Comment by Brian Hancock (2 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Hello All!
First off, a big thank you to Mr. B for his excellent insight on the Goog! Your blog is incredibly helpful and spot on!
@Karl – Changes are appearing on all browers, but I believe they are still being rolled out across all servers. In my office we do not have static IP’s and some computers are showing new Places layout and some are not regardless of the browser.
@Dennis – i agree with your comment regarding the floating map covering the PPC ads. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but hey who are we to judge?
@Frank Reed – I agree, but as you said, most people STILL don’t know what the Places means to SMB’s. The changes really only affect those SMB’s who are currently utilizing the service or have SEO companies helping them.
For one thing, I think this could actually HELP our industry by weeding out those fly-by-night companies who jumped on the Maps Optimization band-wagon and are out there spamming companies for their service at $20 a month! With the new changes you truly have to be entrenched in traditional SEO as well as Places SEO to truly deliver for your clients. I am still on the fence on whether or not I like the layout though. I think it is a little confusing for consumers. It will definitely hinder the “phone call” aspect of local search.
Comment by Zelick Gimelstein (5 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 10:37 am
P.S. There are still a TON of “buggy” stuff going on in regards to the layout. Organic listings mixed in with places listings, etc. There appears to be no rhyme or reason at present and I hope that it settles into one, consistent layout.
Comment by Zelick Gimelstein (5 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 10:40 am
While Google is certainly living in its own little world when it says that we “won’t be seeing any more map spam” I am noticing some hugely positive changes where spammy listings are ranking much more poorly. I’m going to assume that the majority of this comes from the fact that a spammy “strong” listing doesn’t necessarily mean a well optimized site.
Comment by Bede Fahey (6 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 10:46 am
@Dennis
There never is an excuse for bad customer service…
The sliding map as implemented is actually less disruptive than in the tests as the page now appears to move leaving the map static… who knows the impact it (and Boost) will have on PPC… Matt McGee thinks it will drive the cost per click up.
@Sebastien and Luca
Thanks for reporting in from Europe. It is nice to know that it is there and that Google didn’t leave you behind
@Brian
Long tail organic results from the burbs seem to be impacted on the surface…. I am wondering though whether a strong organic ranking might actually give them a pin on occasion?
@Zelick
They are still rolling out today… and yes, Google will make its own decision about the affect that it has on PPC… in the end they may very well profit more.
I can imagine the agony that Local only optimizers are now facing. Either they have to learn organic real quick or they are toast.
As to the phone call aspect… you might be right but I think Google will deal with at some point. In mobile they now have call completion as an integral part of the mix..
And yes it is still quite buggy
Thanks to all for your comments. I really appreciate the insights from around the world!!!!!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 10:48 am
@Mike do you notice the disappearance of the User Content section?
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 10:55 am
@Plamen
Right you are!!!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 11:02 am
@Mike
I am still in the dark ages when it comes to my mobile phone, (shame on me, I know). Is the Maps or Places app still the same? This is an integral part of local optimization for those businesses and biz professionals who count on incoming phone calls for new business (i.e. lawyers, insurance agents).
I believe that mobile search is hugely important for the SMB and am curious to know if the App has changed.
Comment by Zelick Gimelstein (5 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 11:27 am
wow this is heavy, quite funny that I just did some work for a company and got them to number 1 on all of their search terms in Local, got paid – now this happens and they’re f*cked! I did tell them them their organic SEO needed lots of work, this echoes those sentiments but I doubt they’ll be happy hearing it!!!!!!!!!
Comment by John Parkes (8 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 11:58 am
@Zelick
Mobile has not changed over to the new Places on my iPhone (android anyone?) but Local and Maps have been split there for some time
@John
Do I get a commission?
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
@ Mike; you really should – you taught me so much!
Comment by John Parkes (8 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
Excuse my language but this is crap specifically for the reason that Google local has so much work to do in not allowing companies to spam the local listings and even getting it wrong where you take the necessary steps to make your local listing show up but it doesn’t even show up. Mike you know what I mean. I might sound contradictive here but I do like the way it looks, there’s more coherence to the way the results are displayed but unless Google is actually able to stop companies from creating multiple listings for one business and not allow verifiable businesses to have listings then Google is essentially making their results un-relevant.
Comment by Donovan (6 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
so does this mean that places is now going to grab results in some aspect from a users website?
im seeing a client go from page 4 (number 42) on google places to number 1 in the 7 pack!
all the info from the listing is directly from the clients website
Comment by dave (81 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
@Dave
For many searches, yes.
@Donovan
The spam results are yet to be determined. One thing working in Google’s favor is the extra layering of filtering honed by the organic folks… we’ll see but I expect that some will get thru. How much is the question.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
@Zelick
Google has just announced an upgrade to Google Maps for Android where you’ll see that Place pages on Android Maps share the same new design for displaying reviews as used by Place pages on your computer.
This upgrade occurred in Places for the desktop on 10/15 with the organo-local results showing up on the 27th… so they aren’t far behind.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Yikes! It’s like a 8.0 earthquake just rumbled thru the Local listings. What a delightfully dramatic Thursday! I’m seeing the new layout in many cities across the US. Sometimes the map scrolls down, sometimes not.
I’ve got some customers that just got HOSED. Looks like I’ll be needing to drink some serious coffee and investigate this. But it’s the IYP’s that really are getting the shaft. I guess that’s why Google is highlighting the 3rd party reviews so prominently. Wow. They must be scrambling big time.
Mike, when do you figure the buggy-ness will settle down and do you expect the SERPs to get tweaked more in the coming days/weeks or is what we are seeing what it will be?
I’m looking forward to your future usual in-depth posts about the specific changes in ranking factors (and what we can do about it). Is it likely that this major change will be followed by a series of smaller updates too? Kindof like aftershocks?
I might need to put some booze in my coffee.
Thanks for the post!
~ Jeffrey
Comment by Jeffrey Magner (82 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
@Jeffrey
If you look at the analysis that I did a while back you can see the effective merging of standings between local and organic in the new results.
The reality is that now, to do well, some one needs a well optimized site AND a well optimized local listing. Doing well in just the local arena is no longer enough.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
Mike: One quick observation: Last December you allowed one of my “rants” about volumes of reviews to be printed here: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2009/12/11/google-maps-and-reviews-a-readers-perspective/
At that time I noted that a dentist was ranking first in the 7pac for a search phrase that included dentist(town name) for 2 searches for 2 adjacent town names. At that time the dentist had 49 reviews which was significantly higher than those of anyone else. Most of the reviews were generated through a communications system developed by Demandforce.
More recently I performed the same searches. The dentist in question had well over 150 reviews…and was ranking 1st in the 7pac in the town in which the office was located…and 2nd in the 7pac for the adjacent town.
