Google Local Research Data Released For Free

Being a good SEO involves research. You need to be constantly pushing the envelope on the data that you gather, the insights that you gain and what recommendations you provide in terms of what works and what doesn’t. Google Local is a particular area that I’ve been investigating recently both for clients and because I’m an SEO geek. I’ve found some interesting thing and some not-so-interesting things. Having done my own analysis however I thought it would be useful to make some data available to the SEO community as a whole, the data below is in a Google Docs and is freely accessible. I’d love to kick-start a discussion about the data and to hear other SEOs analysis and feedback!

Before I dive into the data and the analysis, here’s a quick primer on Google Local:

seattle hotels

What’s In The Data?

Here’s an iframe embed of the data to get a quick feel for what you get. Contained in the full spreadsheet is Google Local data for a particular search phrase “Hotels in Seattle”.
  • Summary - The summary information which contains the hotels which rank for the phrase. The top 7 are the ones that I see in the Google Local one-box. The remaining 13 are the ones which rank once you click on the map to explore Google Local rankings. The data contained includes the number of reviews, the number of citations and the distance to the centre of Seattle for each hotel.
  • Sheet 1-20 - These sheets list the complete individual citation list for the relevant hotel. So for the edgewater hotel which ranks 4th we click on sheet 4 and see the full list of citations for that hotel.

Download the Data (as xls)

The above download is in XLS format, please email me or twitter me or leave a comment if you’d like the data in some other format. The link to the Google Docs file is here in case that’s easier for people.

My Own Analysis

I don’t claim to be the most knowledgeable SEO in the world about Google Local, though I’d like to think I’m getting there, I still look up to people like David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal. In particular, David Mihm’s Google Local Ranking Factors is an invaluable resource.

That said, it’s always nice to try and quantify exactly how important different factors are and do some analysis on which hypothesis are actually correct and which are just learned from the crowd and generally accepted as true.

I’ve got no ground-breaking insights in this post, but by analysing this data and other data I have come to the following conclusions:

1) - The raw number of reviews is not the only ranking factor.

We can see this by comparing for example the Renaissance Seattle Hotel and the Hilton Seattle Hotel - the Renaissance has WAY more reviews but still doesn’t rank.

2) - The raw number of citations is not the only ranking factor.

We can see this because the Grand Hyatt Seattle Hotel has an obscene number of citations compared to any other hotel in Seattle.

3) - The combined number of citations and reviews is not the only ranking factor

Although we’re getting warmer here (the sum column, E) this isn’t the whole story. If we look at the average sum of the top 7 ranking hotels we see that there are 3 hotels that don’t rank which have a higher sum than average - Renaissance, Grand Hyatt and the Crowne Plaza.

4) - Distance to centre (of Seattle) seems to play some part in the rankings

Looking at the data we see that the Edgewater Hotel has the highest combined total with many many reviews and a large number of citations but doesn’t rank number 1. Perhaps this is something to do with the fact that it’s a lot further out from the centre of Seattle than the other hotels - 1.3 miles to be precise, almost double the next furthest out ranking hotel at 0.7 miles (the Best Western).

5) Star ratings could well play a part in the rankings

Typically people have assumed that the raw number of reviews is more important than the sentiment of those reviews. However, this may not be true. Take a look at the Fairmont Olympic Hotel, a very low combined reviews and citations score but 4.5/5 stars in total of the reviews.

6) Quality of citation almost certainly plays a part

Firstly, assuming it didn’t - citation spam would be big business! But digging into the data I see that the best western has a very low combined score but has citations from sites such as the New York Times. Same again with the Hilton, which has some very strong citations from authority sites. This suggests to me that quality of citation is important, or perhaps the number of citation root domains? (like with links, perhaps multiple citations from one domain don’t count so much...)

Note 1

There is still speculation that the ‘regular’ SEO factors come into play such as pagerank or strength of domain. I’m not convinced this is a factor. After all, Google Local Listings are attached to an business name (and address/phone number), not a URL. Sometimes there isn’t even a URL for Google to attach to the listing. This makes me think that regular on-page SEO factors don’t carry that much weight. I’d like to hear other’s thoughts on this though?

