Editor's note: We're preserving this post for posterity. You'll always be able to find the most recent Local Search Ranking Factors survey here: https://moz.com/local-search-ranking-factors. Happy reading!
Many of you have been tweeting, emailing, asking in conference Q&As, or just generally awaiting this year's Local Search Ranking Factors survey results. Here they are!
Hard to believe, but this is the seventh year I've conducted this survey—local search has come a long way since the early days of the 10-pack way back in 2008! As always, a massive thanks to all of the expert panelists who in many cases gave up a weekend or a date night in order to fill out the survey.
New this year
As the complexity of the local search results has increased, I've tried to keep the survey as manageable as possible for the participants, and the presentation of results as actionable as possible for the community. So to that end, I've made a couple of tweaks this year.
Combination of desktop and mobile results
Very few participants last year perceived any noticeable difference between ranking criteria on desktop and mobile devices, so this year I simply asked that they rate localized organic results, and pack/carousel results, across both result types.
Results limited to top 50 factors in each category
Again, the goal here was to simplify some of the complexity and help readers focus on the factors that really matter. Let me know in the comments if you think this decision detracts significantly from the results, and I'll revisit it in 2015.
Factors influenced by Pigeon
If you were at Matt McGee's Pigeon session at SMX East a couple of weeks ago, you got an early look at these results in my presentation. The big winners were domain authority and proximity to searcher, while the big losers were proximity to centroid and having an address in the city of search. (For those who weren't at my presentation, the latter assessment may have to do with larger radii of relevant results for geomodified phrases).
My own takeaways
Overall, the algorithmic model that Mike Blumenthal developed (with help from some of the same contributors to this survey) way back in 2008 continues to stand up. Nonetheless, there were a few clear shifts this year that I'll highlight below:
- Behavioral signals—especially clickthrough rate from search results—seem to be increasing in importance. Darren Shaw in particular noted Rand's IMEC Labs research, saying "I think factors like click through rate, driving directions, and "pogo sticking" are valuable quality signals that Google has cranked up the dial on."
- Domain authority seems to be on its way up—particularly since the Pigeon rollout here in the U.S. Indeed, even in clear instances of post-Pigeon spam, the poor results seem to relate to Google's inability to reliably separate "brands" from "spam" in Local. I expect Google to get better at this, and the importance of brand signals to remain high.
- Initially, I was surprised to see authority and consistency of citations rated so highly for localized organic results. But then I thought to myself, "if Google is increasingly looking for brand signals, then why shouldn't citations help in the organic algorithm as well?" And while the quantity of structured citations still rated highly for pack and carousel results, consistent citations from quality sources continue to carry the day across both major result types.
- Proximity to searcher saw one of the biggest moves in this year's survey. Google is getting better at detecting location at a more granular level—even on the desktop. The user is the new Centroid.
- For markets where Pigeon has not rolled out yet (i.e. everywhere besides the U.S.), I'd encourage business owners and marketers to start taking as many screenshots of their primary keywords as possible. With the benefit of knowing that Pigeon will eventually roll out in your countries, the ability to compare before-and-after results for the same keywords will yield great insight for you in discerning the direction of the algorithm.
As with every year, though, it's the comments from the experts and community (that's you, below!) that I find most interesting to read. So I think at this point I'll sign off, crack open a GABF Gold-Medal-Winning Breakside IPA from Portland, and watch them roll in!
Great Survey and work as always! I have a relevant (and pertinent) question and would love some insight from the community...
We are located in Orange County, CA, when we are doing Local SEO for a client (most of which have service areas) they often want to rank organically for the entire county. We would like that for them as well. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a problem.
Number 1: Google searches from a city perspective not a county.
Number 2: There is no local pack for the county.
Number 3: It is difficult to communicate to Google county relevance from markup and on site signals.
So here are two questions...
Question 1: Assuming that your keyword research illuminates that there is no difference between county and city searches, are you better off going after the city or the county?
Question 2: If you're on the border of a city and want to rank in the more lucrative city next door, should you target that city in your h1 tag on your homepage (even though your NAP is for your brick and mortar location) or should you go with the city you are located within in your homepage h1 tag and hope that you are able to rank in both due to proximity?
Thanks and I look forward to the communities expert insight :)
Hi Garrett,
Q1 I'd probably suggest targeting Title Tags and internal priorities at county-level terms, if Google's showing a lot of localized organic results in the OC. Then, let your rankings 'fall where they may' for city-related packs and carousels.