I looked at the rankings today with the integrated orano-local rankings.
The dentist in question had over 170 reviews. The site was ranked 2nd in the organo-local mixed rankings in the town in which the office was located. The office was not seen in the adjacent town on the first page.
In fact I had to go to the third google page to find the dental office in question in rankings when using a search for dentist (town name) . No maps on the 2nd or 3rd pages of organic google.
I haven’t done anything but a cursory glance at the rankings. Haven’t bothered to dig deep into the “signals” that might generate high rankings or look at the depth of organic seo that might support the website in simple organic levels….but the aspect that had stood out most dramatically as of last December, relative volume of reviews compared to others….seems to have been “dialed down” from a strictly simple observation basis…between last December and more recently.
More vividly from a simple observational basis….without heavy research…The current “Organo-Local mixed rankings” seem to have mitigated the impact of Google Places rankings by organic factors….both in the town in which the office is located and in the adjacent town; dramatically so with regard to the adjacent town.
What to take from all that? After all it is just a cursory look.
It certainly falls in line with comments you made back in July wherein this test of “organo-local” started….and you noted the mixture of G Places and organic ranking factors.
Not good for the dentist in question; that is for sure. Also not good for demandforce and other services that generate huge volumes of reviews. It appears that there was some “dialing back” on volume of reviews impact in G Places in any case between last Dec and more current perspectives….that is especially vivid in that the dentist in question had 49 reviews in Dec and over 170 now—and the relative difference in volume of reviews had grown exponentially.
I’ve maintained that current (or recent) Google Places has been a heavily spammable algo. It reminds of organic google say 6 or 7 years ago.
I suspect G Places on its own is still quite manipulative. On the other hand, where G Places is most visible and used is through organic searches in Google.com. Direct traffic to maps.google is still slim. Within maps the dentist in question ranks first in the town in which it is located and 2nd in the adjacent town as it did in the 7 pacs just 2 days ago.
That is no longer the case where most people search. Its a significant difference. It may well be an effective mechanism to combat some of the manipulative elements that made the 7 pacs so controversial and problematic.
Very fascinating. I’ve been one of the loud mouths that’s been screaming fix the 7 pac Possibly some out of the box thinking did it by combining organic and G Places algo’s.
Amazing!!!
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — October 28, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
here’s my findings on a Property Website I’m developing:
As of 26 October my search engine results were (local position / natural position):
tenerife property – E / 52
property tenerife – E / 65
property in tenerife- E / 58
property for sale in tenerife – A / 31
tenerife property sales – B / 76
property sale tenerife – A / 49
property sales tenerife – B / 90
Now this has happened:
tenerife property – E / 53 (results are still split into local then organic)
property tenerife – E / 69 (results are still split into local then organic)
property in tenerife- E / 61 (results are still split into local then organic)
property for sale in tenerife – 3 (results are mixed together)
tenerife property sales – 75 (results are mixed together)
property sale tenerife – 53 (results are mixed together)
property sales tenerife – 93 (results are mixed together)
so because the site did well in the LOCAL results previously but not in the organic results (it’s a newish site) it has now been hit for six by the adding together of the 2 listings in comparison to estate agents who have been around for years and were either:
good at local / ok at organic
ok at local / good at organic
ok at local / ok at organic
So clearly I need to work on the websites organic results as the only term it’s stayed up high in the “property for sale in Tenerife” term, which coincidently is the URL…….
I’m sure when the mixing of results hits the “Tenerife property” terms the site will be toast (good terminology Mike).
Lots of old fashioned SEO for me ahead!
Comment by John Parkes (8 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 9:25 am
@Mike:
I have a question that has kept slipping my mind. Do you believe that Google will integrate the “Maps” module with the “Places” module? I notice that the “Maps” module results are different than the “Places” results in that it seems as though the listing optimization carries more weight. Your thoughts? Thanks!
P.S. Commish check is in the mail
Comment by Zelick Gimelstein (5 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 10:31 am
@Zelick
I have been contemplating this for a while. I can think of a number of reasons that Places will continue to grow in distinction from Maps. I think the change irrevocable and will become more so going forward for both user and economic reasons. See this post from May
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 10:39 am
This is unreal, the changes are so sudden business and people are going to be rip sh.t. I think Google is crazy to just change the algo so quick.
Comment by crg (1 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 11:11 am
I noticed the impending change last month as it seems Google might have updated the look of the SERPs for some users (?) before making it universal.
I was bouncing out of my seat when I saw it and was disappointed when I realised that it was not universal yet. This change has put a client in a great position.
I am glad that the company website has become a more important factor.
I don’t know if this is all roses. But for me, right now, this is just great.
Comment by Taiyo (10 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
@Taiyo
I think for most people taking an integrated approach to optimization, on both organic and local, the results are positive. Google has been signaling this change since tests in early July and results repeatedly showing up around the US and I assume the world…
I wouldn’t want to be a Local Only shop at this point, that’s for sure.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Seems like great news for us in both the organic and local seo worlds.
Comment by Taiyo (10 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
@Mike
I’ve analyzed my customers Places pages and found that the ones who ranked high in organic with a low ranking Places page now have both Places & Organic ranking high. It hurt my clients who had decent Places listings but their SEO campaign was fairly new and no results were found on page 1 organic. Now they are not in the maps on page 2 anymore.
I also noted a little algo that dealt with the images being displayed in the SERPS. On normal 7 pack listings it takes 4 of the businesses to have images in order for Google to display images in the SERPS. This is very important since you can customize your GPP listing to display the image you want. This seems like more businesses will take advantage of optimizing their default image to increase CTR. Imaging having a business with an enormous Yellow Tag as their image. This would draw the searcher’s eye to that listing in the same intended way Google Tags does.
I didn’t not any changes in the Authoritative 1-Pack but did notice that if the majority of the 7-pack listing were unverified Google didn’t integrate them into the SERPS (Prolly due to unfair competition).
Long story short, this new rollout greatly benefited our clients rankings since they all had well positioned website in the organic side and had optimized and verified Places pages. They now mostly all sit at the top of the search results for searches that have some sort of geographic intent.
Try the search “Florist San Francisco” it yields a 7 pack similar to the one prior with the new floating map. But now try the search “Florist San Francisco, CA”, it integrated those results into the organic… Could this be due to proven geographic intent? In the old SERPS those search terms generally yielded the same map results, why the sudden change?
Comment by Kyle Kazak (26 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
This relationship between Place Page placement and organic SEO on a site is not even close to being a hard and fast rule. It is situational and is likely to be happening in the most competitive spaces. I have seen results (hyperlocal) where that relationship doesn’t play out at all.