Note 2

It’s worth noting that in the data you might like to exclude the Crowne Plaza Hotel from your data analysis - when gathering the data I see that it’s missing an image which may imply a wider issue about data perhaps? Not sure what a missing image means but I doubt it’s good news for the Crowne Plaza. This is backed up by the fact that it by rights (i.e. combined citations and reviews score) it should rank, but it doesn’t... Screenshot of what I’m seeing:

seattle hotels 2

Note 3

In a usual analysis I would have looked at the category of the listings, I don’t think this is a factor in this case since it’s a competitive SERP and all the listings are likely tagged with the Hotel category.

To Conclude...

What can you do to get better rankings? Get more citations and reviews! The combined number of these seems reasonably well correlated with rankings once you factor in distance from centre etc. Especially if you can get positive reviews and citations from strong websites.

But also, to conclude, we see that the algorithms are somewhat complicated. I’ve still not completely figured out why some sites rank and why some don’t but I’m getting close. I’d love to hear analysis from other Google Local SEOs who’ve been digging around in data. I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours ;-)

Oh, and if you’d like to enquire about having Distilled manage your Google Local SEO then click here to get in touch...

Get blog posts via email

47 Comments

  1. Good post. I would be interested to know if you think UK users actually click on the local listings though - you have any data in this area? My own data shows really low CTR compared to organic listings, so not sure if its worth going out getting citations opposed to links when time/money is limited on a project.

    reply >
  2. People definitely click on local listings. Especially in the hotel industry. I have some clients who get 4 or 5 times the amount of traffic from Google Local than for regular Organic clicks - and they rank well in Organic...

    I don't know about any official data though unfortunately.

    reply >
  3. Interesting. I'd imagine an image would have been essential in order to feature on the results page. Odd that the Crowne Plaza has no image. I've not meddled in local search for a while but I'll take a look at the data when I get chance & see if I can see any patterns or correlations. Thanks for posting!

    reply >
  4. Thanks Tom,

    Very useful stuff. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the last comment...CTR is very industry dependent. There are some of my clients who would not really benefit at all, but other who can (and do) pull in huge amounts of traffic via local

    reply >
  5. @duncan - I agree, totally industry specific.

    reply >
  6. This analysis gets at some of the primary local ranking factors, but almost more interesting than that, the data highlights imperfections with what is still very much a rapidly improving product.

    It's also worth taking a quick look back and seeing how many of the patents Bill Slawski mentioned in his 2.5 year old Local Search Glossary have evolved with the product and been rolled into the local algos over the years.

    http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=510

    Great post, Tom.

    reply >
  7. What I have seen in regards to point #4 is that when there is a tighter density of the same business around the centroid of the city, this factor gets weighed heavier. I have seen this with lawyers (typically a large number located near the center of the city). You would see this less of a factor for businesses that are spread out across a wider area, like animal hospitals.

    Also some of the data from Google Local Ranking factors is a bit dated as a update was recently pushed out at the end of November (at least for U.S. results). Mike Blumenthal's post "Google Changes Guidelines AGAIN!" points to the issue with using the legal business name (versus a SEO friendly business name).

    @brentnau

    reply >
  8. We're just about to embark on a big regional campaign so I'm also diving into Google Local. Thanks for pointing out the Mihn post Tom, really interesting stuff and the data you've put up has some useful nuggets in as well. I'd be more than happy to share my findings once we get underway!

    reply >
  9. @SEO Doctor

    It's also worth mentioning that the traditional 'F Scan' of results is destroyed by the inclusion of blended elements such as maps, images, vidoes or news. They really focus people's attention (can't find the damn eye tracking post that proves that - citation please!)

    reply >
  10. "What can you do to get better rankings? Get more citations and reviews!" Good call Tom, this seems to be a good way to go.

    reply >
  11. @stuartpturner

    believe you are talking about the Search Engine Results: 2010 study.

    http://app.marketo.com/lp/enquiro/search-engine-results-2010.html?source=Search_Engine_Results_2010_whitepaper

    reply >
  12. Good stuff, Tom. Always interesting to dig into numbers like this. Re: your "note #1" on traditional SEO. I've always believed that the presence and influence of various factors in local search is very dependent on industry and geography. In your "Hotels in Seattle" example, Google would have a LOT of signals and data to use when determining a rank order. So, traditional SEO may not factor in as much.

    But try something like "Kennewick Hotels" (near me), or even worse, something like "Kennewick bike shops" -- where there may not be as many signals & data for Google to use, and I'd have to think they may fall back on traditional SEO signals in that case. When there aren't many reviews and citations to lean on, what else would Google use as ranking signals?

    reply >
  13. Nice article Tom, found retweeted a few times on Twitter.

