Google Places - What is the best Service Areas Strategy?
-
I've found a lot of useful info on this topic in these forums, but still can't seem to find the answer to my specific question.
Client has one physical location and services many areas.
I have seen various comments that claim setting a service area actually has a negative effect on rankings and the login makes sense to me, so we don't want to do that.
Using the actual physical address, seems to be what google would prefer, but the address is actually on the outskirts of the city and would mean that competitors that have addresses closer to the city center would show up before us.
Our current places listing has the actual address, but the previous SEO put the larger city, with the smaller city zip on the on the website.
City Center: San Diego, 92101
Actual: Street Address, El Cajon, 92020
On website: San Diego, 92020
It this large City + Actual zip code strategy any good?
Which of these 3 strategies should we use to standardize all of our listings?
*we will not be considering a location or mailbox per service are to use multiple listings at this time
-
Hello VernonMack,
Thanks for coming to Q&A with your question. I'm the Local SEO Associate here in the forum. I think the most important point to respond to in your post is this one. You write:
Using the actual physical address, seems to be what google would prefer, but the address is actually on the outskirts of the city and would mean that competitors that have addresses closer to the city center would show up before us.
It isn't so much a matter of Google's preference, but a matter of adhering to their guidelines which specifically state that you must use your real physical address. Unfortunately, this means that businesses likes yours on the borders of major cities do not have the strength to overpower the rankings of competitors actually located within the big cities. As you can imagine, this is a very common issue for all local businesses located just outside of metropolitan locations. Google will always view you as most relevant to the city in which you are located, so for your company, that will be El Cajon - not San Diego. I cannot recommend attempting to mash up the city and zip of the two different locales.
You can, of course, create content on your website about any work you do within San Diego, but should not expect this to take precedence over your actual physical location.
I truly sympathize with the wish to compete for the big search terms, but the usefulness of Google Places depends on accurate representation of data. For now, you are located in El Cajon and should correctly list yourself as such. If it becomes clear to you in future that you need to move locations into the city of San Diego, you will be doing what some other local business owners have done due to Google's handling of location. For some businesses, moving shop just isn't feasible, but for others, getting that inner city address is a must and a smart move.
Hope this helps, and good luck!
-
I can't say 100%, but it looks like El Cajon is still in San Diego County, which might mean it's close enough to still count. Again, you might want to get a second opinion, but I don't think it would be too much of a problem using your actual zip code with San Diego. For instance, where I am (Maryland) there are several small towns that people just incorporate into the bigger city while keeping their unique zip codes.
-
Thanks, Nick. do you have any additional insight into the strategy that combine the large city with the actual city zip code? The listings (NAP) are currently all over the place we will standardize them once we have chosen the best format.
-
This is a tricky one - you're more likely to come up for the smaller city if you're far from the city center, but it's not as likely to get as many searches.
I'd suggest using whatever address most commonly appears on the web. One thing Google really relies on is a consistent NAP - Name, Address and Phone Number. If your website says San Diego, and you have other local citations (directories, etc) that say San Diego, go with San Diego - that should help boost all your local rankings.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Best Web-site Structure/ SEO Strategy for an online travel agency?
