Checking in on Local

[jonnyholt]

So it's been a few months since my most favorite thread "Local Really?" (http://moz.com/community/q/local-really) and I have worked tirelessly deleting duplicate citations, fixing incorrect NAP, and adding new citations for the two different locations my client works from.  I have added a second Google Plus Local page and verified it as well and linked it back to the page for that location on my site.  I have added Schema.org markup on each of the pages relating to the locations with the full address and correct NAP.  I research with whitespark.ca to find new possibilities and compare with listings ranking highly.

I feel like I have worked non-stop at this but unfortunately I have still seen 0 results from my examining everything.  The Google listing is still on page 14 / 20 and seems to be stuck there.  Is this fairly normal?  I'm just at a lost as I have honestly tried to adhere to all the comments and advice given by everyone here (again while seeing the competition doing none of those things.)  I think I'm just looking for that little "things look right just give it time and continue" or even "no!  you're doing it wrong still"

Thanks in advance!

[MiriamEllis]

Hi Jonathan,

The best way to start looking for duplicates is to go to Google Maps and type in current phone numbers and any past phone numbers to see if more than one listing surfaces for them.

It sounds like you are making major right steps in many areas. Bringing us back to the concept that these things take time. Once all potential negatives can be resolved, then there is only going forward with positives including content development, review acquisition, social outreach, link earning, etc. Your original thread from October dates the start of your cleanup to about 2 months ago. While everything is dependent on the competitiveness of a business' local market, you should begin to see positive outcomes at some point, but when that will be can't really be estimated. So basically, your path to success will look like this:

1. Resolve negatives

2. Build on-going postives

3. See results once Google catches onto the fact that there are no negatives and that a positive effort is being made on an on-going basis that is superior to the efforts of local competitors.

Pretty much all Local SEO campaigns follow this general pattern and, from your description of your efforts, it sounds like you are on the right track and just need to give things time.

*I will make one proviso to this. Let's say 6 months go by and you are still not seeing the client become a chief player in the results for their local market. If this was happening to me, I'd try to find someone more expert than myself to audit the site in case I've overlooked something I'm not trained to spot.

Hope this helps, and good luck!

[jonnyholt]

Miriam,

Thank you so much for your detailed response yet again.  I will address each of your comments below after having done as much research on each of them as I can.

• Have all previous citations been discovered and cleaned up?  I have used whitespark.ca as well as Google to find as many citations as I possibly could over the last couple of months.  I do know of a citation on chamberofcommerce.org where I have contact them, and they have yet to reply and one on wsyk.com as part of the businesses legal information for doing business in two different states.  I have contacted them as well and they refuse to remove it.   I'm not sure what else I could do.  The listings don't have the name correct

http://www.wysk.com/index/colorado/denver/w3n3jrp/photojennette-ltd/profile

http://www.chamberofcommerce.com/denver-co/31237013-photo-jennette/

I tried claiming the business on chamber of commerce but it says its already claimed and the owner of the company has no recollection of it.

• Are citations being built appropriately for each location?  Yes, again using Whitespark.ca to look at where the top ranking websites have citations, I have been effectively building citations for each of the locations.

• Is the Google+ Local page for each of the 2 locations violation free?  As far as I can tell, both of the Google+ Local pages are verified, and linking to their perspective pages on the site (http://www.photojennette.com/austin & http://www.photojennette.com/denver)

• Could there be duplicate Google+ Local listings or merged listings?  I wouldn't know how to find this.  I haven't seen any duplicate listings.  There is a second business with a google plus local page at that address but it is using a different phone number.  I spoke with a Google rep and he assured me that the second listing, so long as it had a different phone number wouldn't effect the other listing as far as violations.  My client said the second business could be removed if needed but I haven't removed it yet.  Could be an issue?

• Does the website appropriately reflect the 2 locations, or could there be anything on it that is confusing the bots as to the accuracy of distinct NAP for each location?  Those pages are http://www.photojennette.com/austin and http://www.photojennette.com/denver and they both include content, images, Schema citation and Google Map with the location.

• Is robots.txt setup correctly on the site, ensuring that it is fully crawlable?  The site looks to be fully indexed as far as I can see.  Robots.txt is telling google not to index some pages that the client doesn't want on Google.

• Has the site been submitted to Google Webmaster Tools? Yes.

• Has their been a previous issue with spammy linkbuilding that could be harming the site?  As far as I know, my client is the only owner of the domain and there has not been any of those types of activities.

• Is there a duplicate content issue on the website?  Moz is telling me I am free and clear of any duplicate content issues.  I have personally built each page.  There are resemblances between some of the pages, but each have their own text, alt images, meta content, etc.  I am using wordpress SEO by yoast just as a note, and also hes Local plugin.

Again, I can't thank you enough for your help.  I hope I have acurately answered each of your questions.

[MiriamEllis]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for referencing your October thread. As I recall, your client was experiencing multiple issues with citation/NAP inconsistency and you had not yet engaged at that point in cleanup or forward-going citation building. You had also yet to implement a content strategy (separate pages for the 2 physical locations) If you have done so in the intervening weeks, you are on the right track, but it will take time to see results from this work. Check out his infographic:

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/09/26/infographic-citations-time-to-live/

As you will see, some changes take many months to go into effect, so patience is important here. However, if you suspect you may have outstanding issues that are preventing you from ranking, I would look into the following:

• Have all previous citations been discovered and cleaned up?

• Are citations being built appropriately for each location?

• Is the Google+ Local page for each of the 2 locations violation free?

• Could there be duplicate Google+ Local listings or merged listings?

• Does the website appropriately reflect the 2 locations, or could there be anything on it that is confusing the bots as to the accuracy of distinct NAP for each location?

• Is robots.txt setup correctly on the site, ensuring that it is fully crawlable?

• Has the site been submitted to Google Webmaster Tools?

• Has their been a previous issue with spammy linkbuilding that could be harming the site?

• Is there a duplicate content issue on the website?

These are some of the things a professional audit would cover. All points are worthy of investigating, for sure.

I would not be concerned about E. Kentucky vs. East Kentucky. This does not represent a NAP inconsistency - just an unimportant difference of abbreviation.

Hope this helps, and glad you are following up.

[jonnyholt]

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

[jonnyholt]

Elchanan, thanks for your response.  I have two physical, verified locations, and I have pages for each with decent PA, linked to two different Google Plus Local profiles.  I'd love to learn more about mapmaker.

I checked out the listings on mapmaker and they look good.  Both visible but I did notice that one of the addresses doesn't have abbreviations.  So its, East Kentucky Avenue and in many of my citations I have it like it is normally which is E. Kentucky Ave.  Could this be an issue?  I submitted it as E. Kentucky Ave. and I am assuming Google decided to use the long form?

[Elchanan]

Have you examined the listing on http://www.google.com/mapmaker ?

How many physical locations do you have? ..and the competitors?