    Local search is very relevant in the UK, but maps need to be supplemented with decent website. Need to find more citations!

    reply >
  14. Dave Oremland

    Tom:

    Thanks for the analysis. I participated in both of David's analyses. I look at this information closely. Nice idea with regard to adding the two totals/ citations and reviews.

    Its only guesswork, but I'm "sniffing" on quality of citations as being of significant importance.

    As Matt referenced, it appears easier to grab at things that work in the Maps algo for topics with fewer "signals" (citations, reviews, etc.) With far more signals, (ie hotels in a major city and near the centroid point)....there are a heck of a lot of "signals" in their own right.

    Just a guess...simple addition might have some level of weight, but quality of signals might have a significant bearing. Now if I could easily measure the quality aspects......

    Thanks for sharing the information. I'm going to take a harder look at this.

    Oh yeah...one other thing. I don't think Google is showing us all the citations by a long shot. Search differently using some advanced search techniques ie parentheses around the business name plus phone number and/or address. You may come up with a list of citations that makes the list google is showing us look like the tip of the iceberg.

    reply >
  15. @matt I take your point about less competitive queries having less data to work with - but conversely in those types of queries you see a lot of businesses ranking without a URL... Makes it hard to attribute 'regular' seo metrics to a business which doesn't have a web page!

    @dave good point about citations, I'd love it if you could share some of those example queries to get a more accurate citation list?

    reply >
  16. I wish I had more time to play around with this. I've taken a look at the data and it's left me hungry for me (data, that is)

    I couldn't help but notice that in the individual reviews for each hotel, there was a varying number of review sources (direct, priceline, booking.com etc). I couldn't help feeling that review source and authority could be measured (the number of external vs google local reviews + the authoritativeness of the review source)

    I'd also like to see (appreciate organic seo factors are weak in local) the actual ranking position in the organic serps for these urls for the query (just so they're there), and some url / domain authority metrics with total inbound links.

    Appreciate this approach wouldn't work all the time but the key is always in collecting more data. Love it Tom, great work and thanks for making me think!!

    reply >
  17. "left me hungry for me" = "left me hungry for more" obviously.

    reply >
  18. Dave Oremland

    Tom:

    Last night I believe I ran "Sheraton Seattle Hotel" 206 621 9000 and came up with 120,000 or so google references.

    A lot huh? :D

    You could run a variety of searches of this type. It leads me to believe that the volume of citations Google is showing is far less than that which they really read. (Those bots they have go everywhere!!!! ) :D

    I suspect they show citations in the same manner that they show links--> not all of them.

    Over the long haul, I've followed the volume of citations Google shows. For particular businesses it was a lot then less then over a subsequent time period more. Back and forth. Some of the citations that would appear in one time period wouldn't appear in a later time period.

    In its earliest days I noted that the citations that were showing all seemed to be of two types: topical/vertical/industry oriented AND local. Now they are of a wider variety.

    Do topical and local citations carry more weight? I don't know. I think they might. I'd suspect in google.com that a strong link to a "widget" site from an authoritative "widget" site would have more value than a strong link to the widget site from an authoritative tennis or SEO site. The same might apply with citations as far as vertical/industry/topical sites and/or local sites. I'm not swearing by that though.

    Hard links with appropriate anchor text and reference to location could be critical. (check google patent writing by Bill Slawski on location prominance).

    I really think that Mike Blumenthal http://www.blumenthals.com/blog has a better fix on this stuff than any of the rest of us. He studies it regularly, sees more issues than the rest of us, and directly tests it more than the rest of us.

    Along with David Mihm, and some others we participated in a study not unlike what you did. We (really Mike) considered more factors than those you are looking at.

    Results? One of them was "With more "signals" it was harder to assess weight to what seemed to what seemed to work".

    That is not to diminish at all what you have done. We need to do exactly what you have done...study and share.

    (first one to find the "answer" wins big time..;))

    Seriously one of the quixotic characteristics is as Matt pointed out; it seems easier to get a "fix" on this when we study businesses with fewer "signals" (citations, reviews, UGC, pictures, videos, etc).

    Bigger studies though take infinitely more time and energy.

    Very nice job. I've downloaded your information and will look at with greater detail. Maybe someone can repeat a search of the hotels with a consistent methodology using an advanced search technique... for all the hotels...and see if something consistent comes from that. Just a guess.

    reply >

  19. in those types of queries you see a lot of businesses ranking without a URL... Makes it hard to attribute 'regular' seo metrics to a business which doesn't have a web page!<<


    Very true, which I think explains Google's continuing moves to give all local businesses a "home page" on Google Maps (i.e., place pages) and to measure the signals in their LBC account (i.e., "80% complete").

