I've become a bit obsessed with how Google counts results. You may think it's easy (1, 2, 3… 10), but add in 7-result SERPs and blended local results, and counting to 10 is no longer a Kindergarten-level achievement. Pictures speak louder than words on this one, so let's look at an example. Here's a localized but de-personalized SERP for "orthodontist" — I've stripped out everything but titles, display URLs, and pins, to make it easier to parse:
The two sets of numbers on the left represent the two ways I think most rational people without local SEO expertise would count these results — it's either six "pure" organic results, or 13 total results. The problem is that almost all page-1 Google SERPs have either seven or 10 organic results. So, there's a third interpretation — this is a 10-result SERP, but some of the local 7-pack (in this case, some = four results) must be "blended" results. In other words, the local pack contains both truly local results and organic results that are being treated as local.
Hacking the start= parameter
So, how do we figure out which four are blended? You're probably familiar with Google's "start=" URL parameter. Even if you don't ever enter it manually, you use it all the time — it's what separates Google's search result pages. So, if a basic query looks like this:
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodontist">https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodontist</a>
...then the query to reach page two of results looks like this:
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodontist&start=10">https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodontist&start=10</a>
It turns out that "start=10" is a bit of a cheat – it always means "jump to page 2" even if page one is a 7-result SERP. Like most coders, Google also thinks in terms of starting at zero, so for a traditional SERP "10" actually means the 11th result (page one is results 0-9).
Here's where it gets interesting. What if you change the "start=" parameter to be something other than a multiple of ten? Turns out, it works just fine, and it gives you a stripped-down organic result page starting with the absolute position specified. In other words, setting "start=9" gives you a page with no local results that begins at the 10th organic ranking.
Counting backward to destiny
Ok, "destiny" may be a bit over the top. It turns out that you can effectively use this technique to count backward and determine the "true" organic results, as if the local pack had never appeared. You can skip straight to "start=1", which shows the 2nd ranking forward ("start=0" is Googlese for "start from the beginning", so you have to make some assumptions about the #1 spot).
Using this trick ("&start=1") for my "orthodontist" query at the beginning of the post, I ended up with these results:
Since we're starting with #2, this page actually represents organic results 2-11. It's a little odd, but hopefully that all makes sense. So, why am I torturing you with these mental gymnastics?
Putting it all together
If we match up the URLs in the second list with our original SERP, we can determine not only which results were blended, but also what order they would've appeared in without the influence of the local 7-pack. It looks something like this (organic results are in green, local are counted with "L" in the number):
In this case, the first four local results in the pack are the blended results, but the 4th result is actually #9 in the original organic results. Like the old indented results, the local pack pulls any organic result that gets promoted up (to keep the pack contiguous), so in this case #9 is actually outranking the original #7 and #8.
Finding hidden opportunities
This may seem like an academic exercise, but a conversation with local SEO expert Mike Blumenthal helped me see the strategic importance. Understanding how local and organic blend in the SERP above, for example, tells us a couple of things. Google back-filled the 7-pack with three purely local results, indicating an opportunity for sites that might be weak on organic ranking factors but are decently optimized for local.
There's also a potential opportunity for some of the lower-ranking organic results to get promoted above other organic results by improving their local ranking factors. For example, #10 could jump above #7 and #8 (using the organic counting method) with some solid local SEO efforts. In the overall SERP, #10 could jump just behind #9, effectively gaining five spots.
Effectively, there are two algorithms in play here, and they overlap. Local is no longer a purely independent consideration, and "blending" is a dynamic process that potentially opens up new opportunities. We're going to see this with more and more "verticals," including Knowledge Graph — these features will start to cross over into organic results and modify them with specialized sub-algorithms. Being visible in these SERPs will require an understanding of how all of the pieces fit together.
Some clients say something like - hey thats not done by your SEO thats a local result, you have nothing to do with that... ah I would show them this post - but than they've headaches.
good post, thx
^^ I also manage their places of course :)
Sorry but edit isn't workin on my pc since weeks...
Blended results cause me headaches. One client in particular insists that his presence on page one "doesn't count" if it's a blended result, forcing me to use a different URL on his G+ Local profile to the one that is optimised for that subject.
I've also seen weird combinations where some local results appear apart from the group, with a regular-looking listing, but local information on the far right of the section. Have seen those both right at the top and right at the bottom of pages. Can't work out how they factor in at all.
haha 'doesn't count' nice!
So going by this, do you not use a homepage link in G+local pages?
Same with the split pack listings - I cant find an example now I'm trying to search for one, post one if you find one!
I've reverted to a homepage link to address the issue of the targeted page blending with the local result that pointed to it.