Q2 If the border city is small enough, generally you should probably rank for it anyway given the lack of competition. So including something like 'bigger city metro area' in H1 / Title on the homepage is probably fine.
In both cases, hard to give definitive advice without specific examples of keywords and cities...
David thank you very much for the wise reply. I truly appreciate it.
Honored to participate again this year David! Reviews and citations are huge factors again this year, just like links for SEO, and it reminded me why they matter so much... Google values what others say about you more than what you say about yourself. Less easy to manipulate this way.
"The user is the new Centroid."
I'm glad that that's becoming the case more and more. After all, if I'm a user based out in the suburbs, it makes sense that I may want results directly around me, rather than those in the city centre that I'd have to travel further to (depending on the type of query). It also gives the out-of-town-ers more of a fighting chance.
Good work, David & co.! :-)
I've just been reading the commentary on the post itself and noticed Mary Bowling's comment:
"In my experience, adding a location modifier to your business name is good for moving up a few spots in the Maps rankings."
I remember there being a big discussion about this recently. Surely adding a place name at the end of your listing's name/title is a little... spammy? I'd argue that it might be ok for multi-location businesses (e.g. it'd be like saying "Joe Bloggs - London" and "Joe Bloggs - Manchester", i.e. distinguishing the two locations separately), but what about when you only have one location? What are people's thoughts/advice?
Hi Steve,
Yes, adding a place/location name to you listing could be spammy, but it will completely depend on how you go about this. I'd bet that Mary's point was more related to situations like how the Hotel industry, and restaurants too, have started to Brand many of their properties with cities and geographical terms in their names. This has historically been good for SEO as well as Local.
An important thing to keep in mind is that this should be a real brand and not just an Interwebz name. You still have to answer the phone with your business name... "Thank you for calling Best Western Minneapolis, how may I help you?" is a commonly accepted use. However, answering the phone like this would not: "Thank you for calling Best Western Downtown Minneapolis Hotel, how may I help you?".
This is also where citations and NAP consistency matter to Google. A lot.
These searches for "Downtown Hotel", "Minneapolis Hotels" and "Grand Canyon Hotels" are good examples:
https://www.google.com/search?q=downtown+hotel
https://www.google.com/search?q=minneapolis+hotels
https://www.google.com/search?q=grand+canyon+hotel...
James has it exactly right with his comment. These so-called "descriptors" make a lot of sense for larger brands. But it has to be how you'd actually answer the phone, as Google is increasingly checking these kinds of things via human review.
Wow, that represents an opportunity for shrewd search marketeers to extend their relationship with a client - front desk phone training for NAP consistency!
@david - can you add this is a factor in 2015 survey - Consistency of Name Phone Answering
Actually the way you answer phone COUNTS a lot! I wrote a big post about it because...
Joel Headley from Google said:
"NAP consistency is important not just online, but real world. Not just signage, but in phone conversations. I expect, and so does our quality team, to hear the full and complete name of the business over the phone. When it is answered or when specifically asked."
Boy, the above is a really interesting conversation. We had an incident with an smb with a problem. Google discerned the historic issue then called the business, asked a question and made an assumption from our response that was inaccurate. We had to keep working to correct the penalty. The penalty was removed. It took a good bit of work.
Is google going to make algo decisions based on 1 sample phone call to a business??? I hope not. Big hotels and restaurants that are chains go through a lot of personnel that can answer a phone. Does everyone who is trained on the phone for 10's of thousands of businesses have to be trained to answer a phone in a way that is Google smart above all else??
I hope not. They are not God.
Yes. Make sure your staff is trained on how to answer the phones correctly and how to answer Google's questions correctly. Incorrectly doing so has cost some Bulwark Exterminating locations a lot of business. Correctly doing so has saved us from many competitors that would report bad info to google about us. We have stressed the importance of such calls to all of our office employees.
As always, love the Factors! Nice work. Would love to see a more detailed explanation of a few parts. I think we can get through it as pros, but SMBs may have a harder time understanding terms like thematic clusters or even what determines domain authority. You've got such valuable insights here, would be a shame to keep it from business owners who can't understand it. Hmmm... or perhaps that's a new client opportunity for us...ah, never mind then.
