As you probably noticed, last week Google did a pretty big makeover of its local search results page, incorporating the local results directly within the organic results. In some cases it appeared that the old “7-Pack” was just given larger real estate on the SERP. In others, it just looked like the websites were just given links to their Places page. And sometimes, it just looked like an entirely new SERP, different than both the original organic rankings and the lettered, local results. But what was the real effect this change had on local search results?
How I Got My Data
Visually, the new local search results page includes information from the both website and the business's Places page. The title and description are taken from the website but select information from the Places page is also included as well as a direct link to the Places page in Maps. Here we see an example of a search for "tanning salon seattle wa" and how the combined results are displayed.
To find out the effects of combining the results, I grabbed the rankings of 50 somewhat random websites we’ve been tracking. As an initial criteria, I tried to use sites we’d been tracking for at least 2 months. I also eliminated sites with substantial fluctuations in their rankings within the prior few weeks since there would be no way to attribute those changes to any particular factor. Lastly, though I originally intended to use a completely random sampling, I eventually skipped over several sites that had no change since several of these were in non-competitive areas where they pretty much dominated all other websites for their searches.
After I had my sample, I did some quick research, comparing the organic rankings of several websites prior to the change to their rankings after the change. I then performed the same search in Google Maps in order to determine how their Places pages were ranking individually.
With a few exceptions, the top 7 ranked results in Maps are what were displayed in the old 7-pack for the same search. These listings were ranked independently of the organic results beneath them. By comparing their former organic ranking to their current organic ranking, I was able to see if a change could be correlated to their Places page's ranking in Maps.
So, Was There Any Change?
Of the 50 websites examined, 30 of them had an improvement in the new, “combined” results while 6 of them dropped. In most cases, this shift in their ranking could definitely be attributed to the performance of their local listings.
The Good
First, let’s look at the ones that improved. I did eliminate 4 outliers but, for the most part, you can see a direct correlation between the sites’ improved ranking and their local ranking in Maps. Obviously, I can’t publish any actual websites or keyword searches, but the searches all used a typical local query consisting of “business/service city st”.
Generally, it can be said that sites performing well in both organic and local perform even better in the new consolidated SERP. In several cases you can directly see how a well-performing Google Places listing now pulls up your organic ranking.
In some instances, the combined performance of a business with both a decently ranking website and Places page was enough to push it up a rank or two in the new results. In others, it appears that a well-optimized Places page was able to significantly improve a decently performing website and increase its ranking by several spots. Basically, your local listing’s performance appears to be a significant ranking factor in the new organic results.
The Bad
Since a business’s local listing has the ability to positively affect its website’s performance organic results, let’s look at the ones that dropped in ranking to determine if there is a negative factor associated with the new SERP.
First, the fact that the sample size I was able to obtain was so small already implies that a poorly performing business listing doesn’t seem to have much of an effect on a website’s performance. Looking at the original rankings, you can also see that 3 of these sites weren’t doing that great to begin with. In fact, it would probably be fair to assume that their drop was due to an already negative trend. But what about the websites that were doing well but dropped after the update?
Digging deeper into these, I soon discovered that this wasn’t really a direct result of the poorly performing business listings dragging the websites down, but rather that, due to the local results being buried so deep in Maps, Google didn’t associate a business’s Places page with their website. As a result, other websites that did have strong Places pages were ranking higher. So, while having a poorly ranked local listing didn’t penalize the website, it was a whole category of optimization that the website was lacking. Almost like having a great inbound linking strategy but no content structure.
Other Observations
While going through dozens of various local searches, there were a few things that stood out:
- Directory listings appear to be showing up more frequently in local results, in some cases taking up the top 3 spots in results.
- The 7-Pack, or rather one-line business listings similar to the old 7-Pack, aren’t gone entirely. Lettered results still tend to show up when Google isn’t entirely sure you’re trying to do a local search. Typically, this happens in searches for smaller cities or regions.
- When using rank-checking tools, the one-lined, lettered listings won’t be counted - just like before. The larger results being discussed here, however, are treated just as normal organic results prior to the change, completely disregarding the letter and local information assigned to it.
