Introduction
It's been another remarkable year in Local Search. The space continues to evolve at a frenetic pace, and as I wrote in December, the number of digital marketing opportunities that small business owners must try to make sense of has become truly overwhelming. If your head spins as much as mine does even trying to conceptualize how all of the pieces fit together, I suggest digesting this infographic recently created by Mike Blumenthal.This survey remains an attempt to make sense of at least one small sliver of the digital marketing space: how to improve your ranking in Google Places. While Yahoo Local and Bing Local remain important areas of visibility for any business owner, based on responses from previous surveys, none of the experts felt there were any specific techniques to rank in either of these two search engines that differed from those used to rank in Google's Local results.
It is my hope that this study will help small business owners confused by Local Search, or those strapped for time, to prioritize their marketing efforts.And boy, did Google's Local results get complex this year-- specifically in October 2010 with the launch of "Blended" Place Search, which shows a hybrid of Place-related and website-related snippets on the search engine result page. Based on the responses from this year's survey, it appears that beyond just the difference in interface, the weighting of signals Google uses for these Blended results differs significantly from the that of it more traditional Local results (the so-called "7-Pack" or "3-Pack"). For more on why Google might choose to show a Blended vs. a Pure Result, see this addendum.
Other key developments at Google this year include the rollout of its "Hotpot" rating and review system (now formally a part of Places), the continued increase in the influence of social and personalized signals in its organic results, and the public announcement of the time it takes your website to load as a ranking factor. Do the local search experts feel these signals have been incorporated into the Place Search algorithms yet? You'll have to read on to find out.
This year's edition of the LSRF contains responses from 33 prominent bloggers and practitioners. It differs from previous years in two key ways:
1) Rather than rating the importance of particular criteria on a sliding scale of -5 → 0 → +5, this year featured a drag-and-drop numerical ranking system in an effort to make the survey results both more precise and easier for the participants to complete.
2) With the introduction of Blended Place Search since last year's survey, I felt it was essential to ask participants about any possible differences they perceived between the two algorithms. Thus, responses are presented in a "split-screen" format below to allow for an easy comparison.
As a result of these two changes, while it's still possible to compare the relative change in the importance of individual factors from year-to-year, there are no longer any absolute values to assign to each factor.
For further background on the Local Search Ranking Factors, you may also want to read the introduction to last year's results.
Helpful Background Articles on Local Search:
+ Chris Silver Smith's Anatomy of a Local Search Listing
+ Bill Slawski's Local Search Glossary
+ My own version of a Local Search Glossary
+ Mike Blumenthal's Digital Equity Infographic
+ Matt McGee's 10 Likely Elements of Google's Local Search Algorithm
+ My Own "Local vs. Traditional SEO: Why Citation Is the New Link"
+ Lisa Barone's "How to Launch that Small Business Website"
+ Dev Basu's "Local Landing Page Best Practices"
+ The Local Search Ecosystem
+ The Local Search SEMMYs
The Survey
Above: A "Pure" Local Result
Above: A "Blended" Local Result
Participants were asked to rank 79 possible positive factors and 18 possible negative factors that drive Google's Local Search algorithms. Participants were asked to rank the positive factors for Google's "pure" Local Search search algorithm (the one that drives the 7-pack, 3-pack, and authoritative onebox search results) as well as its Blended Local Search algorithm, independently of one another.
Participants had the option to:
1) state whether they thought the two algorithms were identical (none felt this way)
2) ignore factors which they deemed irrelevant to either algorithm
Results were then tabulated via inverse scoring, where the #1 ranked factor received the most "points" for that question, and the lowest-ranked factor received the fewest points. Thus, the more factors deemed irrelevant by a particular respondent, the heavier the weight given to the factors that they did rank.
They were then asked to rate negative factors inversely (from most harmful to most benign), and provide their overall "top ten list" of factors which they would recommend for businesses trying to rank across any of Google's Local results (whether pure or blended).
Additionally, participants were asked to rank the importance of specific third-party data providers and sources for customer reviews within the Local Search algorithms.
The first number listed to the right of each factor indicates the relative change in importance as compared to last year's position. A positive number means the factor became more important this year; a negative number means it became less important.