Edit: To answer my own question, I see the glossaries in the side bar. Nice work.
I second your comments. I've been doing this stuff since about 2003 or 2004. I have a hard time following all this terminology. Unless you read everywhere all the time, its difficult to sometimes know what people are speaking about.
Very interesting survey, thanks David. Personally I give a bit more weight to GMB and review signals than anything. We've been talking a lot about this lately, and time after time see tremendous success with paying a lot of attention to this.
Also really like your thoughts on behavioral signals, would like to read more on that. Thanks again David!
Hi Patrick. For the sake of sparking debate - would you care to share your insights & any data that point to GMB & Reviews having greater influence? I think the % were pretty spot in here so would love to know some more about your experiences. Thanks.
+1, Myles. Would love to see case studies with GMB updates as an isolated factor. Obviously it is very hard to study each of these in a vacuum, as to do so would be to the detriment of a client :/
I'd also like to see and hear about more data with regard to impact of GMB (google my business) and reviews as a more important factor. In what ways?
Way back in google local time essences review volume seemed to have a HUGE impact. Then it was cut back as a signal. Folks referenced consistency of adding reviews as a weight.
Patents that reference reviews mention volume and language and sources. What about "language" and "sources" Does language imply highly rated reviews, or a method to determine trust, or something else.
Which sources?
As to Google My Business...which elements?
Thanks David,
On page + Link And Review Signals have around 49.1% ranking Signal and its all time important factors that webmasters considered. ( My View)
Agree Mike, Citation still works for Local ranking !
Thanks David - Enjoy that IPA! :)
Every year the Local Search Ranking Factors post is one of my favorite posts on Moz. And frankly one of the most useful for networking purposes. You would be shocked at home many small business owners that I talk to while frequenting their establishments ask me how they can get ranked higher in Google search. I always make some suggestions to them specifically pulled from this post and then direct them to the post if they want more information. It's a great networking tool.
With that being said I was wondering if the Review Signals ranking factor includes Yelp reviews as well or it primarily from Google Maps/Google Local and other review sites not named Yelp.
Oremo,
Thanks for the kind words. To answer your question, YES, Review Signals includes reviews far beyond just Google. In fact, 'Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews' is rated the #22 individual factor for Maps & Carousel results. So pretty important, esp. in competitive markets.
Other review sites have become even more important in light of manual search audits. They specifically mentioned a company's reputation in their quality rating guidelines.
"Stores frequently have user ratings, which can help you understand a store’s reputation based on the reports of people who actually shop there. We consider a large number of positive user reviews as evidence of positive reputation."
In a section about Customer Reviews of Businesses..
"Customer reviews can be helpful for assessing the reputation of a store or business."
This is part of a quality raters guidelines. If they have included it there then you know they are either including or going to include in the algo if possible. I believe it to be very possible.
The other often overlooked aspect of reviews on 3rd party sites, is the fact that Google crawls those pages and updates or freshness of those pages is a good signal. So in addition to the positive sentiment, pages that are adding more original content (reviews) about your business are going to give your internet brand buzz more life. Brand buzz, original content, and better pages linking to your business, all of these are good signals.
Thanks for putting such a thoughtful list together. We look to these factors to not only deploy awesome local campaigns but also to educate our clients about why we do what we do. Guides like this are so helpful, and it's nice to see these "educated guesses" are being commiserated by some of the industry leaders. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for all your efforts on compiling this. This further solidifies the importance of a well rounded strategy that doesn't just focus on links and citations. Looking forward to diving into this deeper to see what will move the needle the most. Thanks again.
Rock and roll! YAY!
Thanks for letting me play a part again this year David and for all the work you do coordinating this monster research. In these uncertain times, this data is needed more than ever by the industry.
Can't wait to dig in! Have been too busy sharing the news to read it myself yet, but I'm sure there are tons of gold nuggets shared by all the experts.
Thanks again, David. We appreciate you!
Linda, this is definitely a community project & I think the comments from you all are perhaps some of the most interesting components to study. Thanks again for your participation this year!
Hi David: Great job AGAIN. Sorry I didn't contribute this year. Lost track of time, and frankly I spend a way lot of time on the questionnaire. But you have an ever increasing number of participants. That translates into lots of experience, lots of expertise and numerical results that have meaning. Its infinitely better than the observations of any one individual. KUDO's Again
But I'm sort of a contrarian. I'll take exception with one part of your summary wherein you stated that the algo model posited by Mike back in 2008 still holds. I took part in that study as did you and others back then. Heck that meant gathering the data on a lot of smbs in different locations back then.
