Google Places Optimization Blog

Google Places Optimization
Home | Blog | Forum | Services | Contact

30 comments…

1. #1 Chris wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   Linda,

   Do you think Google offer a formal explanation on why they are doing this?

   It seems they really don’t understand the business model of a medical/dental practice. Typically the staff at a multidoctor practice isn’t reserved for a single doctor. In other words, a hygienist works with all patients, while a dentist works with 1/2 the patients.

   When a patient gives a review of their experience, they are reviewing the entire experience, not just dentist #2.

   As you know, this is basic dental practice 101 stuff. It’s obvious that Google didn’t consider this dynamic with their new approach to duplicates.

2. #2 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   Ya I don’t think they look at things on that level and with that granularity. They look at business data. So if an indiv Dentist shows up on 20 diff health and med directories – EVEN if he/she is just an associate for instance – Google is going to scrape a dupe and want to keep the record of that Dentist. That’s the way I THINK they think at least.

   Will post this on the forum and try to get more insight from them but buried on other new pressing G issues now.

3. #3 Rachel wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   Hi Linda,

   I have been having these issues with Google for a long time now because all of my clients are medical professionals. Sometimes I have luck getting listings taken down, majority of the time Google is no help. For some reason Google wants to mark the practice or doctor listing as closed instead of removing the incorrect data all together– makes no sense to me!

   It looks like in the beg. of the year, Google was more helpful with the situation. In January 2012, they helped me remove a listing for a doctor who had left a practice:

   Hello Rachel,

   Thank you for clarifying.

   We’ve taken the necessary steps to ensure that the business you reported as closed no longer appears on Google Maps. Please note that these changes may take 4-6 weeks to take effect.

   Regards,
   _______
   The Google Team

   However, for a similar situation where a doctor had moved and a listing was still displaying his old address, the same person who helped me before was not as helpful (April 2012). Here is both of our emails:

   Hi ____,
   >
   > Thanks for responding to my question about ____. So you
   are saying that the listing will say that the business is permanently closed, when in fact the business is not closed at all? Is there a way that you can say the business has moved instead of saying it is permanently closed? I’m sorry but I cannot wrap my head around saying a business is closed when it is not…
   >
   > Thanks,
   > Rachel

   Hello Rachel,

   We realize that this may not be the ideal solution for some business types or situations. However, this is the most accurate representation currently in place of businesses that no longer exist at a given location, and we believe it is useful to users.

   We’re committed to ensuring that your current business and location are represented correctly, so please let us know how else we might be able to do that. Note that we are not able to migrate reviews from a former location to a current location. This is because physical location and business setting are essential to local reviews, so we hope that you will continue to generate reviews at your current location for your current business.

   Regards,
   _______
   The Google Team

   Hope this information helps as you dig deeper into the situation! Thanks for your continual help in the local world, I appreciate it!

   Rachel

4. #4 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   UPDATE: Just posted in the forum asking for clarification. Post there too if you have specific Qs or opinion. Doctor, Dentist and Attorney Duplicates Will Not Be Removed – Is this NEW Policy? Question for Google

5. #5 Tony Griego wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   Do you think this will be resolved as Google+ as product continues to update?

   The upside to all of this is that it’s the same for everyone. Your client’s competitors will face the same issues as your client. However, I understand that educating the client is often easier said than done.

   Also, you said “they can’t control the scraping mechanism. (Or don’t want to because they want the biggest database of listings.)” Once said dentist/doctor/lawyer leaves the company, wouldn’t they update their website? Wouldn’t the individual be removed from the listings of the establishment?

   $300 per dupe huh?

6. #6 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   “Once said dentist/doctor/lawyer leaves the company, wouldn’t they update their website? Wouldn’t the individual be removed from the listings of the establishment?”

   Yes but the problem is all the 3rd party directories. All the yellow pages and directories scrape each other, so that Dentist that’s no longer there could be on 200 directories at that address and phone, so Google will pick it up.

   True on the playing field being the same. Not sure on G+. As far as I know right now the backend data flow will still be the same, so I don’t believe it will affect dupes.

