I first noticed this yesterday where every search for “storage + city” returned a 3-pack result regardless of the city that was searched (ie storage Toronto, storage Detroit, storage Miami etc etc etc ). This was true even on international searches like storage Paris, Fr.This change apparently occurred about two weeks ago and despite doing a range of searches both logged in and not, the ”storage + city” never returned a Blended Result nor a Pack other than the 3-Pack.
While this search result was strange enough, today at least, many search results that were returning 7 Blended results or the 7-Pack are now returning many fewer pinned results.
So my questions for you:
1)Are any of you in the storage business and how long have you been seeing this 3-pack only result?
2)For all of you, are your local searches now returning fewer pinned results in the main SERPS?
I actually was just noticing the same thing this afternoon! I’m graduating from handling just the company I work for to taking on a client or two, so I’ve been searching a lot so see where they stand.
Several searches where I expected to see a 7 pack or blended results came back with only three places under the adwords. For example “roofing contractors” with the location of Newpor News, VA. But “Roofing Contractor Yorktown, VA” turned up a blended SERP with 4 local results.
Comment by Sharon (23 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
I am seeing the 3-4 pack with the majority of local searches for plumbers, dentist, chiropractors, roofers etc.. since Jan 24th. Hope this is not permanent.
Comment by Jake (16 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
I’m seeing this too, not universally however (no pun intended).
E.g. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hotels+playa+del+carmen
Comment by Will Scott (83 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
Mike,
not only “storage” will handled giving not more the “three” results only.
Same seems happen with “factory” or “academy” maybe others too.
Best Regards
Comment by ehg (34 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:40 pm
It seems to be the same situation for locksmiths. I tried toronto locksmith, new orleans locksmith, and new york locksmith and the most I got was 4 for New Orleans.
Tried new york lawyer, los angeles lawyer, and Toronto lawyer, and got a mixture of 3 packs with and without blended results.
But, when I try more specific key phrases like, personal injury lawyer new york, personal injury attorney los angeles, and auto accident lawyer boston, I am getting more 7 packs and, in the case of auto accident lawyer boston, I got a blended results with a 9 pack.
Maybe Google is specifically targeting broader local key phrases.
Comment by Joseph Henson (1 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:41 pm
I’ve absolutely noticed this over the course of the last 2 weeks. It seems more widespread this week and appears to be the norm now. I am also seeing a lot of blended results with only 4 map listings A through D.
As Google continues to add new types of search results to the first page (Your World Shares, videos, etc) the real estate on the first page of results keeps shrinking. We’ve seen this for organic rankings for a while now. Some searches are so crowded with different types of results only the top 3 organic listings make it on the first page.
Looks like Google is spreading this to local results as well. Which means local SEOers job is going to be a lot harder going forward. Top 7 won’t be the standard we’re judged by anymore, looks like for some markets, we’re gonna have to shoot for Top 3 or Top 4.
Comment by Robert Ramirez (9 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:47 pm
@Ehg
on “factory” and “academy” (schools in the US?) when did they switch to just the 3 Pack?
@Joseph yes it is more apparent on head terms. Interestingly on the Locksmith searches it is mostly returning 3 Blended results not the 3-pack like with Storage
@Will Thanks for looking
@Robert
It will be a big change thats for sure…
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:55 pm
@Jake
Yes… I am seeing lots of 3-4 Blended results on those terms.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
I’m seeing it as well for “hotels”, “restaurants”, “wedding venues”.
What’s interesting is that when I search in a large market, such as New York, LA, or Chicago, I’m consistently getting the 3-pack.
When I drop down a market – St Louis, Omaha, Tallahassee, I start seeing 4-packs.
When I get to relatively small market (Evanston, Fort Wayne) the number of listings continues to increase. For Fort Wayne Hotels, I have 6 listings.
These observations are by no means conclusive. Galveston Hotels brings up 4 listings and Arlington, TX brings up 3.
Also, we’re seeing a different number of results based on whether the plural or singular form is used. In the past, results have varied by this, but now the number of results are also varying.
Thanks for bringing this up Mike.
Comment by Steve (34 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
@Sharon
1)Good luck
2)I am seeing the same on those searches elsewhere as well
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
not sure since it happens but I noticed some others starnge results:
compare repair + city (in the US) with iphone repair + city (in the US)
or car repair + city (in the US) and compair
repair, seattle (http://goo.gl/GF3aU)
with repair, seattle, WA (http://goo.gl/mRrG0)
Comment by ehg (34 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 4:22 pm
I’ve definitely been seeing a lot more blended 3′s, 4′s and 5′s
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 4:29 pm
Didn’t see it yesterday… but alas here it is today – Canada
storage Calgary – 3
pizza Calgary – 4
locksmiths Calgary – 3
florists Calgary – 7
dry cleaners Calgary – 3
dentists Calgary – 4
chiropractors Calgary – 5
lawyers Calgary – 4
massage therapists Calgary – 5
Comment by Andy Kuiper (232 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
Dang! Not good news!
Most I’ve checked like Seattle Chiropractor and various City Dentist searches have shrunk from 7 blended to 5. Which is better than 3, but still!
Doing more research now. Oh man this could really suck!
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 4:50 pm
With these smaller sets of blended local results what then are they filling the rest of the results with? Are some major directories getting a reprieve after being kicked to the curb for the past while? Or is it more local business websites, but those that just rank well on purely organic factors? Maybe it’s both which would probably produce a better result set overall.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 4:53 pm
Seeing 3-4 pack blended result for plumber(s) here in Indianapolis and surrounding suburbs.
Comment by Laura (14 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 4:57 pm
@Stever
Interesting point about what is taking up that space now, I looked at the results again and was suprised to see no yp.com/yellowbook/city search results for any of the roofing related queries. It was all local businesses and national product manufacturers. Searches for “florists” in various local towns reflected the same, a local directory or two showed up (hosted on the local TV stations site), but no national directories. On the auto repair side the results had 3 local and half the organic results were of the yp.com variety. Hmmm.
