Local Search and Schema.org - Do I need to tag up the "same as" Property to all my citations to help with local rankings?
-
Hi All,
We have implemented Schema.og on our website and this also includes the local business schema for all of our branches.However I've read an article (see below ) which says we should also be doing "same as " property and linking this to ALL of our citations such as google plus page , yelp , bing places, city search etc etc as this will help with citations.
I am wondering if anyone has done this ? - And if so , has this helped with local rankings etc - I don't really want to invest the extra costs to get this done if I can't find anywhere that says its made a difference -
The article from whitespark - says - "when you create new citations for your business (or for your client’s), it’s a waiting game hoping that Google and the other search engines will find your new citations quickly and make the connection between those listings, the business, and the website.
The “sameAs” property can help make that process much quicker _and _easier. Schema.org explains that the “sameAs” property is used along with the “URL of a reference Web page that unambiguously indicates the item's [or business’] identity.” By using the “sameAs” property in your NAP schema markup, you can tell search engines that the business you’ve marked up is the same one found at a certain citation URL
Of course, Google+ isn’t the only important citation source. There’s also Bing Places, Facebook, Yelp, Citysearch and a few others. The nice thing about many schema.org properties is that you can use them multiple times in your markup."
I am wondering what peoples thoughts were and whether they has implemented this and if so , did it help ?
thanks
Pete
|
[sameAs](http://schema.org/sameAs)
| URL | URL of a reference Web page that unambiguously indicates the item's identity. E.g. the URL of the item's Wikipedia page, Freebase page, or official website. | -
Hi Peter,
I believe you're referring to a David Deering article on Whitespark (http://www.whitespark.ca/blog/post/50-how-to-make-your-local-business-schema-better) from earlier this year. I would trust pretty much any advice regarding citations published on Darren Shaw's company's website and I think that's a great article from David.
I'd like to know more about his/Darren's experience with seeing quicker citation pick-up using sameAs. I'm not sure if the speed they are citing comes from something Whitespark has noted handling the massive numbers of citations they manage, or if this is something David Deering is experimenting with on his own, or what have you. The folks are extremely nice and friendly up there in Canada, and if I were you, I'd reach out to David and ask him if he can tell you a bit more about any phenomena they have documented regarding use of sameAs, to see whether any gains in speed would warrant you investing in implementing this. I've not seen any side-by-side testing done, but maybe the fellows at Whitespark have done some? Great topic!
-
Hello Josh,
Many thanks for your input. This is really for our branch pages - see please example - http://goo.gl/zpdWfj - Please feel free critic the page if you feel there are mistakes here being made .
The search volumes here are always quite competitive - tool hire <city name="">so it's not to easy to boost these pages. We've done alot of citations and I am going through trying to make sure they are consistent. The content is unique and we have tried to localize the pages to by including local directions etc etc.</city>
We've done the schema.org so really , I was thinking, what else can I do to help this pages.The idea about using "same as " property came from an article written by whitespark hence my query about what else I can and should i use it .
thanks
Pete
-
Many thanks for your insight. I will look at implementing this aswell as it's one part of our schema markup we havent' done. I like your idea on using tag manager to.
Many thanks
Pete
-
We have been using it in tandem with a rather aggressive local campaign for clients. We have yet to see the results show up in the knowledge graph (links to social) but all of our properties perform very well in local searches. Hard to tell if it's just this part of our campaign that is causing it or the sum of all of the parts.
As for investing extra costs. If you are using Google Tag Manager (GTM) and doing schema with JSON-LD, it is an investment of 15 minutes. Very little cost for a potentially great pay off. If you aren't using JSON-LD in GTM I would suggest the switch, it saves a huge amount of time.
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
-
I want to remove my business from Google Local Listing Completely
I deleted my business from Google my business (GMB) but it's still showing on Google Local Listing. Kindly, tell me how can I removed completely. I need help?
Local Listings | | Sabar-din1 -
Should Medical Practices Build Citations For Each Practitioner?
I'm working with a medical practice that has 6 doctors in a single office location. We already have GMB pages for the practice as a whole as well as each practitioner. Should multi-practitioner businesses like medical practices build citations for each practitioner as well? For instance, should each doctor have a listing on YellowPages, Localeze, etc?
Local Listings | | formandfunctionagency1 -
Brand listed as plumber, can we still rank for other markets?
We have a lead generation website in the Netherlands in the plumber business. The last two years we were focussing on local SEO, and gain some rankings on keywords like 'plumber amsterdam'. We also connected google my local business in different city's, so we rank in both the citations as in maps. Now we want to get some rankings with the lead generation brand on other keywords. Keywords for other markets like 'handyman' 'roofer' etc. Google remembers what kind of business we are, since we are listed as plumbing company. My question is, can we still go for those other markets with the brand? The markets/ keywords are related and all in the home improvement segment. So for example, example.com/plumber example.com/roofer etc. The other option is to target those specific markets with other brands/ domains.