- Lastly, while I encountered plenty of websites on the first page without a Places page, I encountered very few Places page ranking on the first page without a website. Prior to the change, it was not uncommon to regularly see local listings with no associated website ranking in the 7-pack. Now it appears that, without a website, it is nearly impossible to be in the first page of Google’s general SERP for most searches.
What Does This Mean?
So what can we learn from all this? Basically, it’s just what Google said all along - everything is important. Your best bet is to have both a terrifically optimized website and an optimized, claimed Places page to associate with it.
Not only does Google seem to use a Places page as an organic ranking factor, but having one also gives you nearly twice the real estate devoted to your business in the results. Instead of just having a few words in your title tag and meta description to sell your business, you now have your address, phone number, reviews, lists of other websites that mention you, and even a picture to draw attention to your website.
Bottom line: all those old debates about whether it was better to have the top-ranking website in organic or have your business at the top of the 7-pack are over. Even if this isn’t the final layout, it’s clear that Google intends to make both count.
I think Google has forgotten the concept that there are online only businesses that don't have any local presence. And these businesses have been around for years serving their people which is why people shop from them at the first place.
If Google wants to include local results in their organic SERPs, they should really ad an option or tab for local where users can choose that.
This new change is terrible for eCommerce only stores and to be honest with you, the new SERP page looks like someone at Google barfed
I'm with you on this - the change is great for shops with a physical walk in location, but for those of us who are internet only this is a disaster. Particularly when I see places results being served for queries when it isn't even relevant or helpful.
yup. It's not a crime NOT to have an physical store. Google keeps preaching "have great content" and my client website has great content, it has unique products, and it has been around for years but just this week their organic CTR hence their sales dropped because Google decided to show everything in one page.
I think Google has no sense of usability. If a user wants to search for local stores, they can go to Google local, or type in the city or zip code then Google algorithm should be able to figure out that the user is looking for local store. The new SERP looks ugly as a user I don't like it...yikes!
Great post George! I noticed the change last week. I'm glad you followed up on it and shared your research with us! Miss hanging out with you and the crew! We'll have to get together once this weather clears up!
Shaylee
Hey George - really liked this post and appreciate your research. We've been wanting to do something similar, and the comparisons are fascinating. Keep up the good work!
(BTW - Promoted this to the main blog, as it deserves some additional exposure)
New SERPs for "flowers" and "web hosting" - 1-3 zero websites in top10, what a day...
Nice post and some interesting observations for sure. I have been checking a few things myself and one of the common themes I am finding is that the combined listing (even in cases where I did not see an increase in previous serp or places listing) are getting better click thrus than before. It is still a little too early to make any broad statements, but I am guessing that improved conversions will be an added benefit of a properly optimized places listings and combined website going forward.
Peter, that's really interesting. I haven't really done a good click thru comparison yet but that's great to know. And it makes sense. The other thing that will be interesting to watch after all this is the affect Tags has on the listings since its a lot more relevant now.
Great post! Thanx! My sites for all major queries were on 2-3 positions in old Local Listings and now in new SERP have +1 to +3 positions. So, everyone, go and improve your Google Places Page to have better rankings in SERP.For those who don't know, rankings factors for Google Places:
Have you any new data about rankings factors in Google Places?
P.S. If this data was useful for you, please, THUMB UP ;)
Thanks for sharing your research George. After the new Places rolled out, I noticed a few of the listings I've been tracking moved around a bit. Many have said that both local rankings (places/map) and organic rankings equally as important when attempting to rank high for geo-targeted sites, as well as Places profiles. Be glad to hear further updates as time goes by.
Jackson
Thanks for the insight! This shift is definitely shaking things up. Although Google moved the cheese again, good SEOs like you are already moving to where the cheese was moved to. Thanks again.
I wonder if that little sponsored add for $25 a month will help with the listings or only make it stand out a bit more if they rank in the search results
I'm pretty sure there's a strong correlation between a site's performance in the natural listings and the performance of it's places page. Although I think it's more to do with the strength of the website, rather than the places listing. It makes sense when you consider two things:
a) Google's aim has always been to return SERPs that will provide the best user experience and,
b) Even though there is an option to enter the actual places page from a local listing, most users are still going to click on the result's title tag and be directed to the actual website.