@ Mike, thanks! I need luck, my first client has 8 phone numbers, 3 business names, 2 URLS, and 1 physical location. This is gonna be fun.
Comment by Sharon (23 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
Hi Mike,
I’ve noticed this as well. I’ve been seeing “packs” of 3, 4, 5, and 6. Thanks for confirming that it wasn’t just me.
You’ll see and especially weird-looking one (or at least I did) if you search in Philadelphia for “bakery”: 1 GP result, followed by two organic results, followed by 3 more GPs to round out the 4-pack.
I’m sure you know more than I do regarding the likelihood of this being a “just” another test, but in any case, I wonder if it’s a move toward greater flexibility OF the GP rankings themselves–maybe to accommodate more PPC and/or Plus results.
People may be more likely to notice / pay attention to PPC or Plus results if (potentially) they’re interwoven with GP results, or if the GP results are just of such a varying number that there’s simply more room on the page to accommodate these other results Google that would LOVE people to see. Just my speculation, though…
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:10 pm
Good question Steve. The ones I’ve checked don’t have ANY directories, so all filled in with more organic listings, more actual Dentists, etc.
Hey Laura, I’ll get back to your email soon and do have an answer about your other Q.
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:12 pm
please compare the results in genuine search http://goo.gl/SHoSq with the results on GMaps http://goo.gl/s97f6 – not the same top listed three business on Storage Dallas
Comment by ehg (34 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:23 pm
ehg, inside GMaps itself you are dealing with a very different algorithm than the one producing results for regular search.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:27 pm
@Stever & EHG
EHG is showing 3-pack not blended… which isn’t a totally different algo… the main differences are 1)its a different map area thus resulting in different ordering and 2)Google filters out untrustworthy listings and doesn’t show them…
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
@Mike, aha, I didn’t even click the links to check and see that regular search was showing a 3-pack instead of blended. I take back what I said about different algo.
@ehg, to what Mike means by map area zoom in a few clicks on the Map results so it shows less area. You’ll the the results on the side change order.
A 3-pack in regular results, which is the Maps algo inserted into regular results as part of Universal Search, tends to be a pretty tight map area.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
I’m seeing smaller packs (3, 4, and 5) for chiropractor, realtor terms, and internet marketing terms. Needless to say, none of these have shown smaller packs for years.
Comment by Brian Combs (31 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 5:48 pm
Hey Mike,
This is a strange new day, indeed. I’m seeing a 3 pack for such a huge search: ‘hotels san francisco’. The 3 results above the 3 pack are from various entities (hotelsl.com, tripadvisor and expedia). Below the 3 pack are individual hotel websites plus one other info site.
Temporary shakeup/test? Maybe?
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:13 pm
@Miriam,
What you described actually happened way back in June as well: measly little 3-pack results showing up for ultra-competitive searches.
The example I wrote about then was the 3-pack showing up when I searched in NYC for “pizza” (http://bit.ly/z2p8zd).
That test only lasted for a few hours. It was very similar to this one, except it was only 3-packs. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not a test this time…
Comment by Phil Rozek (99 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:21 pm
Hi Mike down here in Australia seeing 3 & 5 packs and also some serps slightly mixed with 3-5 results; ‘fencing brisbane’ ‘storage brisbane’, I have been expecting this for a while, the Places have taken up too much screen real estate. Next thing Google will be charging for the listing … For all the investment we put into Places sure is a rollercoaster ride.
Comment by Carl Bischoff (1 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:27 pm
So, do you think that there could be any logical reason for Google to shrink (to 3-4) and expand (to 8-9) the search results, or it is just another bug?
Comment by MaZiN (1 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:41 pm
I first noticed it on tuesday out here for wedding photographers. I am very happy to be coming up above the fold now for the first time since I was dropped from local places for whatever reason.
Comment by daniel (38 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:43 pm
Also I now notice on the right side just under a map are “People and Pages on Google+
related to Wedding Photographers”
with 2 listing from Google+
and then the ads start below that.
Comment by daniel (38 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:45 pm
Lots of responses.
Did a bunch of searches on hotels and Italian restaurants for a number of different geo areas both w/ a lot of hotels and a lot of Italian restaurants.
I did 6 different geo areas. Generally saw pacs w/ between 4 and 9 results.
One was interesting. I looked at both search phrases hotels Crystal City and Crystal City hotels In one I saw 1 maps insert and the other I saw a 7 pac.
Geez there are about 4,000 rooms and over 20 hotels there last time I checked.
I personally think Google keeps changing presentations on a regular basis and have been doing that consistently with change over a pretty long period.
Comment by earlpearl (784 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 6:55 pm
I’ve been noticing this more and more on searches in the law field.
As others have noted, maybe it’s just a test, but I also wonder if it could be in response to some of the backlash I’ve heard towards Google for having many non-”organic” results above the fold that support their own web properties.
Comment by Chris (111 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 7:15 pm
Mike,
I was noticing the same thing this morning- many 7 pack results on the restoration industry are blended & showing as 3 or 4 pack only.
Comment by Abby (44 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 7:55 pm
Could it be Google+ and “search plus your world”? Blending in those shares and +1s to searches for signed in users was putting a major squeeze on regular organic results. I saw some searches that only had 2 or 3 organic entries on page 1! The rest of the real estate was taken up by maps, “personalized” results, videos etc.
While it makes very little sense for Google to alter their entire algorhithm for what appears to be about 10% of their user base, I wouldn’t put it past them. . .
Comment by Robert Ramirez (9 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
Phil – thanks for the link. It’s definitely a test of some kind. Whether it sticks or not, we’ll see!
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
In Brisbane, Australia. Same deal, the 7 pack for ‘brisbane karate’ the 5 pack for ‘karate brisbane’ and the 3 pack for ‘karate’. Might fall under the academy category.
Comment by Jay Killeen (2 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 8:33 pm
Definitely seeing similar results in Florida. Been watching this closely over the past year especially, and have come to the conclusion they have no idea what they’re doing with local results.
I’ve noticed 1-2 organic results over a 3-5 pack of places listings, some services no longer even show local listings when they used to, some only show the 3 pack, then organic – it changes so often I’ve simply stopped chasing.