The second number listed is the average position of that factor in respondents' rankings. The higher the number, the more important it was considered.
The third number listed to the right indicates the standard deviation of the responses. The lower that number, the higher the agreement of the panel. The higher the number, the more the experts' responses varied.
Overall results for both algorithms are presented below, as well as results within each grouping of factors (i.e. on-page, website, off-place/off-page, and reviews).
Discussion
My initial reaction to the results of this survey can be found here on my blog. If you would like to comment on this project, please join the discussion here.David Mihm
Portland, Oregon
June 3 2011
The Results
MAX POSSIBLE SCORE → MIN POSSIBLE SCORE LOWEST STD DEV → HIGHEST STD DEV +/- CHANGE FROM 2010OVERALL TOP TEN
MOST RECOMMENDED FACTORS TO FOCUS ON
79 → 1 34.44 → 37.61 ▲- Physical Address in City of Search (PLACE PAGE)
↑1
- Manually Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓1
- Proper Category Associations (PLACE PAGE)
--
- Volume of Traditional Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators) (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
--
- Crawlable Address Matching Place Page Address (WEBSITE)
↑25
- PageRank / Authority of Website Homepage / Highest Ranked Page (WEBSITE)
↑34
- Quality of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑9
- Crawlable Phone Number Matching Place Page Phone Number (WEBSITE)
n/a
- Local Area Code on Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↑18
- City, State in Places Landing Page Title (WEBSITE)
↑22
EXPERT COMMENTS
--Dave Oremland
--Tim Coleman
--Will Scott and Team
--Dev Basu
Example: DBA is ABC Medical but med license & Dr. name is John L. Smith MD, but there are lots of citations for Dr. John Smith too (which is not correct). There are dupes for all 3 names PLUS dupes for 2 different versions of the address. Before you do anything you need to do research to figure out the absolute best NAP to use on Place page. THEN need to decide which is the most advantageous Place page to keep.
If you deal with professionals like Drs and lawyers, this is especially important for 2 reasons: 1) To attribute as many existing citations and reviews as possible to the Place you decide to optimize. 2) To help clean up the dupe mess. Then after determining best NAP, be sure site NAP matches Place page NAP, then try to correct the most important data sources.
Also be sure to include Product/service KWs in site title tags and H1 or H3 on home page and Places landing page.
--Linda Buquet
--Steve Hatcher
--Andrew Shotland
PURE LOCAL FACTORS
GENERAL SIGNALS
1 → 4 0.58 → 0.86 ▲- Place Page Criteria 1.39 0.58 NC
- Off-PlacePage/Off-Site Criteria 2.45 0.86 NC
- Review Criteria 3.03 0.72 NC
- Website Criteria 3.77 0.86 NC
SPECIFIC FACTORS
79 → 1 3.11 → 32.34 ▲- Proper Category Associations (PLACE PAGE)
↑ 2
- Physical Address in City of Search (PLACE PAGE)
--
- Manually Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓ 2
- Volume of Traditional Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators)(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
--
- Volume of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts)(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑ 6
- Overall Volume of Reviews of Place(REVIEWS)
↑ 3
- Local Area Code on Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↑13
- Proximity of Address to Centroid (PLACE PAGE)
↑4
- Product / Service Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE)
↓ 9
- Product / Service Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE)
↑4
- Crawlable Address Matching Place Page Address(WEBSITE)
↑19
- Location Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE)
↑17
- Crawlable Phone Number Matching Place Page Phone Number(WEBSITE)
↑24
- Product/Service Keywords in Reviews(REVIEWS)
↑9
- Location Keywords in Reviews(REVIEWS)
↑21
- Volume of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text)(REVIEWS)
↑8
- Product / Service Keywords in Place Page Custom Fields (PLACE PAGE)
↑16
- Association of Photos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↑1
- Location Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE)
↑12
- Volume of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews(REVIEWS)
↑27
- Association of Videos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↑14
- Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑2
- Quality of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓ 7
- Volume of GeoTagged Media Associated with Your Business (e.g. Panoramio, Flickr, YouTube)(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑4
- City, State in Places Landing Page Title(WEBSITE)
↑7
- Volume of Native Google Places Ratings (no text)(REVIEWS)
n/a
- Product / Service Keyword in Website URL(WEBSITE)
↑11
- Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party)(REVIEWS)
↓11
- Age of Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↑14
- PageRank / Authority of Landing Page Specified in Places(WEBSITE)
↑18
