Update: This appears to be a rollout not a test.
With all of the system wide quirks of late in Google Places, there has been speculation that the under the hood snafus were a reflection of bigger and more visible changes to come. This screen shot could be one of those changes. Sent to me by Nora and Yam Regev of Coinso.com, it shows some striking differences with the current Places Page.
It is too early to know if this is what the final product will look like or if it is just a test. It is missing owner description (an oft noted complaint recently in the forums), 3rd party review sentiment snippets (also recently removed from many search results), and even the highlighted 3rd party review that was associated with each review site. The links to 3rd party reviews have move down the page while the call to action in writing reviews and signing in are dramatically more obvious. The lack of 3rd party summary reviews on the Place page display could explain the recent change of not showing the 3rd party review counts in the main search results.
As Linda noted below, the business description is appearing in most examples and is probably missing due to the recent bug. The big change, as noted in the comments, is the missing citations.
Also showing for me when logged out (in Safari.)
A MAJOR difference you didn’t mention…
Citations are not displayed!
Comment by Jeff (10 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
New layout is still not available in the UK, though.. Soon probably.
Yam Regev
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:14 pm
2508 reviews to 4 reviews. Every 3rd party review is gone, and only the four Google reviews remain. Get ready for Google user review spam.
Comment by Lauren R (21 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:15 pm
Now available in the UK as well (that was fast!)
As we said in another article of yours: Google must take off all 3rd party’s reviews till they’ll control their on spam.
1 more thing (sorry for the long link), see here the future of moving companies reviews spam. Google is pulling those “Scam Company” images from their Yahoo Local listings.
Link
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:24 pm
Holy cow!! citations are gone !!
Comment by martin (4 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
Yeah, I’ve seen this popping in and out the last couple of days, and I think it’s much more elegant. It also will keep competitors from poaching citation sources.
Comment by Josh (11 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:31 pm
It’s not very hard to research competition’s citations sources (search by company name + phone will do) and sometimes the citations in G Places are misleading – some random stuff from korean blogs attached by chance to your listing.
IMO the missing reviews from around the web are bigger problem cuz the directories will get less love and will stop giving information to google (like tripadvisor). The big names like Yelp will live and prosper but smaller directories will suffer huge traffic drop.
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
Definitely a striking visual difference. The thing is this is a page that google controls, not under the control of the smb business. Its far less of a landing page IMHO, in google’s care…now its a description of the business featuring interactive googleness.
Off the top of my head I fear spammers throwing in terrible or problematic pictures.
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
I love the look, streamlined, focused. I don’t see the offers either.
Comment by Mark Upshaw (2 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
@earlpearl
i agree that now it’s more appealing to upload a pic, but that option was available long ago. Let’s what will happen
Yam
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
Citations were worthless on the page anyways. I bet the CTR’s were extremely low, much like related maps. Only used by local seo’s
Will they still have effect…yes.
Did they ever show the real amount…no
Is is a good move to get them off the page….probably.
Comment by Mike Ramsey (93 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
I like the big red “Write a Review” button. That’s an improvement. THANK YOU for making it more clear!!!
Is anyone else baffled by the big red “Sign in to Rate” button at the bottom? That’s just plain stupid. Too much ping pong happening in Mountain View. Back to your desks!
Comment by jeffrey magner (82 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 6:03 pm
New favicon tooo lol (not worth mentioning ?)
Comment by Wissam Dandan (1 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 6:05 pm
Mike said in original post: “It is missing owner description”
Yes that screen shot is, but some of my listings still have descriptions so I think that screen shot is suffering from the bug you and I have been working on in the GP forum.
But now I’m thinking that bug could be related to this update. Who knows if descriptions are going to show or not now? Maybe they are going away.
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
I’m with you on that Mike R. No need for them to be on the page and G was not showing all of them anyways for quite some time now.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 6:31 pm
What is the difference between Google Places, Google Maps and a Google Profile?
I just checked on my Google Places account, only to learn that I have to request a postcard by mail in order to verify my business.
So what exactly is the difference between the three?
Comment by Pamela Egan (6 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 6:32 pm
Mike: Sent you a screen shot of how search now looks when you are signed in to google. OMG. Now local search has become very social!!!!
Meanwhile, being the snarky one that I am….I had to make comments on the social signals that google was making.
to the point: Google assumed some things via algo. When it comes to reccommendations I’d rather trust whom I know rather than who google assumes are “like me”. At least that is my first impression.
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 6:35 pm
Jeez – Can’t these guys knock it off with the changes already? I spent the better half of last year educating clients in hotel and hospitality verticals to not put all their eggs in Google reviews. Instead, we decided to run Yelp, Tripadvisor, and Hotels.com programs to incent reviews.