Local Listings | | remkoallertz0 -
Placement of products in URL-structure for best category page rankings
Hi! I have some questions regarding the optimal URL-hierarchy placement of products in a marketplace setting where the end goal is to attract traffic to category pages. Let me start off with some background, thanks in advance for the help. TLDR Goal: Increase category page rankings. Alternative 1 - Products and category pages separated, flat product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/listing-1 Alternative 2 - Products and category pages separated, hierarchal product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/product/category/subcat/listing Alternative 3 - Products placed directly under category page. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/category/subcategory/listing I run a commercial real estate marketplace, which means that our potential search traffic is _extremely _geographic. For example, some common searches are (not originally in english): Office space for lease {City X} Office space for lease {Neighborhood Y} Retail space {Neighborhood Z} And so on... These terms are already quite competitive, where the top results are our competitors geographic and type category pages. For example: _competitor.com/type/city/neighborhood , _is a top result, where the user reaches a landing page that shows all the {type} spaces for lease in {neighborhood}. These users are out to find which spaces are available for lease in these geographical areas, and not individual spaces. I.e. users do not search in the same extent for an individual product, in this case a specific empty space. Our approach has been to place an extreme bias towards a heavy geographical hierarchy. This means that basically any search, resulting in a category page, on our site results in a well structured URL like the following: _oursite.com/type/state/city/district/street, _since we are using Google Maps API's, this is easy and relevant for the user. Our geographical categorization beats our competitors both on extensiveness and usability, especially in long-tail search phrases where our competitors don't care to categorize where we are seeing real search volumes. The hierarchy only extends as far down as the user has searched, for example a lot of our searched just end up being _oursite.com/type/state/city/district. _ Now we are wondering how we should place our products, the empty spaces, in this URL structure. Our original hypothesis was that we should include the products in the original hierarchy, resulting in: oursite.com/category/subcategory/product. Our thinking was that we would both be serving the user with an understandable and relevant URL, and also provide search bots with a logical structure for our site and most importantly content for our category pages. Our landing pages are very dynamic, providing information by relaying graphical information on a map instead of in an SEO-friendly manner. I would however go as far as to say that these dynamic pages provide a ton of value for the user, much more so than our competitors, by describing relevant information about the neighborhood kind of like Trulia, just not in a bot-readable manner. This results in trying to rank them on their own merits being a challenge, whereas we were hoping we could create relevancy by placing products / listings and maybe even blog posts on the topic within the same URL-hierarchy. As of right now our current structure is oursite.com/products/category/subcategory/product. In other words, they are categorized in the same geographical fashion but under a separate URL-path. Our results so far is that we basically only rank for the product pages, and rank extremely poorly for our category pages, which is our ultimate goal to enhance. This is why we developed the above hypothesis. However, what we learned when we did some initial research is that very few e-commerce stores place their products directly below their categories. Most of the major websites we studied, and we looked at quite a few, just go for **alternative 1 **from above. The crux is that most of them choose alternative 1 but simultaneously implement bread crumbs that emulate alternative 3, just without the actual URL's. So, what I'm asking is, what are the actual benefits or downsides of the three alternatives? I feel as if I have a pretty firm grasp on how this could be done, I just need to better understand why most seem to choose to flatline their products or listings in the alternative 1 fashion. Thanks, Viktor
Local Listings | | Viktorsodd0 -
Ranking for "personal trainer agency london"
Hi all, I have a client who wants to rank for "personal trainer agency london" They are a .com site with offices worldwide and they have 1 contact page per location. I've been registering their UK address across Yell, Yelp, G+ etc but I wondered if that would be enough to get their rankings moving for the "london" related terms or should I be creating a landing page related to "personal trainer agency london" specifically? I don't feel comfortable doing it this way as it goes against what I believe is good SEO. They have other services they offer so I don't want to end up having to build a "london" related page for every service and then every location. Surely I can make their Personal Trainers page rank for location terms? Any thoughts HUGELY appreciated!
Local Listings | | Marketing_Today0 -
Combining Law websites to boost local results?
So we currently have 2 separate websites for the 2 areas of law we practice, Criminal Defense and Family. Currently our Criminal Defense website is the one affiliated with our google+ page and so it ranks well in local results, where as our Family website does not rank at all locally. Would it be best for our Family practice if we merged it with our Criminal site? We all work out of the same office and share address and phone number, so I don't believe we can associate the Family website with a google+ page, but I am wondering if each site would show up in Local results for their individual keywords if the criminal site and law site were both subdomains of a main Firm website.
Local Listings | | MyOwnSEO1 -
Moz Local in the UK and the Rest of the World
So I've just seen that Moz have rolled out their new Moz Local to help businesses in the USA... Has anyone any idea if this will be available in the UK, if so do we know when? Also, would love to know some feedback on anyone who has already started using this new feature
Local Listings | | bricktech0 -
Google Maps Help
Hello, I'm helping 2 clients with Google Maps Client 1
Local Listings | | ogdcorp
Has 4 Locations, I claimed all 4 but when searching his name only 3 are showing up on the first page.
All 4 show up when clicking on "More results" Client 2
Has 3 Locations, all of them were claimed by another company 1 year ago. But now I cant re-claim them unless the other company releases them but that wont be easy. Any suggestions? Also, when dealing with multiple locations is it better to have 1 email address for all or 1 email for each? Thanks0