Where did the "Location" go, on Google SERP?
-
In order to emulate different locations, I've always done a Google query, then used the "Location" button under "Search Tools" at the top of the SERP to define my preferred location. It seems to have disappeared in the past few days? Anyone know where it went, or if it's gone forever? Thanks!
-
Wow - hadn't thought of that! Very creative use of resources!! Thanks so much ~ Scott
-
Hi Scott, you can actually find out specific locations via Google Ad Preview:
https://adwords.google.com/apt/AdPreview?__u=1000000000&__c=1000000000
Enjoy!
-
Looks like they have fully rolled out the update now!
http://searchengineland.com/google-drops-change-location-search-filter-from-search-results-237247
-
Yeah, hearing multiple reports, but no word yet if this is a test or a permanent change. Our tools support geo-location now, but I don't of any other way to manually set it in the Google interface. There is a URL variable (uule) that still works, but it's oddly complicated (it uses an encoded value that takes some sleuthing).
-
Hi, What I see from Google in The Netherlands is:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/179386?p=ws_settings_location&hl=en&rd=1
-
We were actually discussing this on the Local Search Forum - http://www.localsearchforum.com/google-local-important/38249-heads-up-google-either-moving-removing-search-location-setting.html - Looks like Google is removing that function in many of the data centers across the country. This may be a test, or it may be a full depreciation of the function since it is possible most people aren't aware of it. I would assume consultants and marketers know of the ability to change location, but normal searchers will just tack on a location to the query.
Check out the other forum to read up on the discussion.
-
Yep, I was afraid that I'm in the "test group" - hope the test fails!! That's an important tool for me! Thanks ~ Scott
-
Yes, but is it editable at the bottom of the page? Mine isn't. Thanks! ~ Scott
-
Hi Scott,
I had the same issue. Now I found that in the very bottom of the SERP page the location it uses is shown. Hope this help!
Tymen
-
I am still able to access these settings under the 'Search Tools' tab
It might be that they are testing users actions by removing it for a few people, Google are always doing this.
Worth keeping an eye on it if you still can't find it though, might be an indication of things to come.
Cheers
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
-
How handle pages with "read more" text query strings?
My site has hundreds of keyword content landing pages that contain one or two sections of "read more" text that work by calling the page and changing a ChangeReadMore variable. This causes the page to currently get indexed 5 times (see examples below plus two more with anchor tag set to #sectionReadMore2 This causes Google to include the first version of the page which is the canonical version and exclude the other 4 versions of the page. Google search console says my site has 4.93K valid pages and 13.8K excluded pages. My questions are: 1. Does having a lot of excluded pages which are all copies of included pages hurt my domain authority or otherwise hurt my SEO efforts? 2. Should I add a rel="nofollow" attribute to the read more link? If I do this will Google reduce the number of excluded pages? 3. Should I instead add logic so the canonical tag displays the exact URL each time the page re-displays in another readmore mode? I assume this would increase my "included pages" and decrease the number of "excluded pages". Would this somehow help my SEO efforts? EXAMPLE LINKS https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=More#sectionReadMore1 https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=Less#sectionReadMore1
Technical SEO | | DougHartline0 -
My traffic keeps going down...
My website been through many changes the last 5 months. From migrating http to https, server transfer and more. Everything was double checked all the redirects are perfect (301) to the https pages (we have like 28K backlinks so everything needs to be correct), in a matter of fact the migration to ssl made in October and in November the stats went high. The problem is that at the end of November after the server migration the traffic went down and is stably down till today. We re-checked the redirects in every aspect and more in depth and finished fixing issues around end of January. Also before 1 week we stopped the functionality of a parameter (product sort) and removed it from the website entirelly and canonicaled the urls that were using it so if google tries to test those urls with the parameter to see a canonical tag and eventually drop them out of index and stop crawling them. Generally we tried to fix the crawling efficiency and speed. The technical SEO was on fire the last weeks. Still i cant see improvement in rankings, i only see drops. What is the problem here? Where should i look? Any ideas? In webmaster tools we have no 404's and no manual actions. The visibility in Sistrix goes down (check attachment), the ahrefs organic traffic goes down, semrush stats go down... My website is: https://www.pccdkeys.com ecfp87
Technical SEO | | dos06591 -
404 or rel="canonical" for empty search results?
We have search on our site, using the URL, so we might have: example.com/location-1/service-1, or example.com/location-2/service-2. Since we're a directory we want these pages to rank. Sometimes, there are no search results for a particular location/service combo, and when that happens we show an advanced search form that lets the user choose another location, or expand the search area, or otherwise help themselves. However, that search form still appears at the URL example.com/location/service - so there are several location/service combos on our website that show that particular form, leading to duplicate content issues. We may have search results to display on these pages in the future, so we want to keep them around, and would like Google to look at them and even index them if that happens, so what's the best option here? Should we rel="canonical" the page to the example.com/search (where the search form usually resides)? Should we serve the search form page with an HTTP 404 header? Something else? I look forward to the discussion.
Technical SEO | | 4RS_John1 -
Why do some URLs for a specific client have "/index.shtml"?
Reviewing our client's URLs for a 301 redirect strategy, we have noticed that many URLs have "/index.shtml." The part we don'd understand is these URLs aren't the homepage and they have multiple folders followed by "/index.shtml" Does anyone happen to know why this may be occurring? Is there any SEO value in keeping the "/index.shtml" in the URL?
Technical SEO | | FranFerrara0 -
"Extremely high number of URLs" warning for robots.txt blocked pages
I have a section of my site that is exclusively for tracking redirects for paid ads. All URLs under this path do a 302 redirect through our ad tracking system: http://www.mysite.com/trackingredirect/blue-widgets?ad_id=1234567 --302--> http://www.mysite.com/blue-widgets This path of the site is blocked by our robots.txt, and none of the pages show up for a site: search. User-agent: * Disallow: /trackingredirect However, I keep receiving messages in Google Webmaster Tools about an "extremely high number of URLs", and the URLs listed are in my redirect directory, which is ostensibly not indexed. If not by robots.txt, how can I keep Googlebot from wasting crawl time on these millions of /trackingredirect/ links?
Technical SEO | | EhrenReilly0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Google's "cache:" operator is returning a 404 error.
I'm doing the "cache:" operator on one of my sites and Google is returning a 404 error. I've swapped out the domain with another and it works fine. Has anyone seen this before? I'm wondering if G is crawling the site now? Thx!
Technical SEO | | AZWebWorks0 -
Look of google results
Can anyone tell me why some google results show the main page and then a listing of all subsequent pages (i.e. results for SEOMOZ) while others just show the main page with nothing under it. I have two different sites (one personal the other biz) and they both show their search results differently. Is it something in the site creation or how it is crawled by google? Thanks. bKs3C
Technical SEO | | STF0