I tend to think they’ll merge places with google+ and I think that’s probably for the best
Comment by Pavlicko (2 comments) — January 26, 2012 @ 11:37 pm
This is so annoying. I have been trying to rank my carpet cleaning company. Having the search engines change their mind so often really hurts the bottom lines of these local companies. Give us the rules and let us work on listing our companies. That is all we ask!
Comment by Daniel (38 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:48 am
Truth is most SERPs showing local results are useless – niche-targetted directory sites are much better in terms of usability. I guess they finally figured that out.
Comment by Michal (4 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:55 am
I have one for car dealer that shows one at top and then 5 lower: car dealers in Gastonia NC
Comment by AW (1 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 2:06 am
@Michal
WTF?
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 2:34 am
I too saw this yesterday but didn’t really pay any attention to it as I was busy, but now I read this I’m like “oh yes, i saw that too…”..
So I checked some queries, here are my findings:
1. doesn’t seem to matter if your logged in at google. Getting the same results.
2. there is a difference for: “keyword” compared to “keyword city”
3. NO ADWORDS?!
4. with only 1 place result, the right sidebar shows this places result details
5. keyword only includes universal search results. others do not
Screenshots:
1: keyword only: http://screencast.com/t/v3Mbuqbqaqb
2: keyword + city: http://screencast.com/t/XLxXkrFjx
3: keyword + city + area: http://screencast.com/t/QhPZtWhtuY
1:
Search for keyword only. 1 normal result with sitelinks. Smaller map on the right. 3-pack. Universal results (news, image)
2:
Search for keyword+city: 3 normal. 5 places, followed by 5 normal results. Larger map. And very interesting: No Adwords on the right! (link to serps: http://goo.gl/zrq5b)
No univerals.
3:
Search for keyword + city + area: 3 normals, 1 place with details on the right. 7 normal, no universal, no adwords @right sidebar.
Also VERY interesting here, like to have this one confirmed:
It seems that when there is one place result, the places details are shown. I have tested this with some other queries too.. I then noticed, the details are only shown if the place page has been VERIFIED by the owner. Otherwise you will just get a map with no details like opening hours etc.
Comment by Willem (2 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 3:39 am
does this forum use moderation? I posted a reply, but don’t see it, and also no message it is being moderated?
Comment by Willem (2 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 3:50 am
I’ve noticed that 2 days ago. Many SERPs with lost 2-3 pinned results mainly where these listings were not “merged” with their website – results without description. Small business owners should think about better websites that also rank well for their main keywords.
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 4:37 am
@Mike & Steve and regarding to three yesterday comments 20 – 22 about differences in Genuine Search & GMaps (http://goo.gl/SHoSq & http://goo.gl/s97f6)
My point is: we are here discussiong a new behavior of handling place packs by genuine search and all hints about what is NEW there could be useful.
And despite of knowing there are certain differences of the algos in Search & Gmaps of course there are different areas used for showing them on a genuine search and a GMaps search.
But why this?
From a users point of view (resp. “search”) he cant do much about the shown area if just typing in his keyword terms [term] [city ] into http://www.goole.com or into maps.google.com isn’t ?
Comment by ehg (34 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 5:28 am
Its happening in the UK too, its making our jobs harder if you sold your customers a guaranteed first page listing, what are they playing at.
Comment by Mick Young (1 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 6:40 am
Here in Germany I also did not see a 7-pack anymore. But the results vary a lot for each search term. We can see 6, 5, 4 and also a lot 3-pack results.
Comment by Sebastian (24 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 8:37 am
Seeing this in Ohio as well. Showed a 3 pack yesterday for the non-competitive term “home inspector cincinnati”. However, today serps show a 5 pack with an organic result embedded after the 1st map result. (see here: http://screencast.com/t/4rVO4EFJxbVl) It’s literally changing every day.
We’ve seen the maps results fluctuating all over the place from blended to 10 packs to 7 packs to 3 packs to mixtures in between, especially for the most competitive terms (lawyer, dentist, electrician, storage). Seems to be testing IMO.
Comment by Jacob Puhl - Firegang.com (2 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 9:46 am
http://goo.gl/WGQY2 – 10 blended results. The last time I reported about this was right after the first appearance of the Google Places Search.
Comment by Plamen (68 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 10:54 am
I have seen this with MANY search results. I haven’t seen a 7-pack of any type for about a week now. Mostly 4-5 packs.
Comment by Zelick (4 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 12:11 pm
In cases where there is a “pack” of results being shown, I seem to now be seeing a 3-pack. However, it seems like for the majority of local searches, they are showing more blended results now than ever before. I’m going to guess that it won’t be long before there aren’t any “packs” of local results and they are all blended. In my opinion, that’s the best way for them to display local results and it requires a more holistic SEO strategy to perform well. A good combination of proper Places Pages setup and on-site (and off-site) SEO will be key to ranking highly.
Comment by Eric Marshall (11 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 12:33 pm
@Stever
Which part did you not understand? They are simply useless for a user.
I do not remember good experience with these results.
Comment by Michal (4 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
Thanks for the post here Mike,
I’ve been seeing something even stranger than the changes that are being discussed here.
My dad’s got a massage therapy business up here in Wisconsin and after the past couple of years of working to rank his site in the Google local SERPS…he is, for a number of different search queries, THE ONLY LISTING BEING SHOWN at all for the local results, right at the top of the page.
It’s like a ONE-PACK?! Super weird. Has anyone else seen this. Fortunately, it we who have the spot…but it kind of sucks for anyone else, lol.
Here’s a look in you’re interested, pretty crazy.
Any thoughts on this??
Aubrey
Comment by Aubrey (2 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:32 pm
@Aubrey
It is a blended result. The fact that no other listing is showing the pin is fortuitous and it happens from time to time. Essentially Google has no other high quality local listing/website to show within the constraints of the geography that is showing.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:37 pm
We do local search for about 100 HVAC companies around the country and have seen the smaller Local results for about a month. To Aubrey’s comment above the lone listing, I believe it is more a testimony to the competition not engaging in Places adequately or consistently. We started seeing it a month and 1/2 ago in smaller markets where competitor’s claimed Places listings started falling away.