    In cases with an extreme lack of signals, they seem to fall back heavily on keywords in the business name, much like relying heavily on the page title in traditional SEO.

    reply >
  20. Okay, wow. Don't know what I did to make your quote so HUGE, Tom. Sorry about that. It's like you've been quoted on the marquee at Wembley, eh? :-)

    reply >
  21. @matt whoah! no idea what you did either. I'll see if I can tone it down a notch :-). With regards you comment - I agree they use signals like keyphrase in business name but I don't think it extends as far as the on-page optimisation/title tag type level. Is that fair?

    Edit - ha, you'd managed to put a blockquote inside a blockquote! It's like you'd divided our comment system by 0... :-) fixed now.

    reply >
  22. @david thanks very much for your comment - I think you're right that the citations they give us are not always accurate. That said, I'm not how many mentions of a business ARE treated as citations, Google seems to heavily favour the local citations that also mention phone number/address etc.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts once you've dug into the data a little more. Thanks!

    reply >
  23. Dave Oremland

    Congrats: You toned down Matt's comments to a "more acceptable level".

    Its sooooo much easier to figure out what works for local businesses w/ small sets of "signals".

    Someone who grasps what works for large sets of data is worth his weight in gold because you are working w/ big businesses (hopefully) with lots to spend. (hint, hint) :D

    Your data set is way to big for me to put good time into it, Tom. Sorry. I appreciate the article and approach.

    As to volume of "citations" and the "location" of citations: the patents analyzed and described by Bill Slawski http://seobythesea.com reference both volume and reference "localness". In one of their obscure blog references Google told us "localness" is important. I guess they both have weight.

    Cripes...if I had to go through..."not the 200-500 citations or so that those hotels have...but the "full volume" one might pick up by using some version(s) of advanced search (with parentheses)...my eyes would go batty.

    Imagine breaking down 100,000 citations by which are local and which aren't. Ugh.....!!!!!

    Here I am guessing again. I bet your correct that local citations are weighted more. What is the weight? Beyond me!! :D

    A better dude than I will tackle that one.

    reply >
  24. Alilou Issa

    Hello Tom,

    Really nice article.
    You didn't mention "local directories" which in my local market are really powerfull and help to make you rank. Does anyone has had an experience with that?

    reply >
  25. Dave Oremland

    I wanted to reference one other interesting, perplexing, and challenging issue with regard to Google Maps rankings: At times the ranking of businesses in Maps.google.com is different than that which shows in the 7 pack (the aspect of universal search) that shows in a google.com search for the exact same search.

    I tried 3 searches for hotels in the US: hotels Seattle Wa, hotels Portland Oregon, and Arlington Va Hotels (suburb of Washington DC with a very large hotel market).

    In each of those searches the hotels ranked in the 7 pack were in the identical ranking order as that in Maps.google.com. I'd expect that.

    Of note the information in the 7 pack originates from maps.google.com.

    Then I searched on bike shops DC (bycicle stores Washington DC).

    The rankings in the 7 pack were different than that in Google Maps. I see this from time to time. At times one can find a onemap in google.com (organic search) when there are many alternatives for the same search phrase in Maps.google.com

    Why does that occur? That is critical. It is probable that at least 95% of all such local searches are initiated in Google.com. (I haven't kept up to date with market research but at least 1 year ago at least 98% of such searches were made in Google.com) The 7 pack, 3 pack or OneMap are critically important to local business people.

    Why does the ranking order change when data is moved from Maps.google.com to google.com in universal search? What impacts are there that effect those ranking changes?

    Of note, in my tiny sample, why did the rankings change for a business type with relatively and dramatically fewer signals than for the 3 hotel searches...with far more signal? Is there a component of the algo's that has an effect with fewer signals that is mitigated by lots of signals?

    I don't know the answers. I just thought I'd add them to the mix.

    Dave

    reply >
  26. Tom
    thanks so much for sharing this research, I winder how different the results would be city to city? Has anyone discovered this? I really appreciate your sharing this info and the dialogue that is going on with it.
    I think I am going to sit down and "become one" with your spreadsheet!

