What do I do about multiple listings for doctors on InfoUSA?
-
I'm doing local SEO for a chiropractic clinic that has four chiropractors.
On InfoUSA and therefor on CitySearch, Insiderpages, Healthgrades, etc, there are individual listings for each chiropractor with the clinic's name, address and phone number. Google places pulls reviews from those other sites and I don't think they will make the connection on the listings.
The tricky thing is that health-care review sites such as healthgrades.com have reviews for doctors and not for clinics necessarily.
What's the best way to organize this? Should I get all of these listings consolidated into one listing for the clinic in general that has the same info as the Google Places listing? Should I get the individual chiropractor listings deleted?
-
Hi Jason,
I'm following up on older questions that are still marked unanswered. Did you figure out what to do here (and if so, what did you do) or are you still looking for some advice?
-
Thanks for your help.
By consolidate the listings do you mean delete the individual doctor listings or let Google do its consolidation that it seems to be trying to figure out?
As i mentioned in my original question, health care review sites such as healthgrades.com do reviews on a per-doctor basis and there is no ability to leave reviews on clinics. As long as Google can figure out the doctor reviews are traced back to the clinic's main listing I think I should just leave everything as-is.
-
Yes. It looks like it might be best to consolidate with one outstanding listing. If they are under the same business name and URL then I think you have no choice.
If you list the practitioners at or near the top of the description then you will help the listing when people search for the individuals.
-
I just noticed this right now:
Google seems to have figured out that two of the doctors' Google Places pages are related to the main Places page because they share the same reviews. The two other doctors for some reason have no reviews and don't seem to be connected. It seems Google is seeing them as related listings (they all have the same business name and URL connected to the listing).
For that reason, I'm not sure if putting different info in all listing would be a good idea.
-
I would get the clinic its own listing and then one for each of the chiropractors because some users may look specifically for a particular chiropractor. Having a listing for both the chiropractor and the clinic they work in probably contributes to the overall "local authority" of the clinic and the chiropractors.
I would also make sure that the content used to describe each is distinctly different.
One catch though... do they all use the same phone number? That could be a problem with verification.
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
-
Is there a way to get a list of all pages of your website that are indexed in Google?
I am trying to put together a comprehensive list of all pages that are indexed in Google and have differing opinions on how to do this.
Technical SEO | | SpodekandCo0 -
Multiple Common Page Links
Hi everyone - I've taken over SEO for a site recently. In many cases, the reasons why something was done were not well documented. One of these is that on some pages, there are lists of selections. Each selection takes the user to a particular page. On the list page, there is often a link from an image, a name, and a couple of others. Each page often has 30 items with 4 links each. For some reason, the 4th of these internal links were no-followed. When I run this site through several different site evaluation tools, they are all troubled with the number of no-follow links on the site. (These instances from above add up to a 5 figure number). From a user perspective, I totally get why there is a link where each of these links exist. If I wanted to click on the image or the name or some other attribute, that totally makes sense. Its my understanding that Google / Bing are only going to consider the 1st instance. If this creates excessive links, wouldn't you want 3 of the 4 links in each set no-followed? If its only excessive unique links that really matter, then why would any be nofollowed.
Technical SEO | | APFM0 -
Multiple H1 Tags on Page
Can having multiple H1 tags on a webpage be detrimental to its rankings?
Technical SEO | | AubbiefromAubenRealty0 -
Merging multiple sites and contacting linking domains
This is strictly academic but I am having a friendly debate and I am hoping you guys could help me. If I decided that I wanted to merge several websites into a single new URL doing everything I am supposed to (page to page 301 redirects, etc), will I still need to reach out to those important websites that link to my different sites to have them change the links and anchor text to point to the new site? I know that 90% of the link juice is supposed to transfer and that you are SUPPOSED to contact linking domains, but is it really worth it, especially if there are literally hundreds of sites to contact?
Technical SEO | | Mike_Davis0 -
How should I structure a site with multiple addresses to optimize for local search??