   $300 per dupe. Yep that’s what I charged because they are a bear and can take hours and hours to resolve AND sometimes killed the main ranking so was worth it for my Dentists to have me deal with them. (Plus I charged on the WAY high end for all the optimization as well.) Now if I had a practice with 5 dupes I would normally discount and would not charge 300 ea. And every dupe is different and how I dealt with each type was different, so if multiple dupes and if there was an easy one, might just throw in at no charge.

7. #7 Josh wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   It amazes me how draconian Google consistently is in their approach to small businesses. Seems like the majority of the work these days is babysitting Google rather than doing more meaningful work for clients.

   The Local team are coming up with and enforcing policies that are entirely contradictive in nature, seemingly without care as to how it actually affects the businesses that make up their service.

   So with service businesses they are fully alright with taking down listings of quality reputable businesses — even ones that correctly had themselves marked as not displaying their address — over a policy they just came out with and never made an effort to educate business owners (or even seos really) about. Yet when it comes to doctor and lawyer practices they embrace having a sea of outdated and inaccurate duplicate listings.

   We ourselves had our listing taken down with the “We do not support this location” message after receiving a call from someone from “Google Maps”. They asked if we served clients at our location, much like you Linda we explained we had set up our listing marked as such, and they just hung up. Despite us having an entirely compliant listing and clearly marking our address as hidden, our listing has been down for a week.

   On another note, I’m still not sure why Google doesn’t support showing local seo companies in Local results. Yes seo can be done anywhere, but the majority of business owners want to deal with somebody local, not over the phone half way across the US. You would think Google would be promoting that, but I think that goes back to the original point of the Places team looking at things entirely analytically and not really understanding how the mindset of both consumers and local business owners. A shame Vanessa left, as there is a severe lack of both clarity and accountability that she seemed to be helping to provide.

8. #8 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   @Josh, agree on every level. Sorry you got caught in the take down. SO terrible the way that whole thing was handled!

   And agree and still mourn the loss of Vanessa – the clarity and transparency Vanessa brought to the table, helped somewhat in trying times.

9. #9 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

   @Rachel, sorry your comment was in spam and I didn’t find it til now.

   YES that’s a newish and very frustrating issue I’ve blogged about too.

   Because Google is inept at changing a listing that’s moved when supporting 3rd party data still lists at the old address…

   Because Google has not heard our pleas to create a “This business has Moved” flag that can be used instead of “This business is permanently closed”…

   BUSINESSES SUFFER!

   Google WANTS to portray businesses exactly like they are in the brick and mortar world. HELLO GOOGLE! Businesses move, Doctors change practices, businesses merge or have buyouts and change their name. The only answer for all of these situations in Googleland is “This business is permanently closed!” Which can kill chances of new business and even cause a business to lose existing customers. Totally unacceptable!

   Can anyone tell Google is frustrating the heck out of me more than usual lately???

10. #10 Arsen Rabinovich wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    How much do those sign twirlers cost?
    Arsen Rabinovich recently posted..Optimizing Local SEO for the New Apple Maps

11. #11 David Fesler wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    It seems the only way they’ll be able to make people somewhat okay with changing dupe Dr. listings to “permanently closed” is to have a link to the main practice +Local page. You know, a “Visit the Main Practice” button, or something along those lines.

    But Google is most definitely the hydra; just when you cut off the “head” of one problem, many more show in its place.

12. #12 Julie wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    Linda,

    Thanks for the information, even though I don’t like it! I have a client (dentist) that has a practice listing and a personal listing. Now, when he goes to claim his Google+ Business page, which one should he use? Obviously he won’t want to manage two pages.

    I can only imagine that things are going to get worse once the big G starts merging the Google+ local listings with the Google+ Business pages, especially when there are dupes. Do you feel it is best to wait, or to set up a Google + Business page if they have not done so?

13. #13 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    @David

    Hydra, that’s for sure!

    I like your suggestion but we’ve been trying to get just a simple “This business has Moved” sign for businesses that move, so they don’t have to mark their old location as permanently closed and haven’t been able to even get that yet, so… not holding breathe for your suggestion BUT it’s a great one!