Comment by Frank Reed (14 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
…sigh…and here I figured I’d have a month or two to learn more about this BEFORE g.ca got the same Google BLEND (my term for this merged algo/layout style)..
it’s here as of this am…and I’ve been playing with same almost all day.
oh. if you’ve a sec, go to g.ca and plug in “plumbers in Toronto” — note the new BLEND style.
then try “laundromats in Toronto” — see any diff? I do, as I now get a top-mounted 7-Pack but the floating right hand side map is still there…
sigh…too much to learn too quickly…sigh…but aint’ that an SEO’s life!
Jim
Comment by Jim Rudnick (164 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Hey Jim,
I’m seeing that as well and in some cases, still the old layout. My speculation is that they are still in a “Live” test mode and we the practitioners, are seeing all there is to see.
I always keep in mind that the everyday searcher is often clueless or simply figures out what to do when presented yet another Google layout…
–Dennis
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Gonna reiterate what Frank Reed said way at the top. Its important to get the word out of smbs abt claiming a listing and how all this works and what is important.
A couple of other observations:
A screwy local record is now more prominent.
A search for Dentist DC (washington dc) turns up a highly ranked site with the dentists office merged with a prominent dental review site. The dentist never claimed his listing. It can’t help his business. its a very mixed message.
A search for hotels Arlington VA turns up a record for Ronald Reagan National Airport. Now that is wierd. It was ranked 2nd in the 7pac before the change. Now the Airport record is pushed down a bit.
But it sticks out more than in the The 7 pac before. The goofy result is faar more visible to more people.
Screwy records that rank high for some reason will be more obvious than before. Its a bigger reason for records to be claimed.
In the case of the unclaimed airport record, for some reason one of the categories is airport.
It makes the google algo look stupid. More reason for google to effect a change on the claimed record with the airport webmaster.
One other observation: I’ve a business with a high ranking (currently top 3) for the generic industry term (no geo modifier) for the business site.
Over time market research has suggested that about 50% of searches for a local business never show a geo modifier.
Now when you search for the industry term from any suburban location that rings the city; The business site shows incredibly strongly with organic page(s) and a very visible “record” with a picture, reviews, the places page, etc. That is great IMO. Hopefully it drives tremendously more traffic for the phrase. We’ll see over time.
I suspect Google will adjust ppc placement over time. Right now I’m seeing cases with no ppc on top, 1 ppc record, and sometimes up to 3–but not 3 all the time.
I agree with Matt McGee. I think it will cause a massive price bidding war and Google will win.
One other thing I’m seeing is a bit of “sandwhich” records….with some organic records on top and then the “blended “with tear drop letters beneath them. the ones I’m seeing have directory sites on the top.
Google could be “nice” to the directories and position directories above the “blended records”. Again, we’ll see over time.
I repeat again what Frank Reed said: Get smbs to claim their records. It’ll keep wierd results from appearing in prominent places.
Don’t stop thinking about Local impacts…but I’d really start thinking organically!!
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Wait a minute…where did the user content section disappear? That is big news. Please explain.
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
Hi Mike
I took a few days off to recharge and got back to work today to find 90% of my “Local” client’s listings are showing top 3 results for most of their competitive kw’s. All of them have a combo of organic SEO as well as Local SEO. I have to say I like this blend… so far.
What’s really cool is I see a ‘compounding’ of Local and organic effect at work (as you’ve suspected since July) . For example, I have a relatively new client who has a muti-discipline health centre in one of the suburbs of Vancouver; the client’s site was optimized for Local without focusing too much on any ‘one’ discipline (so the citations focused on “health centre” and “health clinic” more-so than any one health discipline such as “Chiropractor”.
As for organic SEO, I’d only just started to optimize the site, with “Chiropractor name-of-city” being the only kw properly optimized.
Prior to the recent Local algo changes, the search term “Chiropractor name-of-city” did not provide a 7 pac result, and showed a consistent 7 in the organic results.
Since the Local algo change I’m seeing a consistant ‘C’ search result for “Chiropractor name-of-city.
So the SERP went from a poor Local result and a 7 organic result, to a ‘combined’ search result of ‘C’.
I’d love to know more about what aspects of organic the Local algo is taking into consideration.
*I have the address and phone number on the site’s Chiropractor page, and the new search result is linking back to said ‘Chiropractor page’ (a deep link).
Exciting times
Comment by Andy Kuiper (232 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
@Miriam
User content was the mapping information that was showing at the bottom of the Places page that reflected mymap and geocoded content from across the web that appeared under the “More about Section”. It made the page too long and it was obviously ejected from the display. Do I think that minimizes the importance of geocoded information? no…
@Andy
exciting it is… and in flux… It is not clear to me when/why the 7 pack shows for example. And it appears that non geo modified phrases are showing more local results than before….
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
@Mike – about the the user contents. After some testing (actually, a lot of) I can say that right now they are removed from the algorithm or their importance is minimized. Before Google BLEND I have businesses that outrank the others only with some user contents from Google, communitywalk, flickr, etc. Now they have fallen down a bit.
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
I was just starting to love the old Places…now I have to start a new relationship with her. I know that Google loves to play with technology, so I am on board with that, however I hope that we will return to a portion of the expanded organic listing above the fold.
Comment by Bobbee (3 comments) — October 29, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
Hi Mike,
How do you think the use of service areas will affect rankings in neighboring cities?
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 7:15 am
Mike –
First off, thank you for always staying ahead of the curve and alerting us as to potential future changes. I remember when you brought this potential update to life many months ago. Consequently we scrambled to get our organic rankings higher to prep for this event — and as a result we have maintained our top 3 (now #1 in many cases) overall rank.
Some observations:
1. Has everyone been observing what seems to be a 9-pack listing for # of listings that are combined? As I conduct several tests, it seems every time at the ninth listing Google has the old “More results near >>. Note there are sometimes 10 listings if Google includes a news item in the 9-Pack. After the 9-Pack, I never see any more combined listings.
2. It does seem organic rank trumps Places rank most of the time? I see many times old strong organic listings stay at the top even #1, while many valid highly ranked Places listings are gone. I can’t find a single instance where high Places rank/low organic rank led to a high placement, but there are many instances where organic rank trumped Places rank.
That’s it for now!
Comment by JeffM (2 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 8:20 am
What I don’t understand is the organic portion of this. Will they rank deep pages on your web site? How should you be optimizing for SEO? I suppose it’s just business as usual.
Also how will this effect optimizing your places page? Is it still worth going after a ton of citations and reviews?
Comment by dave (81 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 9:04 am
@ dave: I’d go after both. I’d especially go after positive reviews. Review totals are going to be seen on the google.com first page if you rank high. sentiment analysis might be seen. Those are eye catching pieces of info.
I’d get pictures into claimed listings. I’d geo code them.
Then I’d do a lot of basic seo
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 10:09 am
Wow, I think google means well, but if a bunch of competitors conspire to bad review you, and google publishes it, so much for “do no harm” ?