Another change to note that just happened in the last few days is that the website preview from the map pack no longer gives you the link to the web page’s cached copy like it used to–yet the organic listing still does.
Comment by David (33 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:48 pm
We are finding the the SERPs to be totally, completely, utterly RANDOM. 3, 4, 5, 7, packs, non-blended, to no local listings at all. There are no obvious clues to reveal any methodology. It just seems random like a few fore-shocks to a major quake that we don’t see coming. Uh oh.
Comment by Jeffrey Magner (82 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:52 pm
I see the same thing happening in the Los Angeles searches.
Comment by Art (20 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
[...] a blog post yesterday, Mike Blumenthal pointed out that Google has reduced the presence of Google Places [...]
Pingback by Observations on Google’s New SERP - SIM Partners — January 27, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
Hey Mike,
Based on what you showed in this post, our team’s been working on pulling together some initial observations of the new SERP based on a wide variety of searches. We’re planning some tests, but if you’re interested, you can check out our initial observations here: http://www.simpartners.com/observations-on-google%E2%80%99s-new-serp/
Comment by Steve (34 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
Thanks for drawing attention to this Mike.
If I may be so bold, I think I may have the winner for “Most Outrageous 3-Pack of the Year” …
“plastic surgeon albany ny”
http://www.google.com/search?q=plastic+surgeon+albany+ny&pws=0
After almost 2 years of doing everything under the local-seo sun to make it into the Albany map-packs for plastic surgery, I’m ready to call it a day and put the money allocated each month for local seo towards PPC instead (n.b. – not all SEO, just local).
::Did you hear that Google! I give up! Your Kafkanian ways have won the day. I’ll never pay anyone other than you again. Happy now??::
Cries in the dark aside, I do seriously wonder if wearing down SMBs until they roll over and go all in on PPC isn’t the underlying end-game here. Think about all the time and money being spent-on/’invested’-into local seo by SMBs. How much more frustrating/opaque/amorphous/indiscriminate do the local SERPs need to become before a majority of the businesses in any given search market give up trying to ‘go around google’s gate’?
Comment by Will DeLuca (5 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 2:40 pm
Mike,
I saw 3 pacs, 4 pacs, 5 pacs, 7 pacs. and even a 2 pac. I show images here http://www.milkmen.com/blog/2-pac-4-pac-5-pac-what-the-faq/
I’m excited to go find the 9 pac as well. Woah! Crazy results.
Comment by Cody Baird (3 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 2:46 pm
[...] I found this one after reading Mike Blumenthals post today. Nice find Joseph [...]
Pingback by 2 Pac, 4 Pac, 5 Pac, What the faq? | Local Search Changes | MilkMen blog — January 27, 2012 @ 2:55 pm
@Michal,
I don’t understand any of it. When you search in Google for a local business, lets say a plumber, it’s nice to see Google present the user with 10 local plumbers to choose from. What could possibly be not user friendly with that? Instead you suggest Google should present what?- links to local “niche” plumber directories where the user must now choose from yet another list of 10 local plumbers?
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 3:09 pm
@Will DeLuca
UGH! Hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t get discouraged though. Google search results are like the weather – if you don’t like it, wait a day. I don’t think this will all stick.
Think about the repercussions… IF the user tests show that the majority of eyeballs and clicks go to the Maps listings, then Google is essentially giving 3 businesses the bulk of the clicks and business in uber competitive niches.
Lets say 8% of users click on PPC according to most stats leaving 92% to click on organic. Let’s say ~70% (rough rough ballpark) of those users click on maps listings because they are “Prominent” and eye catching, meaning roughly 64% of users are clicking on those THREE listings, hypothetically. That doesn’t seem like they’re serving the “best” or most ‘relevant’ results, at all.
I just can’t see those results sticking over time. Too many negative repercussions.
Comment by Jacob Puhl (13 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 3:17 pm
@ Jacob Puhl: i believe you’re bit dewy-eyed regarding Google is handling repercussions on changes they made.
Exception: maybe not in case they made “changes” accidentally.
Unfortunately we dont know yet.
Comment by ehg (34 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 3:32 pm
@ehg lol yes, maybe I have too much ‘trust’. I am actually a believer their goal is to provide the ‘best’ results while juggling the whole ‘profit maximization’ idea as they go hand in hand. Otherwise you’d see a page completely full or PPC (which we are approaching. ugh. so maybe I should reconsider).
Long term profit max = proving best results for the user over the long term. I just can’t believe these results will prove to be the best for the user, at all. Time will tell I suppose.
Comment by Jacob Puhl (13 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 3:44 pm
In Canada, we’re seeing decreases too. Our real estate related terms used to be a 7 pack and now it’s down to 4. We’re ok with that for now as we are number 1.
Comment by Marie Haynes (2 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
Hadn’t noticed until you brought it up, but yeah a LOT of my clients niches (DDS, BK Attorney, Photo) are not too excited about this 3-Pack phenom going on.
Comment by Neil Ferree (6 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 6:26 pm
Hi Mike thanks for your more than interesting bog on this article.
I can confirm that your right about less GP’s results showing.
Personally I believe that Google are separating mobile and non mobile results.
The SEO’s jobs will very soon involve a lot of walking around searching via a smart phone.
We are not very far off most Google local search’s being made via mobile devices instead of home / office based static computers.
In the end there will me non mobile results and totally different mobile based results.
e.g.
Home computer search for my line of business shows me results like im used to searching via a static computer.
Now I go out and about with my Iphone and I see very similar results but if I search for “service + location”.
BUT if I just search the very shorthand version “plumber” e.g. I see a totally different set of results.
I have also noticed new web button “use my location”
So I click on “use my location” then the phone warns me that I’m going to share my location so I agreed.
Now the results are ordered by closest first seemingly regardless of ranking e.g. reviews ect.
I think that Google want places to gain reviews and then use “Google Adwords Express” to promote their reviews, therefore earn more revenue.