Dear Experts! I need your help with pointing me in the right direction. So far I have found scattered tips around the Internet but it's hard to make a full picture with all these bits and pieces of information without a professional advice. My primary goal is to understand how I should build my online travel agency web-site’s (https://qualistay.com) structure, so that I target my keywords on correct pages and do not create a duplicate content. In my particular case I have very similar properties in similar locations in Tenerife. Many of them are located in the same villa or apartment complex, thus, it is very hard to come up with the unique description for each of them. Not speaking of amenities and pricing blocks, which are standard and almost identical (I don’t know if Google sees it as a duplicate content). From what I have read so far, it’s better to target archive pages rather than every single property. At the moment my archive pages are: all properties (includes all property types and locations), a page for each location (includes all property types). Does it make sense adding archive pages by property type in addition OR in stead of the location ones if I, for instance, target separate keywords like 'villas costa adeje' and 'apartments costa adeje'? At the moment, the title of the respective archive page "Properties to rent in costa adeje: villas, apartments" in principle targets both keywords... Does using the same keyword in a single property listing cannibalize archive page ranking it is linking back to? Or not, unless Google specifically identifies this as a duplicate content, which one can see in Google Search Console under HTML Improvements and/or archive page has more incoming links than a single property? If targeting only archive pages, how should I optimize them in such a way that they stay user-friendly. I have created (though, not yet fully optimized) descriptions for each archive page just below the main header. But I have them partially hidden (collapsible) using a JS in order to keep visitors’ focus on the properties. I know that Google does not rank hidden content high, at least at the moment, but since there is a new algorithm Mobile First coming up in the near future, they promise not to punish mobile sites for a collapsible content and will use mobile version to rate desktop one. Does this mean I should not worry about hidden content anymore or should I move the descirption to the bottom of the page and make it fully visible? Your feedback will be highly appreciated! Thank you! Dmitry
Technical SEO | | qualistay1 -
Best Google Practice for Hacked SIte: Shift Servers/IP or Disavow?
Hi - Over the past few months, I've identified multiple sites which are linking into my site and creating fake pages (below is an example and there's over 500K+ of similar links from various sites}. I've attempted to contact the hosting companies, etc. with little success. Was wondering if my best course of action might be at this point: A) which servers (or IP address). B) Use the Google Disavow tool? C) both. example: { http://aryafar.com/crossings/200-krsn-team-part19.html } Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | hhdentist0 -
Google Schema Code for Organisation
I've created the Google Schema code for an organisation. Should this go in the template HTML so it would be shown on all pages or just on the home page?
Technical SEO | | CharlBritton0 -
Does Google know what footer content is?
We plan to do away with fixed footer content and make, for the most part, the content in the traditional footer area unique just like the 'main' part of the content. This begs the question, do Google know what is footer content as opposed to main on page content?
Technical SEO | | NeilD0 -
Google Not liking Magento Sites?
Hello, I'm new to the community and I wonder if anyone can help us shed a light on this SEO issue we are having. We have 3 magento websites that is being affected. Whats happening is that those site were ranked for a specific keyword for few months, but all of a sudden, it just drop like crazy. It went from top 10 to about 150 in a bout a weeks period. Some site, it's not even ranked or stopped ranking and visible on the search engine. Is google not liking MAgento for some reason?? Any help or suggestions will be appreciated! thanks
Technical SEO | | solution.advisor0 -
Where to place your brandname in your URL?
Hello everybody! Quick and short question: What is better when you want to rank for your your brandname? www.jobsbrandname.com or www.brandnamejobs.com I think for SEO it's better to use the last one but marketing has the wish to use the first one. Thanks for your responce!
Technical SEO | | ltom0 -
RSS Feed Errors in Google
We recently (2 months ago) launched RSS feeds for the category pages on our site. Last week we started seeing error pages in Webmaster Tools' Crawl Errors report pop up for feeds of old pages that have been deleted from the site, deleted from the sitemap, and not in Google's index since long before we launched the RSS feeds. Example: www.mysite.com/super-old-page/feed/ I checked and both the URL for the feed and the URL for the actual page are returning 404 statuses. www.mysite.com/super-old-page/ is also showing up in our Crawl Errors. Its been deleted for months but Webmaster Tools is very slow to remove the page from their Crawl Error report. Where is Google finding these feeds that never existed?
Technical SEO | | Hakkasan0 -
Why do I see dramatic differences in impressions between Google Webmaster Tools and Google Insights for Search?
Has anyone else noticed discrepancies between these tools? Take keyword A and keyword B. I've literally seen situations where A has 3 or 4 times the traffic as B in Google Webmaster Tools, but half the traffic of B in Google Insights for Search. What might be the reason for this discrepancy?
Technical SEO | | ir-seo-account0