- Numerical Percentage of Place Page Completeness (PLACE PAGE)
n/a
- Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓ 6
- PageRank / Authority of(WEBSITE) Homepage / Highest Ranked Page(WEBSITE)
↑10
- Volume of MyMaps / MapMaker References to Your Business(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓16
- Volume of Third-Party Structured / hReview Formatted Reviews(REVIEWS)
↓26
- Quantity of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓9
- Location Keywords in Place Page Custom Fields (PLACE PAGE)
↑26
- Geographic Keyword in Website URL(WEBSITE)
↑1
- Matching Google Account Domain to Places Landing Page Domain (PLACE PAGE)
↑ 7
- Places Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓ 6
- Bulk Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
n/a
- Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Marginal Category Associations (PLACE PAGE)
↓ 22
- Quality of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5)(REVIEWS)
↓ 3
- Number of Actions Taken by Searchers on a Place Page (e.g. Driving Directions, Mobile Phone Calls) (PLACE PAGE)
n/a
- Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews(REVIEWS)
↓30
- Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5)(REVIEWS)
↓7
- Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Domain Diversity of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Verified KML File on Domain Name(WEBSITE)
↓7
- Places Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Domain Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Positive Sentiment in Reviews(REVIEWS)
↓11
- Velocity of New Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- City, State in Most/All Title Tags(WEBSITE)
↓32
- Specifying Service Areas in a List for Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓1
- Popularity (# of Views) of MyMaps References to Your Business(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓18
- City, State in Places Landing Page H1/H2 Tags(WEBSITE)
n/a
- Velocity of Third-Party Reviews(REVIEWS)
↓44
- Crawlable Contact Information in hCard Microformat(WEBSITE)
↓12
- Matching, Public WHOIS Information(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓7
- Specifying a Service Area via Polygon for Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓7
- City, State in Most/All H1/H2 Tags(WEBSITE)
n/a
- Inclusion of Coupon on Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓14
- Velocity of New Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Loadtime of Places Landing Page(WEBSITE)
n/a
- Volume of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter)(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓ 15
- Volume of Crawlable Testimonials(WEBSITE)
n/a
- Volume of hReview Testimonials(WEBSITE)
↓20
- Velocity of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter)(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓17
- Number of Likes on Matching Facebook Page(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- OTHER (Please specify in comments)
n/a
- Number of Followers on Matching Twitter Account(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Authority of Followers on Matching Twitter Account(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Velocity of New Facebook Likes(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Participation in Boost or Adwords(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓20
- Velocity of New Followers on Matching Twitter Account(OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
BLENDED LOCAL FACTORS
GENERAL SIGNALS
1 → 4 0.75 → 1.08 ▲- Website Criteria 1.90 0.94 ↑3
- Place Page Criteria 2.32 0.84 ↓1
- Off-PlacePage/Off-Site Criteria 2.65 1.08 ↓1
- Review Criteria 3.65 0.75 ↓1
SPECIFIC FACTORS
79 → 1 11.13 → 33.51 ▲- Physical Address in City of Search (PLACE PAGE)
↑ 1
- PageRank / Authority of Website Homepage / Highest Ranked Page (WEBSITE)
↑38
- Proper Category Associations (PLACE PAGE)
--
- City, State in Places Landing Page Title (WEBSITE)
↑28
- Manually Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓4
- Volume of Traditional Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators) (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓2
- Quality of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑9
- Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑18
- Product / Service Keyword in Website URL (WEBSITE)
↑29
- PageRank / Authority of Landing Page Specified in Places (WEBSITE)
↑38
- Quantity of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑16
- Overall Volume of Reviews of Place (REVIEWS)
↓ 3
- Quality of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑10
- Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Crawlable Phone Number Matching Place Page Phone Number (WEBSITE)
n/a
- Volume of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts) (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓6
- Domain Diversity of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Product / Service Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE)
↓12
- Geographic Keyword in Website URL (WEBSITE)
↑19