Comment by Chris (111 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Ooops – I was confused by the ‘user content’ term. I mixed it up with the sentiment aggregation. Thank you. And it’s very weird that that is gone. Interesting that Plamen feels this has downgraded the importance of this.
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
@Miriam
David, in his post, noted that he felt it was more important… My read on it was that Google originally included all KML, MyMap, GeoData and soon discovered (as much as a year ago) that there was a lot of noise in the totally of geo data and had to rank the geo data… this resulted in the Maps that show on the right side of Places… I think it still counts as part of the geo rank of a place but it is hard to split out the affect.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
mike, thank you for keeping us updated.
has anyone seen any pattern to the following….
types of citations that are doing better than others?
how does number of citations impact?
how does citations in other markets eg canada, australia, uk vary?
thanks
Comment by john (52 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
I’ve gotten hit by all the negatives. I used to have two to three pages listed on the first page. Now only one. Additionally for some reason I have two directories at 1 and 2 placement where I was before. Funny how they get higher placement. There might be some positives to this, but it is almost useless for me to SEO now since location is more relevant now.
Comment by Timothy (1 comments) — October 30, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
Mike: One of the things I’m going to look at closely within Google analytics is traffic from locations and I’ll dig down into the towns and city data.
Suppose I have a plumber in one town with plumbers in other nearby towns. I’m going to want to expand the high rankings for my plumber relative to the nearby towns for any variety of key phrases that work.
I’m going to look at the traffic I’m gaining and losing subject to what communities I’m in and try to expand visibility with higher rankings to a wider geography
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — October 31, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
The new look would seem to be a big plus for people doing local searches.
A few things stand out. First the eye is drawn to those listing with thumbnails and red 7-pack tags. So businesses that don’t have a local listing are at a disadvantage.
Most of all though, the eye is drawn to those 5 stars. Businesses with no reviews or bad reviews can forget about it! Getting good reviews will now be magnified in importance.
Also, some of the listings seem to have a “sponsored” section with a yellow arrow and a link in a lavender background. Is that PPC? What’s the point of putting a PPC link right next to a free organic link?
Comment by Doug (13 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 12:35 am
On Friday I logged into my Google Places (local) dashboard and ALL of the businesses listed were “Rejected” for not meeting quality guidelines.
Today they are all “pending review” (which supposedly could take weeks.)
The listings had been fine for months, now they’re not showing as being claimed/verified at all, and I honestly can’t think of any guideline violations. The timing is certainly suspect.
This happen to anyone else? Any suggestions for what to DO about it?
Comment by Dee (2 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
@Dee
It has been happening to many, many sites. See Google Places And Their New Rejection Algo – It is like 7th Grade All Over Again!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Thanks so much Mike – but if they’re “pending review” right now, can I edit them at ALL? If they were rejected and I didn’t fix them before they were reviewed, won’t they just be rejected again???
Sheesh…
Comment by Dee (2 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
@Dee
If you edit them and they still trigger some part of the algo they amy start the pending process all over again.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Hey Mike!
Lots of chatter on this one, eh! Gotta love the change, keeps us all on our toes.
Out all my clients the ones who had us managing their Google Places Listing and their website seem to have same rankings or better. Now I have few clients where we only managed their Google Places Listing and not their website and they seemed to have dropped off the new 7-Pack or ranking below the fold.
From poking around a lot on this now, I do see almost 90% of the O-pack listings are referening listings that have websites. I have seen some listings still reference Google Places Listing that does not have a websites associated with them.
I think now because they are pulling the Title Tage and Meta Description from the Website it’s essential to have a really well optimized website.
I am also seeing new o-pack title tags change depending on the searched term. Not sure why this is happening…?
Questions:
Now that they show: “Reviews from around the web” before “Reviews from Google Users” do you think having a diversified review profile across many authority review sites holds more weight in the ranking algorithm?
User Content: (aka ‘my maps’) I think it’s still important ranking factor and it looks like it moved to the right side bar of places and it’s called “Related Maps”.
I am curious to know if links matter to your website in your ranking factor now…? I’m not sure yet. I’d love to take a listing that has a good o-pack rankings right now with this new update and add a new website that has no history or links and see if it drops. Then add back in a optimized website with history and links and see if it jumps back up.
It’s obvious the Title Tags matter, but links…? Not sure.
I still the major (most likely) off-page ranking factors are still: reviews, citations & related maps. They have just changed the algorithm to use the website Title Tag instead of Google Places Name because it aligns itself better with how we search online. Great for businesses who have SEO’d websites, not so good for those that do not have a well optimized website.
I’m loving all the extra white space and the image. Now choosing a good image for your Google Places Listing will be essential now that image is being displayed in the SERPs and we could do some pretty cool things with that too.
Comment by matthew hunt (77 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
Mike et all,
I’ve been doing massive testing and reverse engineering for days and have made tons of progress figuring this all out. Have made some pretty interesting discoveries! However, what is driving me crazy is how inconsistent the results are. I have ranking reports due for a ton of clients and can’t see a way to even do them the way things are right now.
How are organic SEOs or Local SEOs going to provide ranking reports for clients with all these “loco” variations of SERPS layouts.
In many searches in my market city+keyword shows the new local merge format (using the new algo) HOWEVER keyword +city, still generates a 7 pack type layout (using more like the old Places algo).
Check Tampa Dentist (new format) then check Dentist Tampa (Old 7 pack format). But then again it’s not consistent. Other big cities show the new format even when you switch the city/kw order.
Certain less competitive terms generate 2 organic, then 3 localMerge (with the new algo), then more organic listings. Some even show 3 localMerge, then 2 organic, then more localMerge.
Whereas certain other less competitive terms still show the old 1, 2, 3 or 7 pack.
Then of course if you click on maps you totally get the old rankings with the old Places algo.
Plus I’ve seen all kinds of other variations in between.
Plus again it changes between cities.
It seems in my market that I’ve been testing, only the more competitive or higher volume search terms show the new localMerge layout. The 2nd tier keywords may or may not show the old or new format – varies by city.
Plus lots of great one box listings or #1 rankings I’ve gotten clients no longer show a map search or any type of localMerge listings at all, even with city +keyword. Even with strong geo intent, only organic show.
So for example, if I do local SEO and my client is D in the local merge format – but there are 3 localMerge listings, then 2 organic, then 4 more localMerge listings… Do I put in my ranking report is he #4 on Local or #6 on the page?
What about folks that used to do organic SEO? Do any of the popular rank checking programs still work? My guess is SEOS are screwed when it comes to providing ranking reports too right now. One organic SEO type I talked was concerned because a bunch of his client’s rankings dropped. But I am almost sure that’s not the case, and the issue is more that AWR can’t properly interpret the new SERPs.