Unlike 2008 I can't even easily FIND a centroidin a city in a fairly easy way, as we did back in 2008. I believe that part of the analysis is null and void in 2014. Commentators believe that Google is delivering results that are relevant to the searcher's more precise location these days. I believe it, I sense it, I test it. I believe that has been occurring for a few years and its stronger now than ever. Google is DRAMATICALLY better at honing in on a searcher's location now than it was several years ago.
I've referenced in writing that from an adwords perspective Google has been drilling down to more precise locations for several years. We look at the geo elements offered in the dimensions tabs in adwords. We've been looking at that for several years. Over time and for several years the aggregate volume of "most precise location" data increasingly has become zip codes rather than a city. In other words rather than seeing most precise traffic and impressions from Cleveland, we'll also see most precise traffic from zip codes within Cleveland and traffic from Cleveland overall.
I think its pretty good data. When I cross checked the impressions and clicks traffic against our own data for smb's we see corresponding leads and sales from people who live in the zips within the cities where google has provided more granular detailed zip data on traffic. Google is better at identifying from where people click (or at least it believes its better). So now they are providing LOCAL serps that reflect that knowledge and that relevancy.
I think that part of the 2008 algo driven model is quite possibly null and void or dramatically lessened in impact.
Based on that experience back in 2008 it was difficult to ascertain significant weights for business types with many many signals. I suspect that remains true.
Google keeps changing things. So it is relevant to keep updating the annual article. And you are doing it. KUDOS!!!!
On that basis, with all that hard work, analysis, and depth of quality in your articles you have the right and privilege to support your favorite beer. Bully for you!!!! :D I respect your commentary. I'll look it up, see if its available in my neck of the woods and if so give it a try. :)
Dave
Hey Dave,
Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, sorry you didn't have time to fill out the survey this year...I always enjoy reading your ever-astute and always-voluble comments.
My comment about the 2008 model I think refers to the fact that in less competitive markets, "primitive" factors like Centroids are still often enough to rank businesses. Whether that Centroid is actually the city-center or (now the user IMO, as you point out), it holds less weight as you move into more competitive markets, where link, citation, and trust signals become more important.
So I think we are saying the same thing in two different ways :)
And yes, I hope Breakside distributes to the DC area!
Ahhh....less competitive markets vis a vis centroids or not. Good point. need to look at that.
In terms of many factors having weight...yeah...I believe that is intrinsically true.
I'll look for Breakside in my neck of the woods. You're advice is good enough for me!!!!
Rumor has it the more one drinks it the more voluble one gets. ;)
Dang: From Breakside's Milwaukee Brewery: "sold throughout Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and British Columbia."
Oh well. But to stay on topic on local signals: Do you want to see something unusual, strange, and an item I don't believe ever got publicity or commentary?????
Take a look at this Google Patent on Location Prominence from a couple of years ago: https://www.google.com/patents/US8046371
Take a look at the bottom 2 "impact points" on scoring in claim 14 of the patent.
Financial size and Age. WoWZIES. has anyone ever seen it, commented upon it or referenced it??? I don't recall any commentary. But those are potential weights in a SE ranking algo of "a very different nature" in my estimation, I wonder if those come into play, how they come into play, where they come into play (if at all) and more importantly will other metrics of that ilk weigh in on LOCAL SERPS????
Its questions of that nature that make me want to sit back with a local fave IPA and read the commentary from other voluble experts--> such as yourself!!!!!! :D
What if competitors DA causes them to rank higher, but I can tell they are using black hat tactics?
I don't see any surprises here or anything that would really change our strategy as an online marketing company. Basically, a little bit of everything should be used to increase your brand signals.
Awesome! I've been waiting for this update, thanks David! With the Pigeon update last July local ranking factors was a hot topic with several of our SEO clients. Some moved ahead and a few lost rankings.
~ I do have a question though, I know what citations are, but can anyone tell me what unlinked citations are?
Citations that just have NAP info, not a website link. It's good to have those in the profile to keep it diverse.
Thanks Ryan, that totally makes sense.
This information is invaluable. Thanks!