Comment by Graham Johnson (4 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 11:36 pm
I’m starting to advise some of my customers to spend more time learning selling via Ebay than relying on their Google places ranking.
Very sad to see Google going the way it’s heading.
The reason I’m saying this is because Ebay is a very stable system where’s Google is totally NOT.
Comment by Graham Johnson (4 comments) — January 27, 2012 @ 11:55 pm
To the original question from Mike… yes we are seeing those changes in So Cal now for some pretty competitive searches. The annoying thing is that one of the three packs we are seeing has 3 listings and all of them are complete spam (same phone for 5 different listings throughout the region, all PMB, and all have domains with the keyword and city). It is like Google is flashing back to 2009 when they dropped us down to 3-5 packs for about 8 months before giving up and heading back out to the 7-10 pack.
On a personal note I actually took a significant step this last week… I switched all of my personal computers/ smart-phones to default to Bing as their home page.
Comment by Mark (109 comments) — January 28, 2012 @ 3:13 am
I noticed similar results locally here in the Vancouver area a couple of weeks ago too. In fact I’m quite certain I noticed this trend in December on occasion and as the unpredictability continued I have been slowly adapting by services to rely less on Google Places Pages as a source of management fee based income.
Google is making changes at such a rapid rate to many things but for GPP’s I believe that this rather ‘volatile’ behavior on serp’s will continue for some time.
Although I’ve been no stranger to Google (hence my nickname) and how it functions over the years as a sales and marketing employee in other fields, my newly created business began with a plan that relied heavily on this great new product in Google Places.
As a result and for my own financial health and for the sake of my reputation, my GPP’s services are merely a ‘value added’ support service to my own (and much evolved) business plan now, and the continuing education resulting from the latest marketing trends that we have little control over such as these.
There have been a great many people selling Google Places Pages services really hard and making all sorts of promises about page one ranking and I am finding that some of them are scrambling right now as a result of money back guarantees for Google Places Page results.
I’m glad I had the insight to know that we, as marketing people, have no control over what Google (or any engine) will do at any given time and control the urge to make such claims for a fast buck.
The evolution of Google Places Pages have a long way to go and I’m certain they are here to stay, but because it is such a unique product and so different than conventional websites (being a unified identical template with strict parameters), we need to be very careful not to put too many eggs in one basket.
Simon Scott
Comment by The Googs (1 comments) — January 28, 2012 @ 4:21 pm
Mike: in our category–home energy efficiency contractors, energy auditors–almost everything has gone to 3 or 5, even in locations with the most players. I think @Stever is on to something with the comment about directories. Anecdotal so far, but it does seems to coincide with the return of better rankings for Service Magic in particular and to a lesser extent Angies List and some others.
Comment by Peter Troast (11 comments) — January 28, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
To help out, I thought I would throw these results in. I was going through some of our clients and found that every keyword + the city we target now generate blended results.
For example, in a sample of 100 keywords myriad of nitches all of them produce blended boxes ranging 1-9. If you were to plot them out on a graph they would create a very nice bell curve.
The most predominant being a Blended 4 followed by 3 and 5 with the outliers being 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Two weeks ago these same 100 keywords were generating Pure 7 boxes or Blended 7 organic results – with only 12 terms generating some other version of a map.
If you don’t have your places SEO and Off Page optimization strategy in place – then apparently – it’s time to get one.
Comment by Mercedes (4 comments) — January 29, 2012 @ 2:04 am
Mercedes,
Thanks for those results! What tracking software are you using that shows you the “box” size? I have software that tells me if it’s a pack, blended or organic. But I don’t know of anything that tells you how many are in the pack and would LOVE to find one that does.
Thanks in advance for sharing!
Comment by Linda Buquet (293 comments) — January 29, 2012 @ 12:31 pm
@Linda -
I work with David Sprague the creator of Maps Marketing Blueprint. The software I use is our proprietary Google Places Analyzer called Maps Marketing Analyzer. We developed it for our members so they can do competitive research in their nitch. It also gives you the map results and how the boxes breakdown. If your interested in taking a look at it I would be happy to send you a copy.
Comment by Mercedes (4 comments) — January 29, 2012 @ 1:52 pm
While all this is happening, my sense is that Goog is pushing Maps more than Places…Or at least equally. Could this be a two directory strategy. Kind of like having two products in the same category with different brands from the same manufacturer (Chevrolet and Pontiac). Adding Google+ adds even more intrigue.
All of this may make our jobs harder, but it also makes it harder for the clients. Bad news, good news.
Comment by Randy Kirk (16 comments) — January 29, 2012 @ 4:06 pm
I see it happen at my realestate site.
Comment by Ex (1 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 1:25 am
I have only been doing SEO for about 3 months, And right as I think I am making some headway, a 2 by 4 has found its way to my head. I started on my brothers website in Lake Havasu City Az, (Stonetrix.com) which is a smaller market. Then moved to my companies website (Pawn1st.net), where I am targeting 3 competitive markets simultaneously with 7 locations in 5 separate cities. Needless to say I am on the internet or my phone extensively studying similarities and differences. I search many keyword variations for each target niche and have seen a variety of changes for the last three weeks. Still today I see craziness. Pawn shops phoenix is a stack of three and title loans phoenix is 7. I think that title loans will be decreased as well. I think on some level they are trying to condense keyword variations so there isn’t as many placement variations while at the same time setting a higher standard for placement. There is also intricacies of Google plus to consider as well as the many levels of advertising, from new Google products to other companies like phone book directories. It, on some level, will work as a scare tactic. This will narrow the window and make us play the game harder with a major focus on quality. I also think this will bring more jobs to the SEO industry. I can be way off and have a lot more theories in my head I can’t put into words, as I am sure everyone does. I don’t think they are done thou. I am still very green in this new industry and still have many dots to connect but very addicted and truly set on figuring much of it out. Take care
Comment by Jason W. (1 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 3:33 am
Yeah, saw this happening and punched the air. SEO wins out!
The interesting thing here is not that Google change things, but that people are still surprised when they make those changes.
