The recent posting at SEORefugee about the Denver Florist going broke due to their business being displaced by appearance of a competitor in the OneBox, has brought Googleâ€™s Authoritative OneBox into the consciousness of the search community.
The Authoritative OneBox has been the gold standard to measure success in local search marketing. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a singular local listing that shows up at the top of the main Google search results page when Google determines that a certain local listing is the authority for that local search.
It made its first appearance last October. Bill Slawski wrote up a OneBox Patent Summary in January of this year. In that same timeframe (January & February) it became more frequently displayed and there was an increase in use of the Authoritative OneBox. Previously it was shown when there was no competition locally but it started being shown more frequently and for the â€œdominantâ€ local listing.
In some ways, the Authoritative OneBox is like the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button on the Google main search window. It reflects the confidence that Google has in their technology. It reflects that idea that they can determine the single best answer to a query. It is said that Google forgoes $110 million in advertising revenue by keeping the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button. At some level the button reflects a certain DNA of Google and their desire to be playful yet confident in their results. It also reflects a certain arrogance: the idea that their algo is so good that it can determine the answer a searcher wants to the exclusion of all others.
The Authoritative OneBox also demonstrates the fundamental difference (and difficulties) between returning relevant results of an abstraction like webpages and returning the real results of a concrete thing like a business. When would a user ever want just one response to the query Denver Flowers?
However it raises more questions than just that.
Continue reading Local Authoritative OneBox = I’m Feeling Lucky; or Not!
Â The Power and Impact of Google Maps
A great post & discussion on the power (perceived and/or real) power of Local and the frustration that it can create in the small business community
A Case Study of Trusted Reviewersâ€™ Impact on Google Maps Placement
A research project in local that could help understand the role of reviews.
Update: 12/23/07 The Tire Rack mapspam has been removed. Since none of the other spam mentioned has yet to be removed, I presume that the company rather than Google did the removing.
There have been three new reports of Mapspam at the Google Maps For Business Group in the last few days.
Our reporter in the trenches of the florist industry, Cathy, noted a variation on an old theme where a national flower reseller with local phone exchanges makes a common appearance in the Maps for the top 60 or so markets but without any local address (note the map indicator is round and not pointed.)
I also noted a new type of Mapspam where a national company, The Tire Rack , created a listing for each and every independent tire store that may or may not carry their product and gave each a local business name of “TireRack Independent Recommended Installer” a local business address and the corporate #877 number.
Thus each local Tire Rack installer is listed in Google Maps twice, once with their own phone and once with The Tire Rack’s #800 (877-596-5090). The number when called took me to the corporate switchboard. They seemed to have achieved a new upload record with 3,576 listings. I tired at listing 500.
This practice does not bode well for Maps or independent tire installers. Obviously the day is near in Maps when every Addidas shoe seller or Nikon camera store will be listed with the corporate phone number. And what local retailer wants to forgo their local brand identity to have the supplier of one of their product lines pick up the phone and do who know what with the call.
We are now accepting nominations for:The 2007 Top 10 List of the Bizarre, Funny and/or otherwise Irrelevant (or Irreverent) blog entries in the Search World.To add a sense of gravitas to this exercise I have invited Bill Slawski and Greg Sterling to act as judges. To honor the SEM worldâ€™s grace while shamelessly promoting the industry and others in the industry, I have asked Rand Fishkin and Danny Sullivan to also act in the capacity as judges. And for balance and impartiality I have asked Matt Cutts (answer pending) to be the final arbiter in case of ties or other disputes (Mapsguide Jen has been disqualified as some of the nominated articles may be about her. She has acted in the capacity of comic foil for the whole year so why stop now?).We are now taking nominations. Oh and the rules.There are no rules as to whom or what you can nominate to be on this list with two exceptions:1)In the vein of shameless self promotion I am allowed to nominate my own stories/entries and2) You may also suggest your own categories and entries for those categories ( a hint…great category with but a single entry could be a winner and achieve world wide distribution…well ok I only have 380 regular readers but I am working on that).3)Judges, employees and their families may participateWhat do the winners get? Besides glory and 15 seconds (its a fast paced industry) of fame, you ask? Glad you asked: The Rubber Chicken Award of Literary Excellence to hang on your wall ..er I mean blog (I am way too cheap to actually pay for a wall plaque).Copyright Notice: This blog entry may be copied in whole or in part AS LONG as there is a link back to my site or not. Some restrictions may apply** The link should preferably be from a page with a PR of 4 or higher, it should ideally be in page or category that retains high page rank AFTER it has dropped off the front page. Nofollows are prohibited except where required by (Googleâ€™s) law. Sphinning is allowed but preferred if done by groups of 20 or more. Due to server limitations (and fear of controversy) Digging is prohibited BUT stumblupon is encouraged. However if you are inclined to Digg refer to the first rule above.