    Thanks again Jan

    reply >
  27. This might be a silly question but how did you arrive at the number for citations? Jan

    reply >
  28. Thank you for sharing a very stimulating set of data. Trying to piece together reasons why the Hilton Seattle Hotel (Number 6 with a 320 sum, .4 mile proximity, and an avg 3 star rating) and the Grand Hyatt Seattle (Number 12 with a 1201 sum, .6 mile proximity, and an avg 4.5 star rating) have such a disparity in ranking is a great exercise. I've been scribbling on printed versions of your data for the last few hours looking hard at what appears to be inexplicable differences in ranking in some cases. I had no luck explaining some of ranking differences (6 and 12, 5 and 7, and others) with citation sums, proximity to centroid, or review star averages.

    After that, my knee jerk theory was that it might be on page differences. Perhaps somewhere in the sites I could find similarities in titles (length, content, etc) or other local theming factors (Pikes Marketplace and other local attractions). I looked for trends between on page content with listings that appear to get an unknown bonus (Hilton, Best Western) while others appear to get an unknown penalty (Renaissance and Grand Hyatt).

    I know it sounds arrogant. I know I'm probably not going to glance at the content, measure a few visible factors and hit the lottery. It was a fun exercise though.

    Lot's of theories are scratched off the list. Of course, Dave points out probably one of the most important factors that skew the assumptions - Google only shows us a percentage of citations. Perhaps getting a more accurate gauge of what they really are and writing a program to scrape and score those citations might be an answer.

    In any case, thank you for the exercise - it is very thought provoking and I greatly appreciate it (RT's are imminent).

    reply >
  29. Thanks Tom. Don't you just love this stuff?

    I came across something interesting with respect to citations last week. I'm working on optimizing a mortgage company here on Maui and they should have show up in the results after some basic work ... but they didn't. None of the mortgage companies have reviews and most have only a handful of citations (at least citations shown by Google) After additional research, here's what I found.

    This particular mortgage company has been cited at least 100 times ... way more than any of their competitors. (I found these citations by doing an exact search for their company name ... and then another exact search for their address.) Problems is, most of their citations have a slightly different business name and an inaccurate address. It's going to take a lot of work to correct this problem, and it's keeping Google from showing them on the front page of results.

    I wonder if this could be an issue with some of the hotels in Seattle that are not placing.

    Aloha, Bob

    reply >
  30. @bob - I've come across that problem before, did the citations still show for that business?

    In my experience, if the business address is wrong then the citations won't show in local and it's certainly a big issue and hard to fix!

    reply >
  31. Dave Oremland

    Bob, Tom: In my experience that could lead to more than one record in the LBC. We have some old businesses with that phenomena. The problem becomes that the "signals" are diluted between records. Basically you have to get control of both records and "move the citations" to the one which is accurate and create a single stronger record.

    Yes. It is time consuming. OTH if you do that advanced work in "finding citations" you might also perform it on competitors and find good citation sources for your client/business.

    BTW: Not only doesn't google show all citations but not all reviews are seen in public google. Some sources don't convey to google. Some do. If you are working to generate reviews its important to get them placed in sources where google picks up reviews. Over a period of time some smbs and webmasters have noted and complained about missing reviews. Are they there, just not being shown? I'm not sure. If not shown is google "counting them"? Again not sure.

    reply >
  32. it's interesting how some people say the maps gets them more traffic than organic. I'm wondering if this would be industry specific or slowly the users are starting to get used to the idea of maps. I think in the long term maps will get more traffic as people start to find it more useful

    reply >
  33. Excellent analysis. Glad i read it. Gonna tweet it to a few friends to read. Glad to see there are still a few sites that have content worth reading

    reply >
  34. Excellent analysis that looks at some of the local ranking factors. This article gave me a few ideas to test out. Thanks

    reply >
  35. I suppose if citations are directly linked to company name and address details, surely those individuals who simply spam the listings with optimised names that aren't those of their business, will lose out in the long-term since citations will dry up, whilst competitors citations grow?

    reply >
  36. Aloysius Carl

    Great post and a good basis to launch from.

