Google places VS position one ranking above the places.
-
Hi Guys,
Will creating a new Google places listing for a business have any effect their current position one spot for their major geo location keyword?
I.e restaurants perth - say they are ranking no 1 above all the places listings if they set up a places listing would they lose that position and merge with all the other places accounts?
Or would they have that listing as well as the places listing?
I have been advised it could be detrimental to set up the places account if this is the case does anyone know any ways around this issue as the business really needs a places page for google maps etc.
Appreciate some guidance
Thanks.
BC
-
I have a client where we put the specific local listing page url (example.com/locations/phoenix/location1) in the Google Places URL field. It works out really well as we get the home page ranking organically (depending on the query) and the specific places result locally. Sometimes they are combined and other times they are not, but we are in the mix somewhere almost always.
-
Curious if anyone of you guys has experience pointing the places listing to a different URL other than the homepage?
I have read a few articles that stated various different outcomes, some mentioning that it didn't effect their Organic result, but was harder to rank the places URL. Just curious of findings!
-
Hi Bodie,
Yes, I think this is playing in the grey area. If the business owner actually wants to make his used and new car dealerships two companies with completely separate legal business names or DBAs, addresses with separate walk-in entrances, phone numbers and websites with completely unique content, then yes, you'd be talking about two different businesses, but that seems like an awful lot of real-world trouble to go to just to get a second Place page, eh? Chances are, a car dealership with both used and new cars is simply a single business with different specialties and should only be running a single website with a single Place/+ Local page.
What would happen if you went ahead with this plan, anyway, without the company actually being two legally separate entities? Honestly, you might be able to get away with it for awhile. Google is often not super sharp about upholding their policies and iffy stuff can ride for a long time. But...the risk is big. Should Google ever decide that they don't like what they are seeing, they could penalize or remove the listing from the index and if there is any association at all between the 2 listings, they could penalize the whole profile. This isn't a risk I would take for my clients, and for a business model like you're describing, like a car dealership, I would not advise the hypothetical approach you are considering. Rather, I would recommend that the client build the strongest local profile he can for his business and then consider other forms of marketing such as Social Media, Video Marketing, new content, development, etc. to continue to build additional visibility.
Hope this helps!
-
Think more along the lines of a car dealership with a 'NEW' and "used car' department? would i be pushing it ? My question to you is how would the association be made between the pages and businesses if the new site was branded differently and had a new address and a unique non associated domain? The only way i can think is if they were interlinked, but many non associated sites are linked. Is this playing in a grey area? Thanks again
-
Hi Bodie,
My pleasure. Are you stating that you work at a large business that has more than one front entry door for clientele (like a hospital with an emergency room and a separate radiology department?) If so, then you are allowed to create more than one listing for the business under the following Google Places Quality Guideline:
Departments within businesses, universities, hospitals, and government buildings may be listed separately. These departments must be publicly distinct as entities or groups within their parent organization, and ideally will have separate phone numbers and/or customer entrances.
If this is an accurate description of your business model, then I would simply have a single website with unique landing pages for the different public offices and tie these pages to the distinct Place Pages/+ Local Page for the business. Anything that doesn't really fit the above would not be a good idea.
I would not recommend associating an identical business name with two different websites and Place Pages if it is really the same business. What Google wants is for you to make a totally realistic representation of your business on the web; not to try to appear like you are larger, more diverse, or different than you really are in real life. I know how important it is to do all you can to gain the broadest visibility, but I believe that all efforts must be founded on an authentic presentation of any business, and this appears to be Google's view, too. Hope this helps!
-
Thanks for your response, would it be deemed black hat to set up a new site specifically for the Google places listing if it had a strong geo location in the URL and was attached to a different address?
ie website Hillarysrestaurant.com.au (ie hillarys is the suburb) and i was to register Perthrestaurant.com.au and attach that to a different address as the restaurant takes up 3 blocks ie 6-10 so i run the real website as it always was on 6 and set up the new site as a push site/squeeze page on 10 and use it just for google local?
i really hope this makes sense. Thanks again for your help and SEO wisdom!
P.s its not a restaurant im just using this as an example.
-
We have the same experience as Cody. Google Places is like ADDING another listing to the SERP. From what I understand the Google places, is supposed to rotate around. But your #1 or #2 spot should stay firm - unless you get knocked off by a competitor! We have several clients that are in #1, Google Places and then #4 or 5 - so it is possible to take up quite a bit of real estate on a SERP.
-
Hi BC,
Yes, you can typically expect the organic rank to be subsumed into the Places rank if you create a Google Places/+ Local page for the client. This is a very common outcome and it remains uncommon, though not impossible, for businesses to have more than one results per SERPs page.
-
I work with around 50 companies, and that's typically what I see. My #1 listing will just get changed to a Places listing, but it will still be in the #1 position.