Edit: Posted from wrong account. Dammit.
A different URL for G+ Local vs. what you normally optimise? Yikes... Does he not realise how bad that is simply from a UX point of view?
It's not horrific. One of them is the homepage, which is set up pretty well for the particular area of interest.
Great post Dr Pete. Liked the way you analyze Google's results. "Counting 10 the Google way" is your another post which is also very informative https://moz.com/blog/counting-to-10-the-google-way and a must bookmark for SEOs who is curious about SERPs.
I have a site popping up #1 like a local listing with phone number and a pointer but it is the only one there on organic section, and when we checked the result from other states and countries it is still #1. I am just trying to think if the ranking has anything to do with our organic work. Googe search term is "Miami real estate" and the site is https://miamirealestateinc.com. I hope someone can enlighten me on this while it is up there. Thanks
I'm seeing it as either straight organic or a pack result, but it could be a regional thing. See my Mega-SERP post - does what you're seeing look like (G)? Basically, that's a high-authority (or high-relevance) blended result.
So basically...you still have to have a solid site to get top spots in local rankings....??
My boss and I really dislikes these blended listings as well. There's not enough information displayed, and you don't have full control over the title tag. The title that appears is based on the search query really. Ours swaps between a few different titles on search results, half the time its just one word instead of our company or slogan.
Further, we are unable to control the Google Place page that the listing links to. We have both google place/local pages setup, yet the one that the search result links to does not exist and I am not able to claim it (scratch that - I just claimed it on a different gmail account. Let's see how that goes, maybe I can delete it finally). I have just recently verified a new google+ local listing, so I'm hoping Google picks that up soon...
Update: Nope. Claimed it, verified it and updated it, but it hasn't updated the Google Local page. I'm trying to claim it from the G+ Local page and it claims it as a bloody Place page which doesn't relate to anything GRRRRR GOOGLE DIE!!
For us, it seemed like the same week we got blended into the "local" listing for Brisbane, we dropped to second and third pages for searches from every other city in Australia. I even went as far as deleting all the google maps/place pages I had, yet it still showed up in local even a few weeks later.
Great detective work. Knowing that you rank for both organic and local provides an opportunity. E.g. change your places to point to a different url so it does not filter out your organic result.
This. I've had a lot of success doing this recently. Typically for local businesses, the home page is going to rank well for that main business keyword that you want to come up for, so the blended results doesn't really help you at all. However, by linking it to a different page you can potentially show up twice, which is huge. It seems like there's very little correlation between the SEO value of the page that your Places page is linked to and the rank of the Places result associated with it.
After reading the post once, I am back to the top to read it again to understand what I read in my first attempt.
I totally share that concept. Headed back to reread this one and see where I fit into the picture.
Excellent research Pete! I'm excited to do some research using your method to see how it compares with my theories.
But there is a MUCH easier way to get to the PURE organic results to do this type of comparison.
I don't normally link to my own posts and hate to except this monster post I did about what controls the local ranking algo uses 2 tools - AOL search and StartPage which make the analysis you just did, so much easier and faster.
It also proves what really controls the local ranking order for the top of the local 7 pack. (Not reviews, citations or proximity.) And explains why you can see unclaimed bare listings with no reviews in the A spot.
"How the Google Local Algo Really Works - What Rules the Ranking Order"
https://localsearchforum.catalystemarketing.com/google-local/8707-how-google-local-algo-really-works-what.html
I'm curious to hear what you think Pete after you check out the ranking comparisons I did and test some queries.
Will also try later today to test with your method and query and see if t matches up using the tools and methods I recommend, which may even uncover something new and useful. I never thought to use the start parameter so am excited to do some testing.
Thanks - yeah, Mike Blumenthal and I have actually discussed that a bit. Our team at Moz was experimenting with AOL results a while back for another project, and I found a few oddities, so I kept looking for different approaches. Ultimately, though, they generally land on roughly the same conclusions. We've found EarthLink is actually good, too - they add almost none of their own algo on top of Google's results. The problem is that none of the partners get 7-result SERPs or some of the oddities, so some chunk of page 1 AOL results end up being quite a bit different. It's definitely educational to compare them, though. Personally, I love having more than one method to compare.
I thought I'm good with numbers -- this article changes that 'belief.' LOL
On a serious note, the idea of the article seems to be pretty interesting so I'll give it another try. #TopToBottomLeftToRight
Hats of to you Dr.Pete. You highlighted a very technical and misunderstood topic related to SERPS. but I want to ask when I'm changing &start=1, why its showing me on 2nd page, but the results are of 1st page.
Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to tell without seeing the query, but it is possible to occasionally get a mismatch, due to things like personalization.
This is interesting. If i understand your point, this auto-correlation with a manual forced lag tells you where are the mismatches. Correct?
Hi Dr. Pete ~
Good article and practical for many of us who make our living with local businesses. A couple of thoughts:
First, Google not only 'masks' or hides some of the organic results in the local maps results, but they also have been testing that horizontal carousel for some of the local results. I've seen it come in and out of the results for a number of hospitality and service related searches. This does a couple of things. It shows the natural organic results automatically and also, it seems to bring in a lower CTR for my clients who previously had maps listings in the vertical serps we are all used to.
Second thought is that the advantage or strategy that you mention you might be able to get from this knowledge of who is blended and who is not, in my opinion, should be a default part of your SEO and link development any way. In other words, a fully optimized G maps and G+ page, along with a fully optimized organic site, should be part of your inbound plan, along with link development, social, and content.
I understand what you have written as another lens to see the SERPS through and not a way to gain new knowledge that can be beneficial. Our local campaigns should be covering the bases with our without this.
If i can ask a question re. local seo using google places and google+.
Is it a good idea to merge google place and google plus page so that we can get both review functionality and posting functionality on the same page? As a result we will get google local+ dashboard in our google account, but is it good idea especially when google place page is ranking well on some local keywords? Will this merge affect such ranking?
Thanks for this post...I've read it a number of times already.
Great Post
Really nice concept. For all about statics & dynamic url's
Really great investigation Dr. Pete. I have never view SERP result this way. Open up some new thoughts. Thanks for the share.
Local optimization matters but i tried my best to understand the Algo but didn't get the points that you have mentioned. Even i read it thrice... Even i have done researches on Local Optimization many times and i only found that you visibility matters in Google Local when you have submitted your site in the local classifieds.
That's interesting and pretty easy to do. I can't say I noticed this trend in my niche. I did add a site recently to some local classified websites, will track results.
I really never seen the SERP this way. Thanks for sharing the result.
Regards
Sasha
I didn't know the trick to see the real organic result for local queries. I'll use it from now on. Thanks!!
After discussing this post in office, we did some further research and a reason why we think that (#9) Frey Orthodontists has been pushed in the local listings above (#8) Mario J Parisi could be due to the fact that Frey Orthondotists have a verified Google Local listing (that includes images, reviews, timeline, profile photo, description and +4) whereas Mario J Parisi only have a un-verified Places listing. Which is a pleasing thing to see from an SEO point of view.
Interesting stuff. At the end of the day it doesn't matter so much what your "ranking" is numerically but 1) what page your link is on, and 2) how far down on the page your link is. [and I guess 3) what words and images are showing up with your link to make people want to click on it]
That being said, understanding how the different systems intermingle on the SERPs is crucial to understanding what opportunities you have for improving your positions on the pages.
While it's all changing all the time, it's clear that many parts of Google still think in terms of ranking numbers, as you've shown by your "start" parameter explorations. I also notice that Google Webmaster Tools still shows simple numbers in "Avg. position" search traffic tables... have you done any exploring or have any hunches about whether those are taking into account Local and other listings as well?
OK, so one will naturally say, How do I improve my local results (if I'm already working on the organic side of things)?
Citations!
Exactly- use one of Moz' newer aquisitions https://getlisted.org/ to get a quick high level audit of your site's local citations.
Dr. Pete is back with one wonderful post. Great research Dr. Pete on count on local results. Thanks for sharing research with us!!!
Feeling almost the same. Let me read again.
In regards to changing your places to point to a different URL, is anyone not concerned about Google identifying that as manipulation? I feel like that would get flagged at some point... thoughts?
"I think I made a wrong turn at Albuquerque..." Bugs Bunny
There's an alternative to do this using the &num=1 parameter. It gives you the same results (without the influence of local), but you have page through results one by one. So thanks for the trick - it speeds things up :-) Oh, and combining both methods you don't have to guess what result #1 is.
Do you have a functional URL that uses that? I'm not seeing any difference when I append "&num=1" to a basic query string. Definitely would love to learn more.
Really great... investigation, I could say ;-)
I like the tip with analysing what can make some websites get into the local listings, while they really occupy lower positions in pure organic results. I'm sure I'll test some cases to check that.
Dr. Pete, this post just spin my head right round.. Learning to count again!
Great detective work, Dr. Pete! Now I just have to resist the urge to play around with this until my current project is done. ;-)
I have seen that everyone talk about the Google local listing but no one tell the Google listing Algorithm. How Google treat local listing and what are Google requirement for local listing?