Comment by Dev Basu (24 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 7:26 pm
@Dev
To me this doesn’t change best practice… 3 others + google ..
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
We’ll continue to keep the eggs dispersed of course because we’re yet to see whether 3rd party reviews magically come back.
Comment by Dev Basu (24 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 7:53 pm
Darn just read http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2011/07/ongoing-evolution-of-place-pages.html – Looks like 3rd party reviews will no longer be pulled in. We’ll still keep at ‘em because I’m sure Google will still acknowledge them internally.
Comment by Dev Basu (24 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 7:55 pm
I agree that any site wanting to rank still needs to be well reviewed around the Web. Google will see these other reviews, and they’ll contribute to a site’s/business’ authority and ranking, regardless of how Google displays them.
Comment by Aliza Earnshaw (1 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 8:11 pm
@Dev
Thanks for the link.
Reading Google’s blog I got the idea that Google is really on top of things. Unfortunately major problems still exist with many Google reviews gone missing. As far as reviews having an effect on rankings – will they be counting 3rd party reviews that we can’t see? Will they be counting lost reviews that are stranded in purgatory? Oh look it’s time for a beer already.
Comment by jeffrey magner (82 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 8:26 pm
Mike: Also referencing the announcement at the google blog: http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2011/07/ongoing-evolution-of-place-pages.html
One thing strikes me though. Google is under preliminary investigation now for a variety of anti trust issues. Plenty of fairly large sites with reviews scraped by Google had tremendous problems with what google had been doing in that regard.
Removing that content and those reviews from other sites immediately removes that issue. BINGO….one potential anti trust problem solved.
and…in doing that they redesign the Places Page to REALLY emphasize Google reviews.
I see what they wrote….I’m just reading between the lines.
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 8:35 pm
Note all: There is a separate thread here at Mike’s too, devoted to the discussion of 3rd party reviews. See comments over there as well.
http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/07/21/google-places-search-no-longer-showing-3rd-party-review-counts/
Also, I started a thread in the GP forum about all the changes. Then Vanessa just posted one as well so 2 other places to read and try to keep up with what’s going on.
Could be in for a rocky ride folks.
Fasten. Seat. Belts.
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 8:35 pm
Mike: I’m not the only one who suggests the change might have something to do with anti trust: This article goes into it with some depth, including recent hearings in which Yelp participated: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/21/google-places-stops-stealing-reviews/
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 8:51 pm
I think they may also cleaning out the chaff in preparations for adding more G+ stuff into Places profile pages.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
[...] knock it off with the changes already?" asked Search Engine Consultant Dev Basu today in comments on a hotly discussed post by Google Maps and Search consultant Mike Blumenthal. "I spent the better half of last year [...]
Pingback by Google Places Makes its Move, Pushes Other Reviews Into the Background — July 21, 2011 @ 9:07 pm
[...] Google Places Testing New Layout [...]
Pingback by MAJOR Google Places Update – 3rd Party Reviews and Citations Removed or De-Emphasized - Google Places Optimization Blog — July 21, 2011 @ 9:20 pm
Great post, Mike. Very “quick to the draw,” too, given that I think this change only took effect mid-afternoon today.
It just seems a shame that the maximum # of review excerpts on a Places page is 2, rather than the former 8. Kind of goes against the idea of creating a good “user experience” by giving people more information about a business rather than less (IMHO).
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 10:32 pm
@Earlpearl
I am not too sure about the idea that anti trust is playing a role in this… although it must play into their decision at some level… to me the issue has to be and will be “how do we generate the most income”… and as
@stever points out that is likely by aligning Places with Plus…
Plus can be an uber honey pot, a jack of all trades , a one place for everything kind of place for a business to go and to be found… that = $$$$$
I see the color scheme and the sparseness as Stever does… in preparation for that day.
@Phil
I had been watching the changes throughout the day (see my earlier post) and had originally thought I would publish this in the AM but it was rolling out faster than I expected…thanks
As to the loss of reviews, its Google sand box and while we can bemoan the past, the path of most benefit is to mine the present. I think this change offers yet again more of that.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 11:20 pm
This is obviously a gigantic push of Google Places reviews and Google getting more reviews on its own platform, rather than on third-parties. A few things that are worth mentioning:
- now 5 Google Users reviews are showing on the main Place page (previously these were 2)
- the third-party reviews are NOT gone, they are just suppressed, and their exposure is now close to 0 (you can see them under the Google Users reviews as snippets)
- the third-party reviews still appear in both the organic SERP and on the Place page itself, so I wouldn’t be worried (at least for now) for them not being important
As I said, this all seems like a big push of the Google Places reviews, not a change in algorithm.