I think Mike and others use Advanced Web Ranking for local results. Has anyone tried it to see how it handles things now?
I’ve been having my secretary do manual ranking reports and she would manually note if there was a 1 Pack or 3 Pack or if a certain term no longer pulled a map search at all. I can’t even figure out how to train her to document all the various types of formats and figure out how to communicate the ranking and type of listing for each type of layout to the client. I emailed clients right away, letting them know that things would be flakey for awhile. I guess I need to tell them I can’t do ranking reports until the dust settles.
Mike do you think things are still in major flux and pretty soon all city + keyword combos will generate localMerge type listings, instead of some still showing old 3 and 7 pack formats?
Do you think they are still testing or this just has not fully rolled out yet?
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Mike do you think things are still in major flux and pretty soon all city + keyword combos will generate localMerge type listings, instead of some still showing old 3 and 7 pack formats?
Do you think they are still testing or this just has not fully rolled out yet?
I have no idea and have also been trying to get a handle on the results. One thought I had is to use AWR to look at AOL as a relatively “pure” view of organic results and a more likely position in the new serps.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
You can also use http://www.squirrelnet.com safe search for a quickie analysis. It still shows the old organic results and if you match with the new layout results order, they are almost identical.
OR this will show the original (old style) rankings too.
http://www.google.com/webhp?esrch=LocalMergeImpl
The 2 options above from my testing show the same thing – the old organic rankings. So are handy for comparative testing.
However still trying to nail down for sure why some of the “old” organic listings that rank high are skipped in the new layout and algo even if they have Place pages. Have it almost figured out, but some inconsistencies remain.
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
@Linda
and your theory is?
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Mike,
I’ve been doing Places and organic SEO for all of my clients, so for their city terms, they’ve done great with this change.
However, for some clients, I also got them ranked in surrounding cities, organically, and that has been a disaster.
In the following post, there’s a video that shows how one client disappeared from the index for surrounding cities when she was on page 1, prior to the algorithm change
Has Google Gone Too Local?</a)
Thanks for the great post and sharing everyone's comments!
Becky
Comment by Becky DeGrossa (6 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
@ Linda –
I also use AWR and here’s what I think is happening with those listings.
Organic rank of 1 really used to mean 8 (the listing after the 7 pak). So in the merge of the Places listing and the Organic listing, AWR may now show a decrease (from 1 to 2), but its really from 8 to 2.
The Places listing didn’t show in AWR (at least I didn’t know how to get it show).
So, if I had a client with an B rank in Places and a #1 rank in organic, its blended the B rank and the #1 (really 8th on the page) rank to be #2 in organic and it looks like my client dropped one. But they really kept their same rank in Places.
Does that make sense?
Becky
Comment by Becky DeGrossa (6 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
@Becky, thanks for weighing in.
“However, for some clients, I also got them ranked in surrounding cities, organically, and that has been a disaster.”
I used to get my clients listed in surrounding towns with their Places listings. And several still are. In fact I have 2 clients that rank for some of the same keywords in Hollywood and neither of them is in Hollywood. They are each in different cities on opposite sides of Hollywood. So it can still be done. Thing is, it only works with 2nd and 3rd tier keywords (that’s what I call them anyway), not core keywords and there’s a trick to it.
Re: AWR your analysis makes sense I think. But I don’t use AWR so a little hard for me to visualize. But sounds like you are very close. I have a friend that does SEO I’ll be sending over to read this.
I was asking more about AWR and the way you used to be able to set it up to do local ranking reports. I think Mike may use it that way. But hearing how it’s currently working with organic SEO is helpful too.
Thanks!
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
I am finding that AWR is not accurately reporting out on the blended results.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
Just found a thread at the AWR forum discussing this. They said they already did a new upgrade that helps with the changes, but users are still reporting mixed results. May want to upgrade or stay tuned to this thread.
http://www.advancedwebranking.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11142
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — November 1, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
@JeffM I’m seeing just the opposite. It seems places rankings trump organic, although I have seen the opposite. I have also seen 2 listings returned, one from the Places Page and one from Web Results. I think everything is still in a state of flux and we still can’t be sure what the final format will look like. Only time will tell.
Having said that, see my next post.
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — November 2, 2010 @ 12:48 am
Hi Mike,
I have been analyzing and reading all day long to try to reach a definite conclusion. I hope you can help. Even “I don’t know” would be a big help so I know that the answer’s not out there. If someone could ask Google, they would know, though.
In Google’s 10/27 announcement for Place Search, they said, “Place Search results will begin appearing automatically on Google when we predict you’re looking for local information. In addition, you’ll find a new link for “Places” in the left-hand panel of the search results page so you can switch to these results whenever you want. For example, when I’m in New York, I love to go out and play foosball, but a search for [foosball] doesn’t automatically show me Place Search results. If I click “Places” I get the new view…….”
One should infer from the above that a search with geo-targeted modifiers will return the new “Place Search Results”, as will clicking the “Places” link on the left nav bar. The additional inference, therefore, is that clicking the “Places” link on the left nav bar will return identical results as a regular search that Google detects as a “Place Search”.
The problem I have with this is that when I perform a geo-targeted search, I get results that include Places (with balloon to the left and included on the scrolling map on the right) and organic with various orderings. When I click on the Places link on the left nav bar I get different results — Places listings first and sometimes after the Places listings “Web Search Results” are included, however, the Web Search Results are returned infrequently. Rankings also shift significantly, luckily most often in my favor. The system seems to take the higher of Places or Organic Results.
For CA I get the above, for Hawaii searches I still see the Places One Box in the search results. If I click the “Places” link on the left nav bar for Hawaii searches, I get listings formatted as described in the prior paragraph. I guess they must be rolling out the algo from East to West.
2 Conclusions –
1) My search experience and many of the unusual experiences described in other comments above are because the system is in a state of flux as the algo is still being implemented and is settling in. We haven’t reached a final result yet and may not for another 30 days or more. Have you ever made several changes to your Places Page and watched how long it takes before it displays correctly?
2) When I click on the Places link on the left nav bar, the results I get are what Google intends the rankings and layout to be for a geo-targeted search using the Google Search Box when the algo is fully implemented.
Would you agree with conclusion #2 ?
It is virtually impossible to plan without knowing the answer to #2 above. I hope we can get an answer as it is critically important for all of us to know so we can assess our situation, understand how our current optimization affects the new algo and implement an SEO strategy that will allow us to maximize results.
Thanks for all your help.
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — November 2, 2010 @ 3:35 am
One more question.
Am I corrrect that the Maps link at the top left of the Search Results Page will be part of the new algo and it will return results for Places Pages as it did in the past? It’s not going away is it?
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — November 2, 2010 @ 4:02 am
@Mathew
Sorry for having your comments buried in the spam.