I'm fairly new to local SEO (I've done national/international organic for years), and I need a little help. I'm going to be doing local SEO for 10 or 15 companies (white hat only). Here's my question. When create new gmail accounts and set up Google+ page/Google My Business account for each business, do I need to do each one using a different IP address? I know Google is a ittle sensitive with that kind of stuff, and I want to make sure I do it correctly, ethically and above the table. Thanks in advance.
Just a local business owner that also owns a franchise in a different city than I live. Well more accurately 1700 miles away from me. Anyways, the franchise recommended Moz for my small business. So here I am modifying what I have learned at the franchise level to be way, way, way more effective at the local level. The problem is I don't have my head in solely SEO, so the terminology in the above post is foreign. Someone mentioned a glossary? Where is that? I don't see it. Keep up the great work, feels good to be on the cusp of knowing. My small business has three going on six locations, so allot of what was mentioned here helped to answer some of my questions, and of course created more.
Thanks
William
Hi, you can check out more factors at https://www.socialseoteam.com
We have listed detailed search engine ranking factors in our blog.
Hi all.
I am new to the world of SEO but from what I understand, adding new and relevant content via blog posts is a major factor in SEO. So why has this not been included in the pie chart?
This is a post related to local SEO, not general SEO, so there are quite different factors being discussed.
Oh I see. Do blog posts not count towards local SEO?
Also, is there a post like this about general SEO you could possibly direct me to?
Thanks :)
https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo Our Beginner's Guide to SEO is a great place to start!
To help people navigate the basics of these factors, I started a blog series entitled "decoding the local search factors". I hope it will be helpful for those who aren't local seo pros. Thank you guys for sharing your insights on local search.
Great analysis as usual, it seems that Links are replacing Citations as ranking signal in Local Search : PIC
One of the negative factors that stood out to me was the ‘listing detected at false business locations’ it somewhat amazes me at the amount of businesses that try to game the SERPs this way by using multiple domains to target niche locations whilst only having one real office and creating multiple virtual offices across a large range of local constitutes, when really it should be addressed in a completely different way with accordance to Google’s guidelines.
It not only hurts the consumer by making them think they are contacting a local business but makes the business look dishonest by listing an incorrect physical location.
Thank you for all this valuable data, i couldn't agree more with the behavioral signals!
What i have also noticed is the very important role that plays the retention of people's preference.
Consistency seems to be the key in order to gain the authority title in your niche.
Very interesting blog, I worth reading. I have a question that If you target one location that is fine, you can target this easily but if you target more than 3-4 location than many problems occur. How to tell to Google that we are targeting 3-4 cities, how to ranked them. Is sub-domain is a good option. Any idea guys??? Please suggest me.
This is a common issue that pretty much all local businesses face - unless they are truly hyper local.
Current wisdom is that it's harder to rank well in local/pack results outside of your immediate location - particularly since the Pigeon update tightened up the geographic dispersion of results so desktop results are more akin to mobile.
With local/pack ranking proving harder to manipulate many SEOs are focusing on improving organic rankings for alternative cites & suburbs. Creating geo-optimized landing pages & building targeted (but not spammy) links to these landing pages is proving to be an effective strategy. Nothing new here but now that pack results are harder to influence these tactics take on more significance.
Cgcolors, thanks for the question. Couldn't answer the question any better than Myles :)
I agree and have had similar experiences as with Myles and David. On a couple of accts I'm trying to bust through the geo limits with extra work. Haven't gotten there ....Yet. but we'll see.
In the meantime organic efforts definitely work in this area. But don't go the way of auto generated exact same pages with the only difference being the name of a suburban town. Google catches that and devalues that.
Agree with Myles, the standard approach seems to be location based pages. That has worked for us, even though you don't get a placement in the local listings without a GMB page for that location, you can still show organically for those areas you want to target. You can use review mark up for added visibility.
Ranking a single website for mulitple locations does prove more difficult than ranking for a single location. Here are a few things I focus on.
Hope that helps. I use these tactics for all of Bulwark's pest control locations throughout the US with some success. Others vary their tactics. Some split sites for each location. Test what works best for you.
Hi David, many thanks for your efforts and the efforts of all participants on this survey. It will make our work in the local jungle a bit easier. :-)) I got quite similar experinces in my projects with the overall ranking factors. Maybe the influence of reviews I would see a little higher. Looking forward to read all the factors in detail.
Agree with Overall ranking factors!