At the moment Google search is a MESS. Something has to change and I commented on Matt Cutts blog about this recently. Down the local pub for the last few months, people have been saying things like “What’s the matter with Google now? I can’t find anything any more.”
Once upon a time I used Alta Vista for all my search, then the new guy Google showed up. It was beautiful. It was clean and uncluttered. I switched.
A decade+ later and what do we have?
A cluttered, confusing and unfriendly 3-column horror. It looks ugly, there’s too much clutter, and to a new user (BIG gov push in the UK now to get more people on the internet in 2012 – currently only 19m out of 60m population) there’s no clarity of what they should be clicking on.
When I first saw Places I thought “Uho, how long will this last?” and to my surprise it’s lasted much longer than I thought it would, but I don’t see any longevity in it at all. So to all the non-SEO Johhny-come-lately businesses that have sprung up and are ticked off because they’ve promised something they had no chance of delivering…
You’d better start learning SEO.
You’ll find it takes more work (which you can outsource), but it’s far more lucrative than charging a one-off couple of hundred dollars for a “guaranteed” *cough* page 1 listing.
What I’m trying to say here is you shouldn’t rely on the occasional gimmicks like getting a client into Google Places. Yeah it’s a nice little sideline but that’s all it should be. Don’t take it seriously, it could be relegated to a menu of its own at any time.
As someone has hinted at in a previous comment, this could all just be a marketing ploy by Google and I wouldn’t put it past them to do this, their marketing people are SMART.
Here’s the marketing plan that seems most likely to me.
Step 1 – Make it easy for local businesses to get on page 1.
Step 2 – Wait while the word gets round and a whole new “Places” industry starts up selling local businesses on the importance of being on page 1. (Free marketing and education for Google.)
Step 3 – When enough local businesses are happy and getting the benefits of being on page 1… Pull the plug on places and relegate it to a menu item.
All those businesses that were relying on Places for their coverage will instantly disappear from search. Where a couple of years ago a business might not be that bothered to be on page 1, well now they’re really going to miss it and want it back.
And HOW do they get back on page 1?
Why, Google to the rescue… For a price…
AdWords!
The learning point?
You can’t beat good SEO and you can’t avoid the work that comes with it. It’s a fools errand to do so, and especially dangerous if you’re making promises to local businesses you can’t keep…
-Frank Haywood
Comment by Frank Haywood (2 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 9:24 am
P.S. I’ve started using DuckDuckGo.com for my own search, it’s lovely. Just like Google used to be when it started only better.
Prediction: Word will spread. DDG will replace Google search over the next 5 years…
Comment by Frank Haywood (2 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 9:29 am
I have noticed that major categories seem to be showing a blended 5 in our area, and 3 or 4 for searches with typically less volume. In fact, I’ve even seen searches in a relatively large city show ZERO local results for terms like “carpet cleaning” etc. IMHO, I think Google is going to tighten the reigns a bit, and that the old 7 will be the new 5. I wonder what percentage of people actually click on Places listings in spots 6 and 7? Where does Google make more money? On a site with Adsense or on a Places listing…. Which is better from a users perspective?
Comment by Eric Christopher (36 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 12:44 pm
My other thought is also this:
How many businesses across the country got SOME traffic being in the lower spots and are now not showing on page 1?
And how many of those said businesses now realize the power of being on page 1 and decide to either A) hire a local marketing expert/seo company or B) get phone calls from Google inquiring about Adwords Express?
@Mike
What are your thoughts on this? Also, lol…. how many comments does it take to make them DF?
Comment by Eric Christopher (36 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 12:54 pm
Ok – wanted to take a look at the distribution of the 3 pack vs. the rest of the packs based on the discussion and the comments of @Mercedes, by hand. I took 3 separate cities – on large, medium and small and took roughly the top 50 local search categories based on advertising spend from some old data we have.
See the results here (natural caveat – small sample size)
https://docs.google.com/a/firegang.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At6KHegDOmFEdFRQNHhGWXFkdWZYMllCTDNvSzhkTlE#gid=1
Conclusions –
)
The distribution did NOT seem to matter based on the cities.
3 pack is most popular (~1/3) followed by 4 then 5 (confirming Mercedes
Some “0″ packs/no packs are being shown, even for competitive local searches
Local Category didn’t seem to show any consistency. In other words, the search for “accountant + city” seems to show different # pack in different cities (consistent with previous searches). Seems to be no pattern based on competitiveness and radius shown.
We’d need to spread this out over more cities, but there doesn’t seem to be any consistencies across categories or city population.
I also plan on doing this at different points in time to see if the results are changing by week or month. Any other thoughts are welcomed.
Comment by Jacob Puhl (13 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 1:20 pm
There is no doubt that ranking in GP will continue to be difficult to attain if the current pack system remains. Some of my current clients have been pushed out of the new “3 or 4-packs” by listings with non-optimized pages, fewer citations, etc.
Now to beging the process of how to overcome this new challenge.
Thanks
James
Comment by James (31 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 1:22 pm
@Eric
My thoughts haven’t changed a great deal. A business needs an integrated approach to online marketing in general and search in particular. With Google that means you need 1)To do well and Local and 2)Do well on your website 3)be sure to use their other products and is likely to mean 4) that you need to do well Search Plus Your World with a truly local footprint.
@Jacob
Did you distinguish between the Blended and Pack results?
On some searches like insurance agent + ANY City and “ahref=”http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=storeage+Birmingham&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8″>storage + ANY city Google is ONLY showing traditional 3 packs and no blended results regardless of the city.
Comment by Mike Blumenthal (1962 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 1:31 pm
@Jacob Puhl – I was hopeful too… and still am to some degree. That said, given all the effort we’ve put into Google Maps Optimization, to have 1 plastic surgery practice own ALL 3 listings in the 3-Pack… well, I can’t help but feel a bit jaded and foolish for having invested so heavily into local (re: google displays the practice and 2 of it’s surgeons).
How could any algorithm ever consider that result ‘helpful’ to end-users?