Here's the setup: We have a website, www.laptopmd.com, and we're ranking quite well in our geographic target area. The site is chock-full of local keywords, has the address properly marked up, html5 and schema.org compliant, near the top of the page, etc. It's all working quite well, but we're looking to expand to two more locations, and we're terrified that adding more addresses and playing with our current set-up will wreak havoc with our local search results, which we quite frankly currently rock. My question is 1)when it comes time to doing sub-pages for the new locations, should we strip the location information from the main site and put up local pages for each location in subfolders? 1a) should we use subdomains instead of subfolders to keep Google from becoming confused? Should we consider simply starting identically branded pages for the individual locations and hope that exact-match location-based urls will make up for the hit for duplicate content and will overcome the difficulty of building a brand from multiple pages? I've tried to look for examples of businesses that have tried to do what we're doing, but all the advice has been about organic search, which i already have the answer to. I haven't been able to really find a good example of a small business with multiple locations AND good rankings for each location. Should this serve as a warning to me?
Technical SEO | | LMDNYC0 -
Getting multiple errors for domain.com/xxxx/xxxx/feed/feed/feed/feed...
A recent SEOMoz crawl report is showing a bunch 404's and duplicate page content on pages with urls like http://domain.com/categories/about/feed/feed/feed/feed/feed and on and on. This is a wordpress install. Does anyone know what could be causing this or why SEOMoz would be trying to read these non-existent feed pages?
Technical SEO | | Brandtailers0 -
Multiple URLs in CMS - duplicate content issue?
So about a month ago, we finally ported our site over to a content management system called Umbraco. Overall, it's okay, and certainly better than what we had before (i.e. nothing - just static pages). However, I did discover a problem with the URL management within the system. We had a number of pages that existed as follows: sparkenergy.com/state/name However, they exist now within certain folders, like so: sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/name So we had an aliasing system set up whereby you could call the URL basically whatever you want, so that allowed us to retain the old URL structure. However, we have found that the alias does not override, but just adds another option to finding a page. Which means the same pages can open under at least two different URLs, such as http://www.sparkenergy.com/state/texas and http://www.sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/texas. I've tried pointing to the aliased URL in other parts of the site with the rel canonical tag, without success. How much of a problem is this with respect to duplicate content? Should we bite the bullet, remove the aliased URLs and do 301s to the new folder structure?
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0 -
Optimising multiple pages for the same search term
We were having a discussion on title tags and optimising multiple pages for the same term. We rank well for the phrase 'chanel glasses' which points to our Chanel brand page. The Chanel brand page is optimised for this term, and has the phrase 'Chanel glasses' at the front of its title tag. Previously, the title tag on our home page had the words 'Chanel glasses' at the start in an attempt to rank twice for the term (as one of our competitors has managed). This never worked (though at the time, our DA/PA was lower than it is now). For this reason I switched the title tag on the homepage to try and rank for 'designer glasses'. My belief is, given we already rank highly for the term on a more relevant landing page, trying to rank for it again on the home page is not the best use of a title tag on our highest PA page. We may as well use it for something more generic like 'designer glasses' (though this term does not convert nearly as well, nor does it currently rank as well for us as we've not been attempting to get 'designer glasses' as anchor text. Plus it's more competitive. Another generic term maybe be preferable). My colleague's view is we should attempt to do what our competitor has done and try and rank twice on page one for this term. I like the idea of dominating the top results, but I feel that since attempting to get double-listed hasn't worked for us so far, we should use the homepage for optimising for a different term ( ideally something that we don't already rank for elsewhere on the site). I see his point of view - if we were ranking nowhere for the search term then, yes we should concentrate on getting one page to rank, not two. But since we already rank well for the term, perhaps his strategy is preferable? Just for clarity, the title tags are not duplicate, but the idea was to share many of the same keywords between the two title tags. What are your thoughts SEOmoz?
Technical SEO | | seanmccauley0