Related Maps have been there for quite some time and represent the best of the user content (mymaps) data. They continue to play a role
Links have always been important in Local since the ranking of the website is a critical factor in the position of the local listing, they have become more so. Trust me on this, links matter!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 3, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Mike – You mentioned with the negatives in your article that:
“If a business doesn’t yet have a website they will likely loose out on local search all together”
Do think Google is no longer accepting new listings?
Your thoughts and anything else would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jay
Comment by Jay (16 comments) — November 5, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
@Jay
Yes, Google is accepting new listings. With time and work and a website a listing can achieve visibility.
What I meant by that is that in the past, a business could make it to the front page of Google (the only place that really generates customers as it gets 50 times the traffic of Maps/Places) without have a website. The opportunities for a Place listing to get to the front page under the new system are primarily for SMBs that have both a local listing AND a website.
So what I meant was that if a local listing but no website they will loose out on many of the benefits of a highly ranked listing.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 5, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Gotcha. So what you’re saying is if you have a listing in Google Place or if you submit one without a website you won’t show up on the first page. But if you have a website that’s optimized and you submit a new listing and optimize it then you have a good shot at the 1st page depending of course of the competition, correct?
Comment by Jay (16 comments) — November 5, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
If that’s the case then shouldn’t that help us to get new clients on the first page for local terms since it will flush out the Google Places listings without websites?
Comment by Jay (16 comments) — November 5, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
Mike,
Thats something to be seen moving forward with regards to a business rankings on page one of Google without a website.
In the past, clients of mine that had websites and I had control of and was able to make SEO localization changes to, enjoyed tremendous page 1 exposure organically & on the Places Listing whatever pack (1-10). I also tested PPC with some of those clients and realized a direct relationship in map rankings moving up and down on the map listings when ad’s were on & off. It blew me away! (ps, I always called them ad’s, not sponsored listings)
Currently, those same clients are getting the visibility again both naturally and on the new local intent listings on Google.
I do have several client sites that do not have websites and are still receiving visibility on page 1, that’s now and today, no guarantee of what tomorrow will bring. I’m speculating that because they have been in the system and Google I guess has trust in them even though a few do not have a single citation.
Begs the question that we heard before, why do businesses still not have websites?
–Dennis
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — November 6, 2010 @ 8:39 am
@Dennis
For the clients that don’t have websites but are still receiving exposure I have two questions:
1) is the display the new blended display or is the search showing one of the 2,3,5 or 7 packs?
2) Are their dashboard analytics showing as many visits as previously? Or in other words are they showing on as many phrases?
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — November 6, 2010 @ 10:33 am
Been having a real kick outta all this change web results wise from Google….so I put up a quick poll here — http://www.canuckseo.com — to try to figure out what we SEO types “should” call this new layout/design/serp page results….and so far, Mike B is in the lead!
Pls drop by and vote, eh!
Jim
Comment by Jim Rudnick (164 comments) — November 6, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Hey Mike,
1) New Blended, initial search w/ ad’s on top and 3 organic listings then the balloon listings: click on the places link on left nav and pretty much the same minus the ad’s & organic’s: click the map and get 1 ad then balloon pin listings.
2) The analytics are spotty at best and have always not been too reliable for me and as of late and I’ve also noticed that the updates that I have posted recently are not getting updated, last one was 10-24.
-Dennis
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — November 6, 2010 @ 11:36 am
[...] intention to increase the importance of local search. Some keywords have already started showing a combined local and normal search, as you can see in the image here.It seems that businesses will be hampered in optimising for a [...]
Pingback by SEO Trends for 2011 - Search Engine Trends | Marketing Blog | Creative Development — November 7, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
For the organic shuffle, I have noticed that some local searches are returning 6 organic listings following the Places, whereas others only have 3 organic listings…any theories?
Comment by Bobbee (3 comments) — November 9, 2010 @ 2:49 am
@Bobee There has been little stability so as quickly as the theory is formed it is dropped…obviously Google is still testing
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — November 9, 2010 @ 9:04 am
Yes, some serious testing going on. We’ve seen everything including local 10 packs followed by 3 organic and local 6 packs followed by 10 organic.
Question about that blurb of text under the page title tag in the blended results – Sometimes it’s the meta tag description and sometimes it’s the first paragraph of text off the home page. Sometimes there is no blurb even though the website is optimized. Is there any consistency in this element? Is ranking dependent on this blurb being displayed? Why wouldn’t it display?
There has been one fantastic change that seems to be consistent for Mental Health Professionals. Google finally figured this one out! Searches for “Therapist + City” and “City + Therapist” now show consistent results of psychotherapists. 7-packs in the past tended to list a diverse array of therapy modalities – Physical Therapists, Massage Therapists, Occupational Therapists, and Psychotherapists – which made it a poor results page.
Beyond that, if I don’t see some more consistency soon I’m going to need to find a good therapist. At least I’ll know where to look for one.
Comment by Jeffrey Magner (82 comments) — November 9, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
@Jeffrey: Perhaps you could find one that offers “group rates”..Yikes! I am so looking forward to Google waters to calm down, so there is something consistent that lasts at least 5 days in a row. Everything is all over the map (no pun intended)……..
Comment by Dan Lee (11 comments) — November 9, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
[...] of the focus has been directed towards the SEO changes which can be found here , here and here. It is still very early on to make assumptions about the affects this change will have on [...]
Pingback by Google Place Search…what about PPC? | Search Engine Journal — November 10, 2010 @ 9:25 am
[...] of the focus has been directed towards the SEO changes which can be found here , here and here. It is still very early on to make assumptions about the affects this change will have on [...]
Pingback by Google Place Search…what about PPC? | JumpStart eMarketing — November 15, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
I think that the algorithm is settling in and we will see erratic results for 30 to 90 days or more after roll out in an area. The erratic results everyone comments on are to be expected with a change this large.
I’m in the San Francisco area and the New Places Search is here. It’s just started rolling out in Hawaii about a week ago and displays for very few of our keywords. Seems the roll out is taking place East to West and in more densely populated metro areas first. This explains why users in outlying areas are seeing the old Organic Search Results or a mixture of Organic and Places listings. Organic listings before the Places listings or mixed in with the Places listings is definitely not intended. The rollout in the metro areas first is pretty logical.
I, as each of you, wanted to know what the end layout would be so I could start the planning process to adapt to the new algo.
As a result, I decided to check some of the major metro areas and sure enough; the rollout was essentially complete there. About 2 weeks ago I looked at the following –
New York Plastic Surgeons
Atlanta Plastic Surgeons
Miami Plastic Surgeons
Chicago Plastic Surgeons
Houston Plastic Surgeons
San Francisco Plastic Surgeons
Seattle Plastic Surgeons
Each query returned 3 PPC Ads at the top and the New Places Search view with 7 Places listings followed by 2 to 6 Organic listings. These results match the results in the Special Link with an example for “Chicago Museums” that Google provided in it’s announcement on 10/27/2010 — http://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+museums&esrch=LocalMergeImpl::Experiment .