I would like add one more point in that is: User engagement v/s conversions. I am sure that Google is looking at this factor too.
What we believe is; in nearest future, this factor will be a show runner for getting good result from organic channel.
What you say David? I would like to see your view on this.
I think this is tough to address from an online conversion perspective. But I agree that "offline" conversion factors like clicks to call, clicks for driving directions, and even in-store visits tracked on Android phones, are likely to play a larger role moving forward.
Great work again David & rest of the moz team who pulled this together.
I'm very surprised to see that the No1 local-organic factor is 'City, State in Landing Page Title'!?
It's such a basic factor and easily manipulated by the business. Looking back at 2013 it was considered 9th most positive ranking factor (although results from 2014 isn't a like for like comparison vs 2013) but that's a significant improvement for such a simple factor.
Hello David Mihm,
Thanks For Sharing.... this wonderful blog. it is really helpful for local seo.
Great work on this survey, David. I'm surprised to see link signals to be below 20% but local is a different animal. I'd expect to see the share of behavioral/mobile signals to increase in the coming years.
David, I appreciate you putting this together.
I do have to ask though.
All of the stuff in here is theory. Yes, educated guesses, but none of it is 100% absolute.
Yet every year it is presented as if it is absolute fact. Example:
Behavioral signals—especially clickthrough rate from search results—seem to be increasing in importance. Darren Shaw in particular noted Rand's IMEC Labs research, saying "I think factors like click through rate, driving directions, and "pogo sticking" are valuable quality signals that Google has cranked up the dial on."
Another from this post:
https://moz.com/local-search-ranking-factors
In this section, I asked the experts to rank 30 negative factors in order of most damaging to most benign.
as opposed to:
In this section, I asked the experts to rank 30 negative ranking factors and give their opinion on what they felt were the most damaging to the most benign.
While I don't doubt that Darren (who is one of the best minds in the business) has anecdotal evidence to back this up, I would be wary of putting a blanket statement out there about this or any of your (and the experts) other claims.
I'm not sure how long this survey takes for you to put together, and I understand it is great branding for you, and great for all the others that participate (a little badge of honor if you will), but for those seasoned in the industry little of this is new.
Yes we can learn from each other with this survey, but I'm sure as local SEO consultants, we are reading all the top blogs and studying the best practices, the best of posts, etc. to find out what is working for others and then testing as appropriate already.
I know that Brian Dean got some flack for his extremely thorough and in depth post about the top 200 ranking factors. He mentions from the get go that some are proven, but others are speculation, and then he dives deep into a much more comprehensive list than this. Yet, he still was criticized because somebody didn't like his headline and felt he was misleading. Is that the author's right? Yes absolutely. I get that Moz allows contributors with a wide array of experience, and different opinions, and I think that's awesome, that's the way it should be. But for a writer on Moz to say that Brian's post is misleading because he is acting like it is the 'Official' ranking factor list, yet not one person says anything year after year about this survey which is presented in a way that portrays it as the 'Official' list, is just wrong. I'm sorry. No disrespect intended in any way shape or form.
At the same time, when Moz puts something out, people listen. People perk up and pay attention. This is because of the great reputation that they have built and the incredible value that Rand has brought to the SEO community (not to mention his memorable 'stache' and shirts). As a result, people take this study as facts, and unless it is very clearly stated that this is an opinion by the compiler of the study and the contributors, then those new in the business, or business owners take it as fact. This may or may not be the intent, but nonetheless, I feel there should be full disclosure.
I know I shouldn't rock the boat. I should be a 'yes man', and praise the survey, but I just can't.
Is there value in the survey? Yes, absolutely. Is it among the most important studies of Local SEO? (quoted from your signature) I have a hard time agreeing with that.
As I said before, there is value in it, and it can help somebody that isn't keeping up on the industry, and those new to the industry.
Off the top of my head, Bright Local's amazing survey's they put together, Linda's Forum, the aforementioned Brian Dean, Chris Silver Smith, and Jon Cooper put out ( some more frequently than others) content that is absolutely invaluable, and dare I say more insightful than this.
I went back and forth about posting this, and really didn't want to. I don't want to be 'that guy'. I don't want to be a 'trouble maker'. But I had to point out, full disclosure that these are strictly opinions is important.
