Welcome to the Q&A Forum

An example might be a local directory site, where multiple businesses are featured. To flesh out the respective business profiles, Google Reviews are included. Copying/pasting would be the definition of duplicate content. I wonder though if hyperlinking to the review itself would be enough? For a random example: "you literally have never had better ice cream. cutest shop in charleston sc" - Mandee Jalbert, Google Review Google doesn't appear to have a review embed option- am I wrong? If not, would the above attribution via the "Google Review" hyperlink be sufficient to head off any potential dings for duplicate content? Thanks! Stephen
Thanks for your thoughts! I feel like this might make for a good presentation at our SoundBoard conference someday soon.

Google no longer favors my client's industry with Google reviews in local Snack Pack results, but a national competitor has markup for site-based reviews that are showing up in organic results, which is a big, shiny, advantage. Rather than have to solicit reviews in two places (Google and the site), I'm wondering if it would be possible/advisable to copy and paste the Google reviews into the site and mark them up there, in an attempt to get Google to feature the rating in the organic SERP result? I don't know if this would work though, since I'm guessing part of the reason that Google accepts the competitor reviews is because they are verified purchases, which wouldn't be possible just cutting and pasting. But is it worth a try? It's too bad though, Google is effectively only showing handpicked, "national" reviews, which does local customers a disservice. Thank you!

I haven't found any documentation on this - curious if anyone's noticed that Google+ Local Listings (i.e. brick-n-mortar shops) don't have access to a Links section like a "brand" page might? Seems strange not to let them link out to their social media assets while Coke and Ford have that privilege. I wonder why? Thanks!

A client's G+ page updated from "Jimmy" to "Jimmie" Rd. The change is technically correct according to the legal county road name, though the Places, G+, and indeed even the printed inscription on the Google map itself all say "Jimmy." So, too, does virtually all of the NAP instances around the web. Question - should we update Business Registration Managers with the updated address info and assume the Google change will also eventually filter to other Google assets, or make no changes? Weird, right? Here's the Place: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Georgia+Square+Collision/@33.9357517,-83.4885575,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x57927ad08d139333 Thanks!

I've always stood behind what I thought was Google's policy of not recognizing PO boxes. But it seems like all you have to do now is create one and take 2 seconds to create a low-quality G+ page. The below link is to a screenshot that shows my guy (yay new, high quality site with growing, relevant, authoritative content!) just out of the local results. He's not technically in Athens, so we knew it was an uphill battle. What's annoying though is the low-quality G+ PO box result above him. https://www.diigo.com/item/image/4bxh7/yi1x I know the PO Box result is not great in a vacuum in terms of conversion, but fact is if it's just phone numbers you're after they're at a distinct advantage, with no effort. For my client, we've indicated in G+ that he has a service area that extends into Athens. If Google is now favoring G+ results, I'm wondering if my guy should get a PO box instead? yi1x

A client likes the control of Vimeo Pro for embedding videos on site, but for search purposes would like to create a YouTube channel with the same videos, perhaps with altered titles and descriptions. This is the same video content in two places - will we run into duplicate content issues? Thank you, Stephen

Our client recently acquired new county territories outside the main area city. We could create separate location pages under the primary domain, but are wondering if micro sites with unique content (and location-including url) that links back to the location pages would also be a good idea. There is some traction for certain location-based keywords in those areas. Better to focus on the one domain, or augment with separate websites in different parts of the state? I can come up with plausible reasons for and against either, but would love your thoughts. Thank you for any insight!

Curious for your thoughts on this - are there any SEO downsides to not having any substantive content on the home page (big background design)? We would obviously have appropriate page titles and link structure, etc. Our guess is that if the home page doesn't have much copy, that odds are that other specific pages will tend to perform better for non-brand search terms, which seems OK.  If people DO find the homepage, it would likely be a brand search or an ad referral, in which case the minimalist, non-copy design would be conversion-friendly. Does that theory hold any water? I suppose a middle ground might be a single H1 line unobtrusively on the page. Thanks in advance for any insight, guys! Sincerely, Stephen

I'm seeing a lot about how SSL sites can negatively affect SEO from the analytics perspective, but if duplicate content issues are addressed and load times are OK, what else is there to worry about? Any advice is much appreciated. Thank you!