Apparently the number of organic listings is affected by the amount of data that is merged into the Places listings.
The above Search Results for “Plastic Surgeons” is the intended final layout for the New Places Search.
2 weeks ago the maps scrolled for all but the Houston Search Results Page and on Google’s Special Link with the example for “Chicago Museums”. Today I checked and none of the maps scroll. I suspect G has figured out that scrolling maps cover their PPC Ads and will cut into their revenues and they changed it. The other upshot of this is that the panic about massive PPC price hikes is probably not as relevant as before. I think it will still be more important to be in the top 3 spots but not as compelling.
My experience is that rankings for the New Places Search tend to come in as the higher of prior Organic or Maps Search Results and Maps carries more weight. What I mean by this is that a keyword that used to produce a 2nd position on Maps and a 15th (second page) position for Organic will produce a second position for the New Places Search. However, if you reverse it, you may not rank at all for the New Places Search. So if I used to have a 2nd position for Organic and was on the second page or later in Maps, I may not be in the first 7 results on the first page for the New Places Search.
The other thing I have noticed is that keywords that were on the first page but had only been optimized for 3 – 4 months lost position in the New Places Search. The same happened for the broader Theme Level Keywords. On the new keywords the answer is to just keep going and I’m already seeing them bounce back. For the Theme Level Keywords, I believe that a Themed and Silo Structured website is finally a must as predicted by many of the thought leaders on the subject.
And, there you have it. If you have thoughts and comments, please post them here. I’d appreciate the input.
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — November 20, 2010 @ 7:05 am
@Rick …..
I suppose one might complete this exercise using any localized search string, but I have spent most of the past 10 hours looking at Google Web results using (city, car wash). “city” was substituted for big city, little city, and town names, in North, East, West, and South regions of the USA. The purpose of the exercise was to see if I could find ANY consistency within the SERPS, first as in just a common “layout” format.
Results for the most part were either (3) third party listings, followed by the 7 pack OR the 7 pack followed by ten listings of a mix of websites and 3rd party sites. Cities with the “3 +7″ format were Chicago, Miami, Nashville, Burlington, New Orleans, and Phoenix. The cities with the “7 + 10″ format were San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale, Boston, Dallas, Boise, Atlanta, Poughkeepsie, and Nashua. And then there were a few test cities that showed SERPS in a format of (3) third party listings, a 2 or a 3 pack listing, and an option to find “More” (which gave an additional 8 local listings). Within the “3+7″ format, business listings that were mixed in with the 3rd party listings didn’t follow any rhyme nor reason, some with websites, some without, some claimed LBL’s, some not. Search requests for “search term” Kansas City KS, showed results from Kansas City, MO first for no apparent reason.
Additionally I substituted “band instrument repair” “chiropractor”, and “car repair” as local search terms to check results as well.
Trying to gain any consistency within the SERPS rankings in any format proved equally frustrating. Regardless of city location or size sometimes the first listing was for a business that had no website, and had not claimed it’s LBL. In other cases the top listing was for a claimed LBL with no website, and in others it was occupied by a claimed LBL that had a website. Further down in the listings (2-7) there seemed to be NO correlation between, website/no website, Google reviews/no Google reviews, outside reviews/no outside reviews, greater/fewer Star ratings, fewer/lesser number of citations, Website PR rankings, Age, # backlinks, seemingly showed no consistent effects in the SERPS. Equally inconsistent were search terms in the Title, or category listings.
But alas, the “scrolling map” seemed to be the only consistency regardless of the SERP format, it continues to cover the “adword” ads as you scroll down the page, regardless of city, and regardless of where you tell Google you are located.
Bottom line, ten hours later,the same confusion reigns as when I began this exercise in futility. It would appear that Google is testing different listing “formats” in different areas, and perhaps is “weighting” different ranking factors differently in different areas. OR there are 20+ algo’s in play! OR Google is trying to find a Local “layout” they are happy with, and THEN they will decide how to stack the results, OR ???? Oh Joy! All I want for Christmas is to find some consistency, somewhere…… well I guess I could wait til New Years…..
Comment by Dan Lee (11 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Nice work you guys!
I too have found nothing consistent in the SERPs after much nationwide research. It appears the ranking power of reviews and “proximity to city center” has taken a bit hit but how much of a hit appears inconsistent also. The ranking power of a localized domain name seems to be king now – which is disappointing to me. I guess that is most relevant now. http://www.keywordCity.com will rank you above the blended listings or at the top of them. It’s time to snatch up some new domains! Kindof a bummer.
Comment by Jeffrey Magner (82 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
uh oh that was not supposed to be a link. Having “keyword + city” in a domain is what I meant to say.
Comment by Jeffrey Magner (82 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
WOW, thanks Dan for the work and for confirming my own search results that there is no consistency.
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
What is the average searcher thinking?
I think they are totally confused but in a strange way, Google is making them a better, more educated online seeker…
Comment by Dennis (47 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
My very broad guess is that like the original Local algo, the new algo is designed to provide “improved” results over time…. any given local search trending toward the new organo-local result.
There is some needed “minimum” of “ranked” websites that have been matched up against Places results for the new results to show. If the industry is low density, the search phrase too long tail, or there are not enough “ranked” local websites, it continues to show the 2,3,5 or 7-pack.
This sort of algo would “scale” over time as more and as more smbs built good local websites the results would improve and trend toward the blended results.
That is my working theory. Please critique and let me know if it is a decent “working” model
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
As a point of clarification in my previous post, when I referred to the “7 pack” or the “3 pack” I was referring to the new “O-Pack” (coined by David Mihm, I think) listing style….
Comment by Dan Lee (11 comments) — November 27, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
Hi Mike,
I would like to confirm the working-model you wrote down in Comment 102…
I was now tracking loads of local keyword-combinations and in most spaces the tendency went towards the new “organo-local” results… When Google Place Search launched, about one third of this keyword-set was display in the classic way, which has now changed (mostly in the last week) and which are now more and more also shown as “local merged” results… It seems (as always with google) to work as a self-improving algo depending on what quality signals are provided.
Comment by Sebastian (24 comments) — December 6, 2010 @ 6:05 am
@Sebastian
Thanks for the confirming evidence. The speed of change implies that the signals are internal as well as external to Google
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — December 6, 2010 @ 9:06 am
As a point of “Interest?” It’s interesting to see how the serps and layout of search results have changed over the past 5 weeks, when you now do a search for the original search terms in this post “hotels, utica, ny”.
With the exception of “#1 Radisson Hotel”, you get a different set of results with a Web/Everything, Map, or Places search.