Comment by Nyagoslav (101 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 11:26 pm
And a couple more interesting changes:
- descriptive terms showing on the Place page itself
- The “What people are saying” section is also gone
Comment by Nyagoslav (101 comments) — July 21, 2011 @ 11:34 pm
Now the question is whether or not the citations still count despite being suppressed. Any guesses yet?
Comment by Lee (19 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 2:51 am
@Lee
They will count for sure, just won’t have any appearance on the main page. See it like back links for SEO (or something similar).
Comment by PureSheer (134 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 2:55 am
The citations are not suspended. They are just not being displayed. This section was basically worthless and was showing a lot of inaccurate, outdated, irrelevant information. However, in very few cases it was helpful when determining which business exactly has yours been confused with, by the algorithm.
As I mentioned above, I don’t believe this is an algorithmic change at all. Although I have the opportunity to follow the ranking of just limited amount of Place pages, I haven’t noticed any changes.
Comment by Nyagoslav (101 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 2:55 am
Have to agree with Nyagoslav: this is a change in presentation, not an algorithmic change.
I’ve been looking and looking at Chinese food restaurants in SF tonight.
I am seeing that some are still showing descriptions (as Linda says).
I am also seeing that the restaurant ranked #2 has only 4 google-based reviews, while other below it have 40, 50, 100. That’s kind of curious.
And, surprise surprise, I am seeing a numbers discrepancy within a given Place Page for one of the restaurants. Top of the page, it says 48 reviews. Down below, it says 43. Where are the missing 5 reviews coming from?
Google, google, google…if you really want to compete with Yelp, and this is your en garde, the time has come to fix this numbers issue which has been plaguing your review base since the dawn of time.
What an exciting evening in the localsphere.
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 3:44 am
Just wanted to add, I’m also looking at a 7 pack result for what I’d consider to be an uncompetitive vertical (bakeries davenport iowa) and in no way does review count (meaning with this new system in place) appear to be affecting rankings. The only bakery with more than 1 Google review (it has 9) is in the F position, while everything above it has only 1 review. I haven’t looked at all the other signals, but like everyone here, I’m wondering how this will affect rankings, and so far, nothing is jumping out at me.
Mike, I bet you’re asleep right now dreaming of disappearing reviews.
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 4:03 am
ah Miriam… one never knows what I do in the wee hours of the night.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 4:44 am
Opticlocal has identified an interesting addition that no one has yet mentioned. Google is now including awards from 3rd party sites the grayed out descriptive terms. You can see an example on this Place page for the Bowery Hotel.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 5:29 am
[...] Places has once again “mixed it up” in the review arena. They are no longer showing the count for 3rd party reviews on the main [...]
Pingback by Changes in Google Places and Reviews – What Does it Mean? | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — July 22, 2011 @ 6:00 am
[...] 10:00 am The Google Lat Long Blog has formally announced the changes to Places that we saw roll out earlier in the day with their normal happy talk: Making constant tweaks and adjustments to our user [...]
Pingback by Google Places and the Future | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — July 22, 2011 @ 10:01 am
I don’t see “Details” anymore. Am I the only one not seeing these? I checked other Place pages and Details are missing too.
Comment by Susan Walsh (33 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 10:05 am
[...] Blumenthal, with the news and [...]
Pingback by Google Revamps Place Pages, Minimizing 3rd Party Reviews — July 22, 2011 @ 10:14 am
Good call, Susan. What’s odd is that I’m logged into the “Edit” area of one of my client’s listings right now, and the “Details” fields are still showing up.
As you said, they’re missing from the public view, but if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say the “Details” are either (1) somehow dormant or (2) are going to be wiped even from the “Edit” area pretty soon.
Does anyone else see the Details in the “Edit” area but NOT on the Place page itself?
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 10:43 am
Hi Phil, the missing details is part of the bug Mike and I have been trying to get Google’s attention on in the forum, prior to this roll out. It was missing for lots of users.
But in spot checking I don’t see any Places that have details now. So it appears that section is gone.
However if it’s still in dash, I wonder if that means it’s like citations. In other words Google still reads and makes note of those extra details internally, just does not show them on the place page.
Darn, even tho that section didn’t do a whole lot as far as direct ranking I had some really cool tricks I’d use that section for that helped overall. PLUS I would really add a lot of relevant data that not only would appeal to Google but also help the client see all the extra work I did. If it’s hidden and possibly meaningless now, then what’s the point?