This means that the quality/relevance/authority of the website is still the main factor in the user's experience, so it has to remain a huge part of the algorithm.
It doesn't make sense that all I need to do is complete my places listing 100% and write a bunch of bogus, keyword-rich reviews. That would make it far to easy to play the system.
Great!Thanks for sharing those,I must learn more ,how to use google.
Hey George, I saw alot of the same results with a number of my clients. Thanks for the affirmation that I wasnt the only one =)
-Ian
Nice post. It does look like number of citation sources are definitely beating total number of reviews. Review Diversity is an important factor.
Best
Neil
If I've learned one thing from reading SEOMoz I should never assume that anyone here knows everything and some times pointing out the obvious can help more people than you would think. One thing I've had to point out a TON to our clients is that when checking results making sure you are logged out and setting your geography in "Search Settings" gives you the ability to check your locality and also any suburbs you want. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I totally agree and see the same thing on Google.fr
The World is moving...
I have an interesting find with local. A competitor website has three local places pages with three different adress; one of the adresses is simply Seattle, Wa. All three places are owned and optimized (same phone, same main URL, diff. address).
Their website was already ranked 1,2, or 3 in the main keyword battles. I have pictures potsed here https://www.johnshearer.org/?p=277
Is this a temporary work around?
Awesome post! Key thing for me is to find a good automated rankchecking solution that searches using a localized proxy. I tried Authority Labs but it's not localized. I had thought that it was accurate, until I changed the "Search From" box at the left on Google's SERP & then removed personalization & found out to my horror that it absolutely was NOT, and Maps listings showed up for 80% of clients' KWs. Next step is Advanced Web Rankings. W/out a way to easily check ranks for all KWs for each of dozens of clients, how do we know what works & what doesn't?
To George & any other SEOs here in Seattle - please consider yourselves invited to the monthly Seattle SEO's meetup. Next one is Dec 14th at Hale's Ale's in Ballard (7pm). But we do it every month.
https://biznik.com/groups/seattle-seos
Thanks again for a great piece of informative writing.
Carl
Great!Thanks for sharing those,I must learn more ,how to use goog.
I think the UK local SERP still have a few kinks to be ironed out, but for the most part your theory is standing up as I've seen a couple of clients sites organic positions pulled up by the strength of their places page. However, things do seem to be bouncing around a lot.
Somebody know why the searchs between google.com and google local with the same keywords show the results in different positions with huge difference!
I run a bouncy castle hire business in Leeds, UK, but I cover Leeds, Wakefield, Selby and York. I rank 2nd for 'bouncy castle hire leeds' on the combined results, but below the combined 7 pack for the other cities.
How can I rank for the other 3 nearby cities? I could copy rival sites and create fake business addresses in each of the city centres, but I would prefer to do it white hat style. Any suggestions?
p.s. my site is familybounce dot co dot uk
Thanks,
Martin.
Great!Thanks for sharing those,I must learn more ,how to use google.
For highly competitive local markets it's been a killer. 200 competitors in a small area all vying for top Google places rankings now.
The results in the UK for local searches are still in constant flux (or maybe just the ones I am looking at). Reviews seem to play a big role (regardless of sentiment) and I don't see distance from city center being a massive factor. It's odd Google are shoving the map over the PPC ads. Would seem to fly in the face of their usual goal of getting more CTR on paid ads, unless they are going to begin including the sponsored map listings in the organic section. hmm
I agree with your appraisal of the situation. My clients who have sites that were performing well in natural search AND a well formatted, verified places listing with genuine client have only gotten better placement
Happily, many of my competitors with spam, or self generated reviews have had many bogus reviews thrown out, and seen serious ranking drops. Some of my linesteppingly keyworded title tags did get flagged, and a few keyword positions were lost from some of my more.. aggressive campaigns, but overall the new update only re-validates the importance of having a search engine friendly site with good content and staying active in at least a few social venues.
This change suprised a lot of local businesses. It seemed that Google was rewarding optimized sites that were associated with a content rich Places page. The recent change moved listings around quite a bit for geo target sites. It will be interesting to see how this continues to play out. Thanks for sharing your findings!
