Places ranking for a non-locational phrase?

[PPCnSEO]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?ie=UTF-8&q=coach+hire&pws=0&gl=GB

The link above takes you to a SERP for a general phrase with no hint of locations involved (Coach Hire).

However oddly enough there is a single google places listing that has pooped up at #4.

Liverpool Minibus Coach hire

<cite>www.localcoachhireuk.co.uk/</cite>

Now if this was "Coach Hire London" I would expect places, and indeed there is a list of places.

But how do you get a places listing ranking for a phrase without a place name?

Also of interest is the fact that this website doesn't even exist! It is a 301 redirect to another site.

Google seems to be picking up the 301 since it shows the redirected site in the page snapshot and has no pages indexed for this domain.

So an un-indexed site with a 301 redirect is #4 for the top phrase in this industry. I have no doubt that this will only be a temporary thing but it would be interesting to know how it was possible.

[PPCnSEO]

The recently leaked google doc seems to have the answer.

#9 here explains it (partly) - still frustrating though that black hat redirects are working!

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/16-insights-into-googles-rating-guidelines

[PPCnSEO]

The thing is that this site isn't even indexed since it doesn't have a single page - only a 301 redirect.

They only SERPS they appear in are a few places spots, 2 of which I have found that the search phrase doesn't have any locational elements in.

I had been of the understanding that places results only appeared when you have a place in your search phrase but this seems to dispel that theory.

[AlanMosley]

I assume the rank well for the term and in general, have all the googles places filled out correctly. but i am only guessing, i have wondered myself and others simular. I dont think it temporary either.

I would point out report a problem to google. Dont let others have an unfair advantage.