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 11:18 am
Hi Linda, thanks for the intel. I actually didn’t notice any missing Details until yesterday, but I think you and Mike have much better radar on your side
Your “citations” theory sounds like the Google we all know (and love). Those Details were a nice way to inject a little personality into your GP listing: I know what you mean.
So it sounds like you and Mike noticed some cases of missing details *before* any of these changes rolled out–like perhaps on Wednesday?
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 11:35 am
@Phil
I started trying to bring the missing descriptions bug (which often included the more details section going missing too) to Google’s attention in the forum a couple weeks ago. My thread title was something like “Bugs in the Database” Then as Mike saw more and more complaints he got involved too and escalated it up the flag pole.
Still not sure if that bug was related to the update or not. Clients that had missing descriptions still have none and clients that weren’t affected still have theirs. Have not checked any of Mike and I’s forum thread today yet to see if anything has changed or if Google has made any more posts. G did make 1 comment saying they were aware of the problem and working on it.
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
@Phil & Linda
A new Googler, MrEvan, appeared that consolidated all of the conversations into the one post that I had created.
And then a little bit ago Vanessa responded that:
Hey guys —
Just to be clear: descriptions have not disappeared with the new Place page changes. We’ve just pushed a new listings index — please give it a couple days for the info to reappear. But keep us posted if you see they don’t come back so we can take a deeper look.
Thanks!
Vanessa
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 12:56 pm
I think it’s great that they’ve made it easier to find the ‘write a review’ instruction but it’s clearly part of a plan to ensure total relevance.
Now more people have a gmail account and are automatically logged in -through their use of Google+ – as well as being able to access Places through the Mobile app, Google have the means to promote their own reviews over those of the citations. It also allows them to show reviews right in front of the viewer’s nose, rather than seeing them click away to other sites.
I would suspect that they will still use those 3rd party citations to provide a sort of cross reference confirmation.
Comment by Jo Shaer (41 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
THANKS Mike. I was just there scanning all the threads for new info but somehow missed that one. Good to know!
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
@Jo
While it is easier, a gmail user without a nickname still has to make a trip OVER to the hotpot page and then be left stranded there… bad UI design! Still too hard by half.
Citations are baked into the algo… the only question at any point in time is their strength relative to the other variables.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 1:33 pm
@Mike
Thanks for the update–that definitely clears up a few questions (of many!).
@Linda
Thanks for filling me in; I’d noticed the vanishing descriptions a couple weeks ago, but didn’t notice at the time that the Details vanished, too. Good to know!
General question:
Is it just my imagination, or didn’t it used to be the case that when you’d write a real-time Post on your GP page, it would only indicate the DAY you wrote it, and not the hour?
I wrote a Post a couple hours ago on a client’s GP page, and sure enough, it says “2 hours ago…” rather than “July 22.” I don’t recall ever having seen the hour: only the day. In other words, has Google become more specific about indicating *when* a business owner publishes a Post to his/her GP page?
It’s 92F over here in MA. Please tell me that this isn’t just a byproduct of my head frying (quite likely).
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
@Phil, on the day of posting it’ll show hour. If you check before an hour it’ll even show minutes. Past 24 hours and it just counts days. Been that way all along.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
@Phil – The problem is in the heat. The posts show seconds, minutes and hours for at least 6-7 months.
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
@Stever & Plamen
Ah, I must not have noticed it before. I think I’ve got a textbook case of GUP (Google update paranoia). Thanks for pointing out that the Posts in fact haven’t changed.
Time for me to crank up the air conditioning and to start paying closer attention…
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
“I think I’ve got a textbook case of GUP (Google update paranoia).
LOL Phil. I am SOOOOO stealing that line to use on my blog!
Everything I see I’m second guessing and checking old screenshots wondering “was that there before? what else am I missing”.
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 3:12 pm
One thing that is gone on the Places page (along with the more details) is the link that attributed 3rd parties for basic business listing data to 3rd party sites
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
@Linda
Steal away! (I’m just glad I’m not alone in my affliction. Makes you really appreciate all those old screenshots that seemed so extraneous at the time…)
@Mike
Just curious: if you had to hazard a guess, would you say that the missing basic listing data from 3rd-party sites means that Google probably will NOT give its own “Details” fields the permanent axe? I mean, that would seem consistent with the reviews change: an effort to keep people under the GP roof, and not really to *eliminate* anything per se. It seems to me that G couldn’t somehow “use” most of the additional details from IYPs behind-the-scenes but not show the reviews to actual people: I just don’t see how G could *use* much of the details data, because it’s such a mixed bag (unlike review data, which would seem more binary).