It can’t, which is why I’m beginning to think that the slow yet steady metamorphosis of Google Local/Maps into a kafkafian absurdity and/or fools errand is part of some larger strategy whose objective is simply to wear down the 95% of SMBs that don’t presently show up in whatever map-pack is being displayed on page 1 for searches of their services. After concluding that their attempts to play by google’s “rules” are hopeless, I suspect most small business will gladly buy into whatever PPC/pay-to-play “solution” Google offers them…
n.b – And that only covers half of it … for the past 8 months, my primary listing “DeLuca Plastic Surgery” has had to deal with being merged and unmerged with the listing of another plastic surgeon with an office in the same building. Check out the 2nd map pack: http://www.google.com/search?q=deluca+plastic+surgery+albany&pws=0
We’ve tried everything to separate his listing from ours and yet it still keeps merging together. 4 weeks ago the listing showed our phone number [(518) 724-2444] and address (Suite #123) but his business name. Now it’s his phone number and address, but our reviews and photos.
At this point, I’m not even sure if the great Mike Blumenthal can untangle this mess.
Comment by Will DeLuca (5 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 2:13 pm
@Mike,
For those purposed, “pack” is any maps listings. We’re seeing extreme variations in how the results are coming up blended vs traditional and in between. Sometimes, plural is triggering a switch and sometimes not.
Exs:
roofer dallas: BLENDED
roofers dallas – TRADITIONAL
accountant dallas: BLENDED
accountants dallas: BLENDED
Insurance Agent Rochester – BLENDED
Insurance Agents Rochester – TRADITIONAL
Its interesting to pluralize the agents in Albany above brings up blended vs traditional, so Albany looks like:
Insurance Agent Albany – BLENDED
Insurance Agents Albany – TRADITIONAL
Would need to do some more searches to see if there is any form of consistency… #scratchinghead
Comment by Jacob Puhl (13 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 2:14 pm
@Dr Deluca
I was just looking at your listing again today. Within the last 4 to 6 weeks Google tightened down their dupe removal routine…. what once was usually acceptable in the eyes of the algo appears to no longer be so… that is the use of a single phone number for both the practice and the practitioner. So besides your historical merging issues you will have that to contend with.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 2:24 pm
@Jacob
What I found so odd about insurance agents AND storage was the complete consistency across markets in the use of the traditional 3-pack
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
@Mike
Thanks for following up! Very much appreciated.
Question… is the algo only tightening on new (or relatively new) businesses? All of the practitioners at The Plastic Surgery Group list the same phone number as the practice (see: http://www.google.com/search?q=plastic+surgeon+albany+ny&pws=0).
Comment by Will DeLuca (5 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 2:39 pm
@Dr DeLuca
Unfortunately it is not a hard and fast thing. It depends on Google’s sources, the quantity of their souces, their trust in the sources, how much they tighten down the merge/purge routine etc etc. I have observed and been advised by Google that two listings with the same address and same phone number are more likely to be merged.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 3:38 pm
I just typed in attorneys in Paris, France, Berlin, Germany, New York City, New York, and in San Diego, California ranging from 3 to 5 the only one where I got 5 was in San Diego. Is google starting to limit how many businesses are published?
Comment by Jake (16 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 4:35 pm
@jake
We don’t know what logic google is using but the results are that many fewer location pins are showing.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
@Mike Talk about making it harder on the people trying to be published for the locals to see huh?
Comment by Jake (16 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 5:23 pm
@jake
Not necessarily. Like all of these types of changes there are opportunities and not just difficulties.
For example, It now makes searches that were once out of reach for a suburban location due to the vagaries of local search now within reach.
I think businesses need to take a balanced approach. If they pay attention to both web and local and
Social they will do ok regardless
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 7:22 pm
The competition in our area which occupy the new packs are all non optimized pages. No photos, videos, description filled with keywords and no reviews but yet they are in the pack and our fully optimized listings are gone…..what is going on? Now we only have 3 packs and they put these crappy pages ahead of ours?
Comment by Jack (7 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 7:40 pm
@Mike. Being balanced make sense but it’s extremely difficult and time consuming for a small business to have to watch all 3 fronts…local, web and social. Sure we can hire someone to do it but it may not be affordable to do all three. I got help with our local google pages and was satisfied with the work by a local SEO company but having someone cover all 3 areas seems a bit costly…of course, we could always do PPC but I personally don’t care for it.
Comment by Jack (7 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 8:43 pm
@Jack
That’s very true. But it can be done over time and in small, affordable increments IF 1)you build a good website with appropriate SEO structure 2)leverage your customers for social and reviews, 3)have an ongoing, slow & steady plan for obtaining citations and links through your normal business contacts and 4)use email to drive all of the above on a regular basis.
It is difficult, it can be expensive so you need to educate yourself and develop a manageable plan that you can afford both in time and money.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 9:12 pm
@Jack,
The future of search is going to involve much more social elements so small businesses will have to employ all 3. But like Mike said this can be achieved with an ongoing, slow and steady plan and leveraging your customers for portions of social.
Comment by Stever (206 comments) — January 30, 2012 @ 9:31 pm
Mike, thank you for calling attention to this issue. I spent some time looking into the matter and many local search results relating to the real estate industry in San Diego have gone from 7 packs to 4 packs.
Comment by DJ (3 comments) — January 31, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
Google seems to have lost enough revenue on adwords because of maps. They might have definitely increased their revenues. Another form of increasing the revenue would be to push the maps further down and Goog has already started paid advertising for google places.. so the listings will fight for the top 3 positions and Google will start minting money!!
Comment by Jamie (3 comments) — January 31, 2012 @ 12:59 pm
This just started happening and is effecting all verticals like auto repair (geo modifier) and deep tissue massage Tampa. In my opinion this is google making searcher utilize the tabs: everything, image, video, maps, news, blogs and places.
Comment by Manny lontok (1 comments) — February 1, 2012 @ 8:09 am
Hi Mike,
Several days ago I agreed with the majority after seeing more and more 7-packs convert to 3, 4, 5 and 6 packs but recently started finding 8-packs. In Plamen’s comment a 10 pack is listed. This is making me doubt that the change was caused by Google losing revenue on adwords because of maps.