    A couple of points to consider as ranking factors in the future:

    1 - Top listed review sites. While Google uses quite a few I've noticed that they seem to give more prominence to certain ones.
    2 - Continuity of information from citation sites. The comparison and consistency of data could be a ranking factor.
    3 - Number of claimed citations as a % of all citations.
    4 - Date of reviews: similar to date analysis of links

    reply >
  37. I have a little bit of insite for number 5 and if it has already been covered from this angle, I just didn't want to read through three months of posts. I have been working with the LBC for about two years now exclusively. What I have found is that the reason the Fairmont Olympic Hotel in Seattle ranks highly is not in fact do to the star ranking, while that may play a part in the ranking of the LBC, but the number and quality of citations and the distance to the centroid zip code. If you notice that the FOHIS is only .3 distance away from the centroid zip code and since Google doenst know where in seatlle you are looking for a hotel. Their best guess to use in a mathmatical format is the closest to the city's center. Also Having a complete and unique listing plays a part in where Google will Rank you. Also choose as many of the categories as possible. I want to know if there is any data or research that is being conducted on how CTR affects or doesn't affect LBC rankings. Thanks in advance for any future comments.

    reply >
  38. I've spent quite a bit of time using the 'real estate' feature of maps.google and while their geo-location is pretty good, it is not yet great. While the real estate map shows red-pin listings from the Realtor MLS, and allows for some sorting (price, #beds/baths) it struggles in other key areas critical to property search like current vs inactive listings and other critical mover amenities (dogs, AC, parking). The search feature also tends to ignore online ads from major city newspapers, craigslist and other highly relevant local classified ad postings, even those these listings often can be found through the standard google 'web' search. For a local business (specifically leasing/realtors) this means that not all local online classified ads are created equal in the eyes of the Google real estate search map, and to get double duty out of a classified ad (to make it show up on the google map), you have to use third-party sources that are actively friendly to the real-estate search map (postlets, sublet, etc).

    reply >
  39. Great bit of research and analysis Tom

    In the UK it's now called Google Places, but possibly its now called that world wide.

    Quote from Google:
    4/20/2010 05:00:00 AM
    Today the Local Business Center is becoming Google Places. Why? Millions of people use Google every day to find places in the real world, and we want to better connect Place Pages — the way that businesses are being found today — with the tool that enables business owners to manage their presence on Google.
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/introducing-google-places.html

    reply >
  40. I think the ability to use the maps api for your own use is key, there's a lot to be said for building a custom maps app and using it on your site, mainly because people are so familiar with it.

    reply >
  41. I've got lots of citations but google doesnt find them. Its been more than a month and its not listing them in the citation portions. I've got the reviews (more than the competition) and probably more citations than competitors too but Google is not finding them.

    What can I do to help google find all of those citations from local pages?

    reply >
  42. How do you figure out the distance? Any easy and quick way to find it?

    reply >
  43. Hi Avio:
    Google does know that your citations exist, they've just chosen not to show them on your place page yet. The best thing you can do is keep generating powerful local and vertical citations and wait. Google will eventually show your citations, just as it is now showing the citations of your competition. You can also see more of your citations on your Bing listing. Bing shows more citations that Google.
    I've also written an article that you might find interesting entitled, "Gathering Powerful Business Citations." You can find it at VisOnTheNet.com

    reply >
  44. Really good insightful advice by Bob Sommers. Go to Bing; Go to the local tab: go to the links for businesses and click on them. On the local page scroll down to the "more" link.

    I've a number of records and compared them to others in those categories. Bing showed respectfully volumes of citations well over 100,000 for several of them. That compared to competitors with several hundred, several thousand, and just under 50,000 "citations".

    Having scanned them....they aren't all accurate. Regardless the volumes shown are substantially more than in Google and include citations Google doesn't show, even with advanced search techniques.

    Who knows how many are counted, how does it relate to rankings in Maps, etc? How is it evaluated in Google Places or Yahoo or Bing Maps? Regardless, that volume and difference between the records and those of competitors felt reasonably good.

    reply >
  45. I find that google places is very important to my hypnotherapy practice in Sheffield. Unfortunately due to the recent shifts in how results are ranked and what is and is not allowed I went from being in the top half of the 7 pack to absolute rock bottom last. It has been a long hard slog but months later it looks like things are getting fixed and business is beginning to return as a result.
    I will be spending a good chunk of time and money on ensuring that I get back to and stay at the top of Google places for the search "hypnotherapy Sheffield"

    reply >
  46. Great analysis Tom, Our Team here have been monitoring the changes in Google Places as well and have found that consistent data, reputation management and social media are playing a large role in Google Places ranking factors.
    Great Read...

    reply >
  47. Hey Tom,

    Excellent post. I have been reading all your top posts but this one is the best post i have ever read.
    Quality methods of Local search results have been explained here. I have been doing local maps optimization from many years but i did know all these awesome points.

    Thanks

    Saif

    reply >

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>