- Domain Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Places Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓12
- Proximity of Address to Centroid (PLACE PAGE)
↓11
- Crawlable Address Matching Place Page Address (WEBSITE)
↑6
- Places Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Local Area Code on Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↑11
- City, State in Places Landing Page H1/H2 Tags (WEBSITE)
n/a
- Volume of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text) (REVIEWS)
↓6
- City, State in Most/All Title Tags (WEBSITE)
↓4
- Volume of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews (REVIEWS)
↑17
- Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Location Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS)
↑3
- Association of Photos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓15
- Product / Service Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE)
↓21
- Product/Service Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS)
↓13
- Location Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE)
↓8
- City, State in Most/All H1/H2 Tags (WEBSITE)
n/a
- Location Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE)
↓8
- Volume of GeoTagged Media Associated with Your Business (e.g. Panoramio, Flickr, YouTube) (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓12
- Verified KML File on Domain Name (WEBSITE)
↑4
- Velocity of New Inbound Links to Website (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Velocity of New Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Volume of Native Google Places Ratings (no text) (REVIEWS)
n/a
- Bulk Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
n/a
- Location Keywords in Place Page Custom Fields (PLACE PAGE)
↑7
- Product / Service Keywords in Place Page Custom Fields (PLACE PAGE)
↓14
- Volume of Third-Party Structured / hReview Formatted Reviews (REVIEWS)
↓35
- Matching Google Account Domain to Places Landing Page Domain (PLACE PAGE)
↓3
- Marginal Category Associations (PLACE PAGE)
↓29
- Number of Actions Taken by Searchers on a Place Page (e.g. Driving Directions, Mobile Phone Calls) (PLACE PAGE)
n/a
- Crawlable Contact Information in hCard Microformat (WEBSITE)
↓2
- High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS)
↓11
- Loadtime of Places Landing Page (WEBSITE)
n/a
- Matching, Public WHOIS Information (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↑1
- Volume of MyMaps / MapMaker References to Your Business (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓39
- Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party) (REVIEWS)
↓39
- Popularity (# of Views) of MyMaps References to Your Business (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓17
- Numerical Percentage of Place Page Completeness (PLACE PAGE)
n/a
- Association of Videos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓25
- Velocity of Third-Party Reviews (REVIEWS)
n/a
- Age of Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓19
- High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS)
↓21
- Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews (REVIEWS)
n/a
- Positive Sentiment in Reviews (REVIEWS)
↓21
- Volume of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter) (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓12
- Specifying Service Areas in a List for Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓10
- Volume of hReview Testimonials (WEBSITE)
↓17
- Number of Likes on Matching Facebook Page (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Inclusion of Coupon on Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓18
- Volume of Crawlable Testimonials (WEBSITE)
n/a
- Specifying a Service Area via Polygon for Place Page (PLACE PAGE)
↓15
- OTHER (Please specify in comments)
n/a
- Velocity of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter) (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓ 19
- Authority of Followers on Matching Twitter Account (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Participation in Boost or Adwords (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
↓16
- Velocity of New Facebook Likes (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Number of Followers on Matching Twitter Account (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
- Velocity of New Followers on Matching Twitter Account (OFF-PLACE/OFF-SITE)
n/a
PURE RANKING FACTORS: COMMENTS FROM THE EXPERTS
PLACE PAGE ADVICE FOR PURE LOCAL RANKINGS
--Chris Silver Smith
--Lisa Kolb
--Ed Reese
--Mary Bowling
--Larry Sullivan
Proximity of Address to Centroid - We often see businesses rank higher for search queries in the city that they are closest to the centroid for, even if it isn't the city that their business is located in.
Location Keyword in Business Title - This is critical for search queries that include the location. Not as important for generic search queries that trigger local results.
Product / Service Keyword in Business Title - This is critical for search queries that include the specific product or service keyword. Not as important for tail end search queries that trigger local results.