Search: PR Firms San Diego CA
Comment by DJ (3 comments) — February 7, 2012 @ 3:43 pm
I run a driving school in Brighton England and over the years have become obsessed by the 7 pack. To my horror my key search “driving lessons Brighton” now produces a 4-pack. I don’t mind the competition by my well optimized, well reviewed page with plenty of citations (as recommended by Google) has been surpassed by place pages that are very “ordinary”
Comment by steve (34 comments) — February 7, 2012 @ 4:56 pm
We are seeing the same thing for queries like “seattle wedding photographer”. This used to return a 7 pack, and now we are seeing a 3 pack.
Comment by Aaron Bird (3 comments) — February 7, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
“dj in san francisco” is a 10-Pack! Whoo Hoo!
Comment by Jeffrey Magner (82 comments) — February 8, 2012 @ 2:09 am
[...] the new reduced footprint of the Local results, there is once again good opportunity for doing well in organic search phrases. If you can’t [...]
Pingback by Many Google Places Search Results Are Showing an Increased Radius For Search Results | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search — February 8, 2012 @ 11:43 am
My original search for ‘hotels san francisco’ that was returning 3 results the day this article was published is now returning 4 results. Just thought I’d update. A tiny bit of growth.
Comment by MiriamEllis (636 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 4:13 am
I am also seeing that the view of the local area has slightly moved, thus not seeing my location. Has anyone else noticed a shift in the view?
Comment by steve (34 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 4:37 am
I have noticed that due to google instant a localized search no longer needs to have a place name in it.
On the lefthand side of the search screen you will notice that there is an option to change location.
If I type “laptop repair” it shows my listing at #1 but if I finish the search and and “croydon” the map zooms to only cover the town center and my listing does not appear anymore.
I wish google had not updated as search results are not relevant as they used to be.
Because of this shift Im in the proccess of opening a new shop in the town center.
Comment by Graham Johnson (4 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 8:51 am
@Steve
The Place page now plays second fiddle to websites in most results.
@Jeffery
Yes one of the stranger outcomes has been the appearance of 9 and 10 packs.
@Miriam
obviously still very fluid
@Steve
the search area is a function of many factors and can move from time to time. See my post on Location sensitivity.
@Graham
It is a complicated beast. Rather than stress about specific search phrases you need to worry about making your site the best it can be, converting more visitors and increasing your online prominence. It is a never ending task.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 10:13 am
Mike
Sorry to be a pest but could you post a link
Steve
Comment by steve (34 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
Mike
Don’t worry I found it
Love your work!
Steve
Comment by steve (34 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 5:14 pm
@Steve
Thank you but I need to correct you…. its play not work!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — February 9, 2012 @ 6:25 pm
As of 2/15 – now seeing 7 packs return for auto repair terms.
Comment by Tim (13 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 11:40 am
@tim
Four only lasted for a while… seven seems to be the new “normal”, today.
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 11:56 am
Emphasis on “today”.
Comment by Brian Combs (31 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 12:08 pm
@Brian
Yes…today!
Comment by Mike (2500 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 12:12 pm
Hmmm… still seeing only 3 packs in Albany NY (which interestingly enough, was ranked by Acxiom as the #1 “test market” in America in 2004 -)
Also unchanged: “plastic surgeon albany ny” still displays 3 listings all from the same practice/group (phone & address for all 3 listings = exact matches… How does Google’s algorithm not notice the difference between a practice and its practitioners? If they’re going to show a 3 pack, the least they could do is show 3 different practices.
Same goes for “liposuction albany ny”
Comment by Will DeLuca (5 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 12:34 pm
Breaking news from sunny Brighton England…
4 pack returns to 7…
However content of 7 pack is not up to scratch, poorly optimized, no reviews, no websites and no citations.
Hmm makes all that work on my page 2 site seem worthwhile!
peace….
Comment by steve (34 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 1:43 pm
Yes, all seems to be back to “normal” for now, whatever normal means.
I still don’t see how a 3 pack provides the “best, most relevant” result for a user so makes much more sense for G to move back to a 7+ pack. Clearly they are testing and moving things around quite a bit which is the same thing they are doing with the organic non local results each week. I also think the missing descriptions today are just a short term glitch and will be restored in due time.
Comment by Jacob Puhl (13 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 3:01 pm
Since early ths morning the 7-packs were being displayed, however, about an hour ago, the dreaded 3-packs came back.
Anyone else see this?
Comment by James (31 comments) — February 15, 2012 @ 11:22 pm
I’ve been seeing 7 packs in our market for the past week, but no descriptions, which I find very troubling. Being in a Places pack with no description isn’t helpful to those looking for services IMO.
Comment by guy (5 comments) — February 21, 2012 @ 4:07 pm
[...] is now once again being seen more widely. When Google strated manipulating local search results by reducing their footprint and removing the description several weeks ago, the PlusBox feature appeared with increasing [...]
Pingback by The PlusBox: Old UI Feature is New Again | Understanding Google Places & Local Search — February 22, 2012 @ 10:16 am
With the new format Places results, is there an easy way to tell the difference between pure and blended packs?
Comment by Blaine Peakall (1 comments) — February 28, 2012 @ 4:13 am
[...] that Google has switched to nearly 100% Blended Local results with the Venice update starting Janury 26 or so that rely on web ranking and reduced the impact of [...]
Pingback by Is Google’s New Requirement to Hide a Home Business Appropriate? | Understanding Google Places & Local Search — March 24, 2012 @ 8:25 am
[...] Google Places (Maps & Local) – Mike Blumenthal – 2:20 pm The Venice update that started in late January had significant impact on Google local search results. We saw an increase in the [...]
Pingback by The Venice Shift from Local Pack to Blended Results | Understanding Google Places & Local Search — April 11, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
Having google change the rules has really hurt my pet odor removal business. Having them change from places to Google + Local has really cut down on the number of page views I get. I hope this gets settles out quickly.
Comment by Daniel (38 comments) — July 18, 2012 @ 1:49 am