Google Listings EMD Bias

[BenRWoodard]

I've been looking at 60+ location based searches for the base two months and noticed a big issue I can't explain.  I know EMD was hit  hard in the general SERPs but it obviously has not effected the location SERPs.

The main way I'm finding these situations is by seeing the 7 pack and it shows a site with only a quarter amount of the citations the other sites have and jumps to the top very quickly.  It appears to be working because of the EMD bias in the Local SERPs algorithm.

From what I understand you are not suppose to add a TLD domain into a G+ listing and then 301 redirect it to your real domain but Google doesn't seem to mind at this point.  I'm wondering if this tactic is a valid Local tactic at this time or if, from what I understand, it is a shady tactic that will end up hurting brand and have a strong chance of penalizing the real domain.

2012-12-13_10-45-39.png

[MiriamEllis]

Ben,

If you're not already using it, 51 Blocks Local Competitive Analysis tool is a good one, and it's free:

http://www.51blocks.com/online-marketing-tools/free-local-analysis/

Might be of help to you in your research.

[BenRWoodard]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that.  I'm looking at all the usual ranking local ranking factors and need to compile a list of what they have that doesn't "compete" with all the other.

From my initial research it appears that the only thing these listings have in common with each other is an extremely low number of citations, an EMD that redirects to a different URL and they are listed as high as #3 but usually #5 or #6.  It's just strange.  I haven't looked at a domain ownership timeframe or even if they did possible make a move recently but I will do that.

Thanks again for all your help Jarno and Miriam.

[MiriamEllis]

Hi Ben,

Very good question. In the Google Places Quality Guidelines, Google states:

-Do not provide phone numbers or URLs that redirect or “refer” users to landing pages or phone numbers other than those of the actual business.

So, from this guideline, we know that Google doesn't want you to list a URL that redirects to something you don't own, but in this case, apparently this business owns TheCarmelDentist.com. They are not redirecting to a domain that doesn't belong to the business.

This scenario brings up questions. Why is this business doing this? One good guess might be that they've bulit this new website at thecarmeldentist.com and have redirected the old fishers site to the new one, but have yet to update their Google+ Local Page to reflect the URL. All attempts to reach the fishers site are redirecting, so the + Local Page is simply redirecting, too. I can't think of any good reason why they wouldn't just simply list the URL, so my best guess is that they just haven't updated the + Page yet.

Looking at this specific scenario, I just doubt that the redirect is being done with an intent to spam. Because the whole old site has apparently been redirected to the new one, I think this business has simply moved to a new domain.

I would also guess that the redirect rule in the guidelines is meant to speak to the practice of either competitive hijacking of listings and redirecting the URLs to competitors' stuff, or, possibly, spammy stuff in which a snake oil marketer might convince a business owner that their URL should be redirecting to some sort of directory page instead of to the company's website. But, it doesn't look like this is what is happening in your example, unless I'm totally overlooking something.

Now, you are quite right that the EMD penalty does not seem to have hit hard in Local. Like you, I see plenty of these rankings just fine. At this point, it is still quite possible to rank well with an EMD, and if the EMD is supported by strong content, it probably won't ever be penalized.

That being said, if asked whether I would personally advise a client to switch from BobJonesDDS.com to carmeldentist.com, just in hopes of a ranking boost, my answer for 2013 would be a resounding 'no'. Every move Google has made over the past 2 years clearly supports, in my eyes, their preference for authentic presentation of brands. If Bob Jones DDS is your brand, then use it, I say. Don't go for the EMD because it doesn't truly represent your brand...it represents an attempt to rank. Google is getting impatient with anything done simply to rank.

Within the scope of Q&A, I can't do a a full competitive analysis of the situation you've highlighted, Ben, but remember, a domain is just a fraction of the local search ranking factors. Don't forget proximity to centroid, business cluster, domain age, links, citations, reviews, etc. All of these things and so much more determine rank. I don't believe an EMD can be seen as THE cause, though it could be part of the cause.

One last note. The dentist in question does have some problems going on. Their +Page is calling them The Fishers Dentist. Their website is calling them The Carmel Dentist and their address listed on their website is Indianapolis. Even if I'm not predicting a swift EMD penalty, the confusion of the signals they are sending to Google about their brand and locale is pretty serious and could lead to all kinds of problems for them. Not good.

Hope these thoughts help. Please, feel free to share more about your study, Ben.

[JarnoNijzing]

Ben,

no, i did not see anyone get kicked out of Google because of something like this. It indeed is theoratical but there is an bigger chance of getting kicked.

I am really trying to imply that you should only use white hat tactics and not black hat. Just advice your client that it is a possibility but that the risks are great and that you're not liable (don't know if this is the right word).. for if the sites does get penalized.

Jarno

[BenRWoodard]

Thanks for the response Jamo.  I'm asking if there is anything that this tactic directly offends in Google's eyes. The reason why I am asking is not so that I can justify it but so that I can speak from more experience than myself.

I've never seen a site get kicked out of the listing because of this so I'm not sure if it is something that I should warn clients about or not.

Have you seen anyone get penalized or is it like me, a theory?

[JarnoNijzing]

Ben,

I would not go there if I were you. Why add a URL and then redirect that URL to another where your site is being set up? Why not include the right domain name then?

I would avoid this tactic. Even if it does work in the short run it could end up with a complete ban from Google. Keep it clear, keep it fair, keep it white hat. Do things you know are honest. This, in no way to my opionon, seems honest.

Regards

Jarno