As you can tell, the “Details” issue kind of has me by the…um…horns, and I’m really interested in whatever rumblings you’ve sensed or think might be likely.
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 5:39 pm
I’m seeing increased usage of the gray phrases that appear above the description, anyone else? Any idea how this data is being aggregated? I haven’t seen much on it though I’ve done some searches.
If you look in the code, the div for these phrases mentions “known for terms” which is kind of interesting.
Thanks for the good info, Mike and all…
Comment by Nicholas (1 comments) — July 22, 2011 @ 5:53 pm
[...] the rollout of the changes on the Places page and display of Local Universal results on the main search results [...]
Pingback by Google Places: Integrating some of the great information that’s been buried | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — July 25, 2011 @ 6:01 am
Be interesting to see whether existing citations will still remain a ranking factor or whether they will be disregarded completely as well as being visibly removed.
Comment by Geoff Jackson (4 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
@Geoff
In all of the testing that we have done it is strictly a visual change not an algo change. This is true for reviews as well.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
@Mike
Thanks for pointing me to those, I actually opened David’s article from earlier but hadn’t read it yet.
That’s interesting then, do you predict any of the changes will affect the algorithm? I would be surprised if that remained unchanged in it’s current state, I guess time will tell.
Do you have business directories in the US that provide listings on Google Places that get biased prominence from Google? For example, we have a UK directory listing service that have a ‘contract’ with Google where all their listings (and these are all completely basic/unclaimed listings – no description, no images, no business information etc) will generally rank ahead of other businesses that have spent time and effort on their listings. To claim these listings, the UK company in question cold call the business owners and try to charge up to £700 for the optimisation of them and for the owners to complete their business details.
Comment by Geoff Jackson (4 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
After reading every comment on this page up until now what I find interesting is that no one sees the integration into Google+.
Last week I watched a video on Google+ from a Googler saying they were going to change their idea. Instead of having a limited trial for business profiles they would just move forward quickly and open up the business profiles ASAP.
They’re not going to start from scratch. They already have a working business platform, well, working in that it has changed functionality or it’s name every year since 2003!
So let’s buckle up and get ready for a leap 1000 steps forward. I think we all need to forget what we know and love and be prepared to relearn it all again in the near future.
I predict Google+ for business is going to be Google Places with a Stream and Circles. This update on July 21 is the first step.
Comment by Matthew Perosi (1 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
@Matthew
Certainly Google+ integration is coming and might be a game changer… I think if you read the 5 or 6 subsequent posts and the many comments you will find most readers cognizant of that.
But Places is returning business today and for G+ to have a similar impact it needs not only Business pages and to come out of test but it needs very broad adoption.
It will be important if your, mine and others antennae are correct but it will be several years before it has the clout of Places… or even a space at the SMB table.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
Hi,
Does anyone know if the details area is coming back or not?
Thanks!
Susan
Comment by Susan Walsh (33 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 5:45 pm
Vanessa posted this update in the forum:
Seeing a lot of questions in the forum, let me just clarify a couple things about the new Place pages. The following info you provide may not appear on your Place page, but it’s all still used to help us understand more about your business:
• Email address
• Menu
• Reservations
• Optional attributes / Additional details
• Service area toggle “Show service area”
So just because we’re not showing it, doesn’t mean it’s not helpful for us to have — it helps our system ensure that your organic listing appears and ranks appropriately on Google and Google Maps when potential customers perform searches related to your service.
For more info about ranking, check out this blog post:
http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-local-search-ranking-works.html
Hope this helps,
Vanessa
That would indicate that they are not coming back any time soon.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
@Matthew Read comment #27
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — July 25, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
[...] week Google Places updated the display of the Places Page. In doing so they removed the review summaries, review snippets and [...]
Pingback by Google Places: What Else Went Missing on the Places Page in the Update | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — July 26, 2011 @ 8:27 am
[...] week’s amidst the noise changes in the Place’s layout, Google noted that they would be “Integrating some of the great information that’s been [...]
Pingback by Google Hotel Finder Experiment – A Peak at the Future of Local Search as Interactive Content | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — August 1, 2011 @ 5:01 am
[...] of the changes in the rollout of the new Places Page last month was the inclusion of short descriptor snippets high on the page [...]
Pingback by Google Places Descriptor Snippets | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — August 30, 2011 @ 6:45 am
[...] of the mobile ad market. Conspiracy theorists might suggest that part of the reason for the major interface update in July – and ESPECIALLY the one in October which shows Place Page data but still directs clicks [...]
Pingback by Loci 2011- David Mihm | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — January 9, 2012 @ 12:53 pm