Google Maps has always buried the link that allows a business to edit their listing. This may be a form of self preservation to keep the complaints down. However, they have recently made the link more (?) accessible…it is still a number of levels deep but it is now visible higher on the screen after only 2 clicks.
I had an interesting conversation with a programmer whom I respect this morning who was looking at Yahoo Local and Google Maps business listings (in an industry that presumably has nearly 100% website penetration). He pointed out the following:
â€¢ Google and Yahoo seem to have almost the same name/address/phone info
â€¢ But Google has much better abstracts and web pages (i.e. web site url).
â€¢ Google has about 80-90% of its business listings associated with web pages,
â€¢ Whereas Yahoo has 52% of its business listings associated with web pages
I have found Yahoo Local’s ranking algo to be simpler than Google’s but it appears that there is more difference in the backend than just that.
There has been an increase of late in reports of MapSpam in the Google Maps for Business Group with three reports in the last day. As Mapsguide Jen, our intrepid guide to the netherworld of MapSpam, had warned us in August: “these types of issues may also become more prevalent”.
Some of these Mapspam exploits are subtle and one has to marvel at the intricacies of their elegant implementation. However with some instances of Mapspam one can only marvel at the crassness and apparent unsophisticated nature of the attempt.
Of note in that regard is the newly reported mapspam exploit by the Gurus2go Onsite Computer Service. They have recently (?) created 1188 entries to Google Maps throughout the US.
Unlike TechPros in the original mapspam, they didn’t bother using addresses in most of their listings. Does Google Bulk Upload not require addresses? Did Google close one bulk upload crack and open another?
The on-site computer repair business seems to be a magnet for these types of efforts. Maybe the same SEM firm is selling the same trick multiple times to unsuspecting (?) clients. Hey for all I know its the same on-site repair guys, I haven’t really checked.
The forecast for tomorrow? Let me know what you think the future of mapspam holds in 2008 and beyond.
Continue reading Today’s Google Mapspam report – 70% chance of rain
Sometimes legal documents have a way of tickling one’s funny bone. Lawyers have no clue how funny they can be. Here was a section from Google’s Maps API Terms of Service:
1.4 Appropriate Conduct and Prohibited Uses. The Service may be used only for services that are generally accessible to consumers without charge.
In addition, except where you have been specifically licensed by Google to do so, You may not use the Service with any products, systems, or applications installed or otherwise connected to or in communication with vehicles for or in connection with: (a) real time route guidance (including without limitation, turn-by-turn route guidance and other routing that is enabled through the use of a sensor); (b) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior; or (c) dispatch, fleet management or similar applications.
You agree that You are responsible for your own conduct and content while using the Service and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use the Service only for purposes that are legal, proper and in accordance with these Terms of Service and any applicable policies or guidelines. By way of example, and not as a limitation, You agree that when using the Service, You will not:
â€¢defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
I guess this means you can’t take an autonomous vehicle and while using Google Maps for directions to stalk someone. Go figure! They sure know how to spoil my programmers fun.
Several weeks ago I reported in detail new techniques that were taking mapspamming to the next level in Google Maps and Yahoo Local.
The basic technique was simple:
â€¢ Rent a mailing address with forwarding in every major market near the centroid of the city (UPS is one of many that offer this service)
â€¢ Obtain a domain name for each city with a relevant “location + service” domain
â€¢ Create a website that returns an optimized “location + service” page for the domain
â€¢ Enter the businesses in the Google Local Business Center or Yahoo Local
â€¢ Enter the PIN numbers when they are forwarded to you (if using google)
One area that I didn’t explore in the original article was the use of 800#’s in the on-going spammy promotional effort. The power of Google Maps search can play a significant role in discovering more spam. By searching on the spammer’s phone number(s) you can more easily ascertain the depth of the activity. The power of this research technique was brought to my attention by a new post at the Google’s Maps For Business Group detailing another instance of mapspam.
In an effort to avoid detection (and perhaps for other reasons) the Cash Advance Payday Loans folks used each of their #800s for only 3 Google Maps Local Business Center listings. Here are the numbers that I uncovered and the cities for which they operate via a Google Maps search:
The one search that demonstrates this is when searching on the #800 number used on their website as this returns 3 local listings + all of the other listings that reference their website :
(888) 345-8598 (it shows 37 total listings referring back to their website and master #800)
Have the spammers identified a Google threshold that causes increased scrutiny? Or is there some other reason for the plethora of numbers? What are the economics of the enterprise and the 800# deployment?
Continue reading Mapspam Update
Google Maps is now soliciting input from users as to whether reviews that are listed for a business are useful.
There has been an on-going discussion at convertoffline.com whether the recent purging of CitySearch reviews reflects a new effort by Google could to develop a way of indentifying more trust worthy reviews based on the number of reviews that a reviewer has provided. While that may or may not be the case Google appears to definitely be making an effort to determine review quality from user input by soliciting that information directly.
In the past Google has used review quantity not review quality as a critical ranking factor. Maybe that is changing.