And if you tell Goog that your “location” is Utica, NY, do a search for “hotels” you get yet another string of local hotel results (consistent across all 3 search platforms btw, but different from above)
Interesting….but still somewhat confusing. And if you are foolhardy enough to do a search on Bing-Ahoo, using the “hotels utica ny” you get yet Another string of results with hotels mentioned that Goog doesn’t even list!….. Oie Vey!
So from a “Searcher’s” standpoint, I guess variety of Hotel choices would be a good thing (aka Goog in a strange way making for “a better, more educated online seeker” mentioned by Dennis in comment 101).
Although from viewpoint of someone that might have a Client that owns a hotel in Utica and has an vested interest in where his business is listed in Local Search Results, might not agree. Sigh…..
Comment by Dan Lee (11 comments) — December 6, 2010 @ 10:35 am
@Dan Lee:
We SEO’s do have a need for order in the Googleverse dont we, LOL! And by gosh, we’ll keep crunching the numbers until we find that thread that make it all make sense and we have the corner on rankings….Just goes to show you that Local SEO is not for sissies!!!
I think Chaos Reigns in Googleland! and G is having trouble taming the beast.
There’s no way to tell what comes next. For example, on one of our top keywords I got the following results — all in the same week which was last week! –
1) 3rd in a 7 Pack which is sort of a hybrid betwen the old Onebox and New Places Search
2) A competitor showed as the only listing in a Onebox
3) 1st in the New Places Search view
Prior to all of this, we were 1st in the 7 Pack and 1st in Maps. I believe ultimately we will end up 1st in the New Places Search if it will stop morphing back and forth between different views.
Granted we are in Hawaii and the algo got here last, but it’s been 6 weeks. G, you definitely need to put on more people and get this thing done!
An interesting note — going back to look at my Plastic Surgeons example above, the map no longer scrolls. Not on any of the examples. I think G figured out they were going to take a hit on the PPC revenue if they covered the side rail display of ads with the map. Smart move. That probably lowers that chance the there will be a bidding war for the top 3 spots, although I do think that PPC prices will go up. Funny how that happens.
One thing I have confirmed is that Local Rankings were more important than Organic Rankings for ranking in the New Places Search. I have found many examples of this and fewer exceptions. If, prior to the New Places Search, a keyword ranked in the 1st or A position in Maps and 2nd page for Organic, the keyword would show up in the 1st position in the New Places Search. In the reverse situation — the keyword ranked Organically in the 1st postion but was on the 2nd page of Maps, then it didn’t show up in the New Places Search 7 pack.
Although most of the New Places Search Results seem to be 7 packs, I have seen 4 packs, 9 packs & 10 packs.
Places Analytics — and what’s up with no Impressions, lots of Actions and no keyword query distribution??? I’m tellin’ ya G, more people burnin’ the midnight oil or the beast will consume you, LOL!
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — December 16, 2010 @ 4:51 am
So what can we take away from all of this, if anything, given all the chaos?
I think we can sift through all the confusion and pull out at least the following insights –
1) If we have clients that haven’t optimized for Local Search because they are selling nationwide from a single location, check to see if Google is producing a One Box or the New Places Search for any of their keywords.
G will determine that a keyword is Local even though it is a product that is commonly sold through the internet on a nationwide basis. I have a client that is in the 1st position for a keyword that produces 1 million searches per month. I noticed there is an old style 7 Pack showing now. When I click the Places Icon on the left rail, he doesn’t show up. He’s never optimized for Local in my search area and that is why he doesn’t show for the New Places Search (see my prior post).
The problem is he doesn’t have locations nationwide, just one location. As Places requires a physical location to set up a Places Page, he won’t be able rank in Places except in his home city. As a result, he will lose business from every other location in the US. The total searches for his area will be a lot less than 1 million so good bye big time $$$’s.
He has a couple of options — a) he can expand keywords that G doesn’t see as Local and/or b) he can use the hack that Mike Blumenthal discusses here —> http://blumenthals.com/blog/2010/12/07/illusory-laptop-repair-a-most-elegant-googleplaces-hack/. I’m not sure that I would base a whole business on this model and bet on the likelihood that G won’t do some bad thing to him if he does. Sounds like G-Roulette to me. What do you guys think?
2) A strong Local Optimization program is critical. The whole, long, tedious process — heavy on citation building and covering all the factors that David Mihm lays out here —> http://www.davidmihm.com/local-search-ranking-factors.shtml .
Having said that, Organic SEO is still important as many of the Local Ranking Factors are Organic Ranking Factors. In my example in 1) above, Local Rankings will be achieved quickly because of their high Organic ranking. Also, for the New Places Search, I would expect to see a 7 pack with 3 to 7 organic results depending on how much data is merged into the Places listings. That means that it is critical to be in the 1st to 3rd positions, say, for Organic if you want to show up for the Organic results in the majority of cases. In my client’s case, he will be the 1st Organic result and that will likely be the equivalent of showing up in the 8th position in the old Organic Search Results (7 Places results then him in the 1st Organic Search Result). If he did rank for Places, he could get 2 listings on the 1st page, one in Places and one Organic.
3) And, of course, it will be critical to read Mike Blumenthal’s blog every day to stay on top of all the latest breaking changes in Local SEO so that you lead the pack and your clients so far ahead of the competition that they will never catch up! Of course, that would have gone without saying…….
Comment by Maui_Rick (12 comments) — December 16, 2010 @ 7:29 am
[...] 3- What are the implications of the new integrated Local Search results? [...]
Pingback by Most Popular Articles from 2010 and Before | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — January 9, 2011 @ 11:51 am
[...] What Are the Implications of the New Integrated Local Search Results? – Your own commentary on this seismic (or catclysmic, if you ask Andrew) shift in the way Google returns results for Local Intent searches. [...]
Pingback by Loci 2010 – David Mihm | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — January 12, 2011 @ 5:02 am
[...] the bottom feeders are never far behind, always looking for angles and cracks in the system. Google Places Search, introduced October 27, is no [...]
Pingback by Google Places Hack: Barnacle Marketing Goes Black | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — January 13, 2011 @ 8:01 am
[...] that ran last summer and were a regular part of the results since the Blended results were formally released in late October of last year. For me, they were a salient feature that dramatically changed the [...]
Pingback by Review Snippets Gone From Google Blended Results | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — June 28, 2011 @ 6:47 am
[...] new Google Places Search has its winners and losers. For one group though, it is turning out to be an incredible plus [...]
Pingback by Google Places Search: Hiding Address No Longer Buries Listing | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — October 7, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
[...] has invested significant marketing resources into the Red pin with a bevy of marketing campaigns. As a result, the pin has become incredible [...]
Pingback by Is Grey the New Red for Google Places? | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — October 31, 2011 @ 10:23 am