Local search results appearing above Organic
-
Hello,
I've just performed a search for the query 'outdoor clothing' using Google Incognito mode and I've added the screenshots below to show my findings. The first attempt at the search only showed local results then when I clicked search again adverts were shown.
I found this very odd, normally I'd see the local results after the 3rd of 4th organic result.Have Google changed their algorithm or is this just random?
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8643/incognito1.jpg
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6382/incognito2jf.jpg
Thanks,
Dan
-
I noticed this with one of my clients who is a real estate agent. Our placement stayed the same, but the organic has now blended in with the local result. One big down side right now is that it cuts our Title tag in half because the Local result is shorter.
-
Hi Dan, My guess from your question is that you may be a virtual business competing against local businesses for your specified search term. As you've probably seen over the past few years, Google is placing increased emphasis on their local results whenever they believe a search may have a local intent. Your search term could definitely have a local intent, so this is Google's reason for showing these local businesses. You are correct that one of Google's displays is to show their local results below 1-3 organic results. But, another quite common display is for the local results to be first on the page. This is what is showing in your first link. If you saw the display for this kw phrase go from one type to the other, that is just a sign of Google's constant changes to their presentation of data. It could stay the way it is today, or change tomorrow. So, for virtual businesses who do not qualify for inclusion due to lack of physical location, results like these can be a huge drag. But for local business owners, they are great. Google's goal is to present the information they believe will be most relevant and helpful to the user. In the case you've cited, Google has decided that more people want local results than organic ones, presumably.
-
Noticed it too and it absolutely sucks. Don't expect Google to change it any time soon.
Two ways to act on this - make sure that your Google+ local is down to a tee, first of all. Second, start targetting those keywords without those map results.
It may well be that those keywords end up being more long-tail/better converters anyway, like buy outdoor clothing.
Keep an eye on this SERP and analytics - if the map maintains its place, see if that has a reflection on your traffic and conversion (provided you maintain your organic ranking). It may be worth maintaining optimisation for the term if people are as annoyed as you and I by the maps and scroll right past them.
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
-
Inurl: search shows results without keyword in URL
Hi there, While doing some research on the indexation status of a client I ran into something unexpected. I have my hypothesis on what might be happing, but would like a second opinion on this. The query 'site:example.org inurl:index.php' returns about 18.000 results. However, when I hover my mouse of these results, no index.php shows up in the URL. So, Google seems to think these (then duplicate content) URLs still exist, but a 301 has changed the actual goal URL? A similar things happens for inurl:page. In fact, all the 'index.php' and 'page' parameters were removed over a year back, so there in fact shouldn't be any of those left in the index by now. The dates next to the search results are 2005, 2008, etc. (i.e. far before 2013). These dates accurately reflect the times these forums topic were created. Long story short: are these ~30.000 'phantom URLs' in the index out of total of ~100.000 indexed pages hurting the search rankings in some way? What do you suggest to get them out? Submitting a 100% coverage sitemap (just a few days back) doesn't seem to have any effect on these phantom results (yet).
Technical SEO | | Theo-NL0 -
Amazing results even after 1 week!
Have to say, I'm pretty impressed with Moz, this is now my first full week of membership and wow have I seen some great increases in my site stats! Hopefully this isn't just a blip and that it wil continue for weeks and months to come. Authority has jumped from 27 to 34 Google page one results jumped from 7 to 13 Trafffic increased by 12% Solved duplicate content issues Started a proactive social media campaign I could go on and on, but can't say enough positive things about the services that are provided here, an investment well worth paying and already paying for itself. The goal for the next few weeks is to improve domain authority from 34 to 40+, I've been using long tail phrases for my articles, which has been tremendously beneficial. One query is that even though the domain authority has moved from 27 - 34, I don't appear to have gained any extra backlinks - perhaps I'm misunderstand this metric? The other query is that there are 100's of backlinks pointing to my domain (I provide an open source cms so I know the links are there), but none of these lnks appear to be counting towards my authority. Is there a way I can submit these pages to the index on their behalf? Cheers, Lee
Technical SEO | | LeeC0 -
How to avoid duplicate content on internal search results page?
Hi, according to Webmaster Tools and Siteliner our website have an above-average amount of duplicate content. Most of the pages are the search results pages, where it finds only one result. The only difference in this case are the TDK, H1 and the breadcrumbs. The rest of the layout is pretty static and similar. Here is an example for two pages with "duplicate content": https://soundbetter.com/search/Globo https://soundbetter.com/search/Volvo Edit: These are legitimate results that happen to have the same result. In this case we want users to be able to find the audio engineers by 'credits' (musicians they've worked with). Tags. We want users to rank for people searching for 'engineers who worked with'. And searching for two different artists (credit tags) returns this one service provider, with different urls (the tag being the search parameter) hence the duplicate content. I guess every e-commerce/directory website faces this kind of issue. What is the best practice to avoid duplicate content on search results page?
Technical SEO | | ShaqD1 -
Content development for improving organic SEO Questions
I have a real estate web site at www.nhfinehomes.com. The site is build on a Windows Server running ASP.NET with a basic, home grown CMS. In my Google Analytic under Traffic Sources, Search Engine Optimization, Queries I see a list of over 1,000 keyword phrases that my site had ranked for. In an effort to improve these rankings, I am under the assumption that if I create original content for these terms and add it to my site, it could help improve ranks? First question, is this a valid strategy worth pursuing assuming the content is good, I use good internal linking practices and make sure not to 'orphan' these pages? Second, because my current site technology doesn't really make it easy to add content, I have figured out how to install a WordPress blog at www.nhfinehomes.com/blog (currently not up since the MySQL DB died for some reason) So am I at any disadvantage adding all this content to /blog vs. right on the primary CMS? Obviously the WordPress template is not the same as the main pages so primary nav and footer nav differ. Of course I can cross link between the two but wanted to make sure this was not going to penalize the value of this content. Third, if there is anyone with Windows/.NET optimization experience at the server and site architecture level and can help me give my site a once over, I would be most appreciative. I'm not the programmer and rely and a friend to help with that and his SEO experience is very limited. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | LinkMoser0 -
Why is an error page showing when searching our website using Google "site:" search function?
When I search our company website using the Google site search function "site:jwsuretybonds.com", a 400 Bad Request page is at the top of the listed pages. I had someone else at our company do the same site search and the 400 Bad Request did not appear. Is there a reason this is happening, and are there any ramifications to it?
Technical SEO | | TheDude0 -
Search/Search Results Page & Duplicate Content
If you have a page whose only purpose is to allow searches and the search results can be generated by any keyword entered, should all those search result urls be no index or rel canonical? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | cakelady0 -
How is a dash or "-" handled by Google search?
I am targeting the keyword AK-47 and it the variants in search (AK47, AK-47, AK 47) . How should I handle on page SEO? Right now I have AK47 and AK-47 incorporated. So my questions is really do I need to account for the space or is Google handling a dash as a space? At a quick glance of the top 10 it seems the dash is handled as a space, but I just wanted to get a conformation from people much smarter then I at seomoz. Thanks, Jason
Technical SEO | | idiHost0 -
Anchor text with class atttribute followed by search engines?
Hi folks, Is an anchor containing a class attribute followed by the search engines? Viewed the "text only" version of the cached page in Google and the link is not listed so not sure if it is followed for indexing purposes The code: Reports Actually the link was recognized as an internal link using the SEOMOZ toolbar and also was listed as an internal link using A1 Analyzer. Any thoughts welcomed!! Finn
Technical SEO | | insite3600