-
In my experience, I had a client with the positioning like yours. We created the Places account and it just went into the local / maps results. The good news was that the SERP didn't contain any other organic listings at the top. If you have prominent and consistent rankings and are confident in your strategy, then you might not need to create a places account. Just be aware that moving down 1 spot could really be 8 or 9 spots on the real estate of the SERP. Moving down to #2 organically could mean being below the entire local results. You will need to judge the risk / rewards. Hope that helps.
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
-
"Google chose different canonical than user" Issue Can Anyone help?
Our site https://www.travelyaari.com/ , some page are showing this error ("Google chose different canonical than user") on google webmasters. status message "Excluded from search results". Affected on our route page urls mainly. https://www.travelyaari.com/popular-routes-listing Our canonical tags are fine, rel alternate tags are fine. Can anyone help us regarding why it is happening?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobinJA0 -
I have 100+ Landing Pages I use for PPC... Does Google see this as a blog farm?
I am currently using about 50-100 domains for geotargeted landing pages for my PPC campaigns. All these pages basically have the same content, I believe are hosted on a single unique ip address and all have links back to my main url. I am not using these pages for SEO at all, as I know they will never achieve any significant SEO value. They are simply designed to generate a higher conversion rate for my PPC campaigns, because they are state and city domains. My question is, does google see this as a blog/link farm, and if so, what should I do about it? I don't want to lose any potential rankings they may be giving my site, if any at all, but if they are hurting my main urls SEO performance, then I want to know what I should do about it. any advice would be much appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jfishe19881 -
Pleasing the Google Gods & Not DeIndexing my site.
Hey Mozzers, So plenty of you who follow these threads have come across my posts and have read bits and pieces of the strange dark dark gray hat webspace that I have found myself in. So I'm currently doing some research and I wanted all of your opinion too. Will Google always notify you before they stop indexing your website? Will Google always allow you back if you do get pulled? Does Google give a grace period where they say "fix in 30 days?"? What is every bodies experience with all of this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HashtagHustler0 -
I have 4012 links from one blog - will Google penalise?
My website (http://www.gardenbeet.com) has 4012 links from http://cocomale.com/blog/ to my home page -a banner advert links from the blog - I also have 3,776 from another website to 6 pages of my website 1,832 from pinterest to 183 pages etc etc overall there are 627 domains linking to my website I have been advised by a SEO company that I was penalised in about may to july 2012 due to a large number of links coming from one domain or two domains is that true? should I ask the blog owner to remove my link?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | GardenBeet0 -
Any Benefit to Artificially Boosting the CTR for rank?
I've read articles that indicates Google will provide a higher rank to listing with higher click through rates (i.e, http://bit.ly/132mUd0, "If a search result achieves a higher than average click through rate then it may be given a higher ranking.") First, this seems like a chicken-and-egg scenario: it seems like results with higher rank will have higher CTR from increased exposure, no? Second, if this was an accurate ranking signal, it seems like it would be so easy to black hat (as well as other web usage signals, such as goal conversions and time on site). I'd just pay some Indian dude to search for my website on different IPs and click through in the SERP. Your thoughts about this scenario?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ExploreConsulting0 -
How The HELL Is This Site Ranking So Well In Google Places?
When I do a search for this site it ranks number 2 on Google just below the official federation of master builders website for the keyword phase "builders in london" this is the site http://bit.ly/Lypo8E which is a nasty looking blog which has nothing to do with builders and they don't even have an address anywhere on the site. The only thing I can see is that they are sharing there address with a lot of other businesses and all of the citations from those other businesses are causing them to rank higher on Google places, but surely Google can't be that stupid right?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | penn730 -
Google Penalising Pages?
We run an e-commerce website that has been online since 2004. For some of our older brands we are getting good rankings for the brand category pages and also for their model numbers. For newer brands, the category pages aren't getting rankings and neither are the products - even when we search for specific unique content on that page, Google does not return results containing our pages. The real kicker is that the pages are clearly indexed, as searching for the page itself by URL or restricting the same search using the site: modifier the page appears straight away! Sometimes the home page will appear on page 3 or 4 of the rankings for a keyword even though their is a much more relevant page in Google's index from our site - AND THEY KNOW IT, as once again restricting with the keywords with a site: modifier shows the obviously relevant page first and loads of other pages before say the home page or the page that shows. This leads me to the conclusion that something on certain pages is flagging up Google's algorithms or worse, that there has been manual intervention by somebody. There are literally thousands of products that are affected. We worry about duplicate content, but we have rich product reviews and videos all over these pages that aren't showing anywhere, they look very much singled out. Has anybody experienced a situation like this before and managed to turn it around? Link - removed Try a page in for instance the D&G section and you will find it easily on Google most of the time. Try a page in the Diesel section and you probably won't, applying -removed and you will. Thanks, Scott
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | scottlucas0 -
How much time do you think Google employees spend reverse engineering what we do?
Lets face it, it's the corner stone of SEO, reverse engineering sites to guess at what big G does. It would just make sense they did the same to learn all our tactics.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | naffhampton1