--Adam Dorfman
--Dev Basu
--Aaron Weiche
--Gregg Stewart
--Tim Coleman
--Erik Whaley
--Dave Oremland
--Mike Ramsey
--Martijn Beijk
--Brian Combs
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Jeff Gold
--Miriam Ellis
--Andrew Shotland
--James Svoboda
--Linda Buquet
--Jim Rudnick
--Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
--Aleyda Solis
--Ian Lurie
WEBSITE ADVICE FOR PURE LOCAL RANKINGS
--Mary Bowling
--Jeff Gold
--Gregg Stewart
--Lisa Kolb
--Andrew Shotland
--Larry Sullivan
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Erik Whaley
--Chris Silver Smith
--Ed Reese
--Dave Oremland
--Brian Combs
--James Svoboda
--Dev Basu
--Jim Rudnick
--Aaron Weiche
--Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
--Ian Lurie
--Tim Coleman
--Aleyda Solis
--Martijn Beijk
OFF-PLACEPAGE/OFF-SITE ADVICE FOR PURE LOCAL RANKINGS
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Linda Buquet
--Mike Belasco
--Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
--Tim Coleman
--James Svoboda
--Martijn Beijk
--Andrew Shotland
--Dave Oremland
--Mary Bowling
--Chris Silver Smith
--Jim Rudnick
--Larry Sullivan
--Brian Combs
--Dev Basu
--Ian Lurie
1. Citations
2. Reviews
3. User Generated Data
--Mike Ramsey
--Jeff Gold
--Gregg Stewart
--Lisa Kolb
--Erik Whaley
REVIEW ADVICE FOR PURE LOCAL RANKINGS
--Dave Oremland
--Don Campbell
--James Svoboda
--Jeff Gold
--Mike Ramsey
--Aaron Weiche
--Ed Reese
--Adam Dorfman
--Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
--Ian Lurie
--Lisa Kolb
--Linda Buquet
--Dev Basu
--Brian Combs
--Gregg Stewart
--Jim Rudnick
--Erik Whaley
--Chris Silver Smith
--Tim Coleman
--Mike Belasco
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Andrew Shotland
BLENDED RANKING FACTORS: COMMENTS FROM THE EXPERTS
PLACE PAGE ADVICE FOR BLENDED LOCAL RANKINGS
--Lisa Kolb
--Steve Hatcher
--Mary Bowling
--Chris Silver Smith
--Martijn Beijk
--James Svoboda
--Brian Combs
--Dev Basu
--Erik Whaley
--Tim Coleman
--Ian Lurie
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Jim Rudnick
--Mike Ramsey
Proximity of Address to Centroid - Less important than in pure local results but a good location is still required for ranking well for blended results.
Marginal Category Associations - Choosing proper secondary categories is something we spend a lot of time on. We have repeatedly seen secondary categories influence the rankings for keywords that fall under the primary category. We see this as being an extension of Latent Dirichlet Allocation and make sure that any secondary categories we choose have related content on the landing page to ensure overall consistency.
--Adam Dorfman
--Jeff Gold
--Dave Oremland
--Andrew Shotland
--Larry Sullivan
--Gregg Stewart
WEBSITE ADVICE FOR BLENDED LOCAL RANKINGS
--Brian Combs
--James Svoboda
--Mike Belasco
--Mary Bowling
--John Shehata
--Chris Silver Smith
--Lisa Kolb
--Don Campbell
--Miriam Ellis
--Aaron Weiche
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Martijn Beijk
--Jeff Gold
--Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
--Adam Dorfman
--Mike Ramsey
--Dave Oremland
--Tim Coleman
--Erik Whaley
--Aleyda Solis
--Dev Basu
--Larry Sullivan
--Ian Lurie
In most markets, plain old on-site SEO factors, especially a skillfully crafted title tag counts more than people realize. Tip - Phone in title tag can give a good boost. Making sure NAP matches on site and Place is a major key.
--Linda Buquet
OFF-PLACEPAGE / OFF-SITE ADVICE FOR BLENDED LOCAL RANKINGS
--Brian Combs
--Erik Whaley
Volume of Traditional Structured Citations - This is more important for blended results as the citations often double as quality links pointing back to the business' Places landing page URL.