I think it's SEO 101 what needs to be done to earn the the #1 spot on Google for the organic listings. But how does one earn the A spot in Google Places? I know it's not this easy, but is it as simple as claiming and optimizing your Places page? I'd really like to know since I plan on doing some Local SEO next year to diversify my income.
Good post, It is evident that any business needs to be on top of Google Places and also Organic listings and the many other universal areas Google throws at us becuase if you are not you are going to be at a loss. But yeah interesting times ahead for any one who is involved with Google places on a large scale ;)
I just noticed that my listing moved up 7 places on the local map search results simply by completing the profile. The percentage marker was at 88% because I hadn't completed 'Additional Details'. Now that my completion meter is at 100%, the listing has moved up.
We're very excited about this, as there's quite a few factions in our space warring for high profile maps listings, that are unable to secure organic serps. This should mark the end of an era of fly by night companies that are able to rank quickly for maps listings and stay away from the serps because of the time and effort factor involved in achieving those rankings.
Thanks for sharing those observations.
Thanks for the empirical data associated with this article! What I don't like about the new listings is the apparent lack of consistency. Sometimes, you see these maps totally dominating the top spots of the serps - other times, you see them sandwiched in between natural organic listings. I think visually, they have ruined how the traditional Google search results look like.
I have a parallel article on my blog concerning the matter - https://www.seo-philippines.net/2010/10/local-listings-taking-precedence-in-google-rankings/.
Regards and thanks for the great insight.
Hi Guys
I have been monitoring the local search changes in the UK since october 28th. I noticed that for local business searches directories were always appearing in the organic listings however they are now starting to be pushed down the rankings(see builders glasgow) google uk and (builders london)google uk. Please note builders london search was similar to builders glasgow search until recently I am wondering if google were scanning these directories to match business listings on google places. Can anyone feedback to me their thoughts on how important citations will be alongside optimised sites and will directories eventually be pushed down the rankings when googlefinally completes its changes in the uk.
Does anyone have any thoughts are comments on how this affects businesses with multiple locations? Would you create a seperate google place for each?
Anton - you're always going to want to set up an individual Places page for each location and almost treat them like totally separate businesses. Google typically doesn't have a problem associating the organic listing with the corresponding office location according to the search.
Rocking insights. This will certainly be exciting to watch.
Now, I can't decide if this is good news or another eye rolling exercise for SEO clients. The strategic, wide-visioned persona that dwells within loves this stuff. Of course it makes sense. Connect all your touchpoints in a semantic, mindful way and you stand a better chance of reaping rewards. On the flip side, the cynical side tells me that many SEO customers don't want to hear about yet another billable task.
But all this is a dream for the DIY SEO enthusiast, business owner. Or one with cash to burn. How many of us know of the latter?
Great article. Thank you!
A great piece of research for those 'state' side and I am sure we'll see similar results here in the UK.
We wrote a blog on 5th Nov Google includes 'Local' into their SERPs
with an example of a UK search 'hotels London' before and after. Asking the question 'Is it Good News for Your Business?'
Last week Google was ONLY serving local results for "jewellery" here in the UK. Glad they seem to have changed their minds about this.
It does look like they have either changed their minds after a big drop in their PPC revenue from the hotel market. Have you seen the Hotspot addition https://www.google.com/help/places/index.html this looks likes another big game changer and really open to abuse.
And what about rentals address? Only the real address from enterprise? No rentals locals? What is better, show Maps o Places in website?
Excuse my english!
Google Local doesn't look quite like this yet in the UK, as always Google is rolling out in the States first. But good lessons here, thanks for pulling this blog onto the front page Rand.
We have a client in the UK, their SERP has definitely gone this route. We no longer see 7-pack and 10-packs on their 'keyword + liverpool'
The recent change of merging place page and organic search result for localised listing is a great step indeed by Google. Though is causes some ups and downs in website ranking of various localised listing but still if we think as a search engine point of view then it is indeed a great step.
If we simply think is such a way that a website ranks in organic search result and again it has a place listing then merging the two can help viewer to have more information regarding their searched queries within a singe view.