"Yet every year it is presented as if it is absolute fact. Example:
Behavioral signals—especially clickthrough rate from search results—seem to be increasing in importance. Darren Shaw in particular noted Rand's IMEC Labs research, saying "I think factors like click through rate, driving directions, and "pogo sticking" are valuable quality signals that Google has cranked up the dial on."
Seems clear to me that these are just educated opinions...
Hi Tyson,
Thanks for taking the time for such a thoughtful comment. I would say a couple of things:
a) That it's fairly self-evident that a survey is by nature opinion and not fact,
b) That Chris, Myles, and Linda are all participants in the survey and I doubt they'd take issue with my characterization that it's among the most important studies in the industry (although I'd love for them to respond to your comment directly!).
I absolutely agree that there are plenty of other great ones, including BrightLocal's.
Thanks for your professional comment David. I opening questioned something that is no doubt your 'baby' and you acted professionally in responding. Kudos to you. :)
I wouldn't say that it is self evident that surveys are opinion. I won't even throw out a percentage, but I would say that a high amount are not. Example, I'm a bodybuilder, and I took a survey fairly recently that had questions such as: (with drop downs to answer the questions)
How many times per week do you work out in the off season?
How many times per week do you work out during contest prep?
Do you take supplements, if so how many?
How many bodybuilding shows have you competed in?
What class do you compete in?
etc.
Just an example.
Yes, Chris, Myles, Linda are great minds, and it's great that they participate, and the knowledge they share freely through forums, studies, and blogs, etc are invaluable. That said, it is felt by some to be a feather in the hat if you will-to be a participant, so I'm sure everybody would say it is an important study-otherwise they wouldn't participate in it.
Okay, I'm off my soap box.
No offense to anybody SEO guru's I neglected to mention-Jayson DeMers, Kaiser the Sage, Mike Ramsay, Nyagoslav Zhekov.
Feels like its an acceptance speech, lol.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Hey Ty, you make some interesting points, but I don't think LSRF has ever been promoted as the gospel or fact.
You said:
"Is there value in the survey? Yes, absolutely. Is it among the most important studies of Local SEO? (quoted from your signature) I have a hard time agreeing with that."
I not only think it's 'among the most important' but believe it is THE most important, when it comes to analyzing local ranking signals and trends. It's just opinions, yes - but from some of the top minds in the industry.
There are lots of other great resources for sure and I love BrightLocal's surveys as well. (And thanks for mentioning the forum too.)
However, while I respect your opinion, I don't see how the value of the LSRF can be discounted.
My thoughts exactly.
Man: Tyson is a contrarian. LOL. Sometimes I feel like the only one.
This is the first survey in the 7 years I didn't participate in. I never take everything for gospel. You shouldn't. Its not.
Here is where its valuable IMHO. A lot of people work on responses. I know some of them, and some of what they do and some of what they look at or test. I communicate with some of them.
We all see different data and we look at different local smb's. Some are in very competitive arenas. Some aren't. Some are in cities with many competitors. Some aren't. Some smb's compete regionally. Some compete locally. Unbelievable variance.
Regardless of the statements in any one sentence in the report....the data, numerical scores, and aggregate knowledge of a lot of perspectives from a lot of people looking at an aggregate of many different situations.
In that context I like the aggregate weight of the analyses better than my single perspective. 2 heads are better than 1, and 30 heads are better than 2....and a variety of analyses give much value in my perspective.
There are indeed many terrific contributions and perspectives from many people. I agree with that statement.
An interesting survey. After having read the post, I guess the main factors that influenced local search ranking are on-page factors such as Meta tags(titles and description) and the DA and PA of the backlinks for a particular website. Tracking a website's ranking is always an important factor, i found an article on the same
[link removed by editor]
Thank you for the information.
Yet every year it is presented as if it is absolute fact. Example:
Behavioral signals—especially clickthrough rate from search results—seem to be increasing in importance. Darren Shaw in particular noted Rand's IMEC Labs research, saying "I think factors like click through rate, driving directions, and "pogo sticking" are valuable quality signals that Google has cranked up the dial on."
Seems clear to me that these are just educated opinions...
Great Topic!! Thanks for the information
CLHE Corp. "creating better options"
www.clhecorp.com
Just made this infographics https://i.imgur.com/8bEeSjZ.jpg
Oh, that's great
You definitely did not: https://smallbiztrends.com/2014/08/rule-local-search-results.html