Quality of Inbound Links to Website - Even though the Panda update mitigated some of the influence that Google's domain authority signal has, we continue to see business websites with strong overall link profiles having a distinct advantage when it comes to ranking highly for blended search results.
--Adam Dorfman
--Chris Silver Smith
--Jeff Gold
--Dave Oremland
--Jim Rudnick
--Mary Bowling
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Mike Ramsey
--Mike Belasco
--James Svoboda
--Andrew Shotland
--Aaron Weiche
--Ian Lurie
--Dev Basu
--Lisa Kolb
--Tim Coleman
--Larry Sullivan
REVIEW ADVICE FOR BLENDED LOCAL RANKINGS
--Brian Combs
--James Svoboda
--Chris Silver Smith
--Mike Ramsey
--Jeff Gold
--Dave Oremland
--Andrew Shotland
--Jim Rudnick
--Lisa Kolb
--Tim Coleman
--Will Scott, Amy Arnold, Sara Tweedy, Paula Keller
--Erik Whaley
--Cathy Hillen-Rulloda
--Martijn Beijk
--Dev Basu
--Aaron Weiche
--Larry Sullivan
NEGATIVE RANKING FACTORS
DON'T PUT THESE INTO PRACTICE
18 → 1 4.96 → 7.54 ▲- Mis-match / Tracking Phone Numbers Across Data Ecosystem
n/a
- Multiple Place Pages with Same Phone Number
--
- Mis-match Address on Places Landing Page
n/a
- Mis-match / Tracking Phone Number on Places Landing Page
n/a
- No Crawlable Physical Address on Website
↓1
- Choosing to Hide Place Page Address
↓ 4
- Multiple Place Pages with Same/Similar Business Title
↓2
- No Local Area Code Phone Number on Website
--
- Multiple Categories in Same Input Field
n/a
- Non-Compliant Categories (those that do not fit "My Business Is a _____")
n/a
- Location Keyword in Categories
↓2
- 800 Number on Place Page
↓5
- Multiple Crawlable Phone Numbers on Places Landing Page
n/a
- Multiple Crawlable Addresses on Places Landing Page
n/a
- Low Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 1-2)
↓4
- OTHER (If applicable, please indicate in comments)
n/a
- Low Numerical Ratings of Place by Third-Party Users (e.g. 1-2)
↓6
- Mis-Matched or Private WHOIS Information
n/a
- Negative Sentiment in Place Reviews
↓ 8
EXPERT COMMENTS
--Mike Ramsey
--Mary Bowling
--Dave Oremland
--Chris Silver Smith
--Lisa Kolb
2 or more Place pages with the same address (unless it is one for the practice and one for individual doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc.)
Keyword Stuffed Business Title
--Will Scott and Team (Search Influence)
--Don Campbell
--Miriam Ellis
--Aaron Weiche
--Dev Basu
--Brian Combs
--Linda Buquet
--Martijn Beijk
--Andrew Shotland
MOST IMPORTANT CITATION SOURCES (DATA PROVIDERS + IYP SITES; U.S. Specific)
- Yelp (↑ 6 spots from 2010)
- Superpages (↓ 1)
- Citysearch (↑ 2)
- Yellowpages (↓ 1)
- Infogroup (↓ 3)
- Yahoo Local (↑ 2)
- Localeze (↓ 2)
- InsiderPages (↑ 1)
- Niche Industry Sites (including TripAdvisor, OpenTable, and DealerRater) (↓ 6)
MOST IMPORTANT REVIEW ENGINES (U.S. Specific)
- Yelp (-- from 2010)
- Google Places (↑ 1)
- Citysearch (↑ 1)
- Yahoo Local (↓ 2)
- Niche Industry Sites (including TripAdvisor, OpenTable, and DealerRater) (↓ 2)
- InsiderPages (↓ 1)
- JudysBook (↑ 1)
- Superpages (↓ 6)
- YellowPages (--)
- Kudzu (↑ 2)
Source : David Mihm






2. Choose the proper categories in Places.
3. Make sure Google can associate your website and your Places page together.
4. Eliminate data confusion.
5. Solicit reviews from happy customers.
6. Work on everything else as time and budget permit.
--Mary Bowling