14. #14 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    @Julie,

    Not even looking at the dupe piece but in general if a business does not yet have a G+ page I strongly recommend just waiting and let G upgrade the existing Place page/G+ Local page.

    I asked Google when this all started and that was their recommendation too.

    If the final product was 3 months out and a client was DYING to start using G+ and would take full advantage of the social features today, maybe… But most aren’t.

    Re dupes – I have no clue what’s going to happen. Not only are there Places dupes but there is also the situation where some have set up a Personal G+ profile in one account and a G+ Business page in another account. It’s going to be a little crazy I think.

15. #15 Kelly Larson wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    Hi Linda:

    SO glad to have a channel to talk to others working in the dental/medical professionals biz about the Google changes. Thank you!

    I too have had the same email replies from Google support. This transition is frustrating to navigate, but I agree with Tony that at least everyone is on the same playing field. We just want to know that we are leading our practices down the right path with sound advice and to dedicate effort where it will be productive.

    Do you take it then that Google WANTS us to create a listing then for each doctor at the practice within their Places dashboard? Optimize each listing? How about categories? Is the format still “Practice Name: Dr. Soandso? Is now the time to encourage businesses to create a G+ business page or wait for the final GP/G+ merge?…

    If we are confused, I really feel for small business owners that don’t have time to follow the changing nuances. Like Vanessa’s video said, we can only encourage our clients not to get too flustered. We’re in the process of a major remodel and the dust hasn’t settled yet. I just wonder if this will be the tipping point where some people will throw in the towel.

    I’d love to hear advice on the new best practice! Thanks for initiating the conversation and helping to “keep us in the know” so we can help others.

    Respectfully,
    Kelly Larson

16. #16 Linda Buquet wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    @Kelly, yes really hard keeping up.

    As of this minute based on all I know…

    1) No I would not create Dr. listings and cross my fingers then don’t show up. But IF they do show up, nothing we can do about it I guess.

    2) Not sure if Practice Name: Dr. Soandso is a good practice now. I only advocated that in the training I gave you in VERY specific situations. BUT those conditions have now changed with this new Dr dupe policy.

    3) No if I had a client with a Place page/G+ Local page and NO G+ page yet, I would not set up a G+ page. I would wait for G to upgrade the Place page/G+ Local page.

17. #17 Monica wrote on June 19, 2012 :

    This Dup business sounds like opportunity to me.

    I have had clients move locations, and we just updated the listing info, and everything was fine. New address, change the pin on the map and had no problems.

    I would think that if I was a Doctor and I was changing locations, I would want someone like me to get me all cleaned up on Google and the other listings. How will my patients know if I have moved? Probably I have no database of my patients if I work in a shared environment.

    And I’d also know that it’s going to be expensive and time consuming, after learning about data scraping and all that.

    It’s like a foot in the door

18. #18 Why Google’s New Policy on Professional Practices & Practitioners Makes Sense | Understanding Google Places & Local Search wrote on June 20, 2012 :

    [...] listings that now requires that both the practice and the practitioners be listed. Linda Buquet has taken a Sky is Falling attitude to the [...]

19. #19 Kate wrote on June 20, 2012 :

    This is really horrible. But why aren’t you just verifying and suspending the listings?

20. #20 Linda Buquet wrote on June 20, 2012 :

    @Kate, if Google keeps finding them online she’ll just keep putting them back up. This was always the case to some degree. BUT if you could get support to merge them, they seemed to sometimes stay removed a little longer. But it was still like playing whack a mole.

21. #21 Mike Blumenthal wrote on June 20, 2012 :

    Linda

    My read of the above is that google will not remove listings for practice/doctor A even if Doctor A has left. it does not say that if they have two listings for practice/doctor A that they won’t get rid of the dupe.

22. #22 Linda Buquet wrote on June 20, 2012 :

    Mike I read it differently and if you saw the original email with links to the listings it would be more clear.

    They will not remove Dr listings at all now. THAT’S my concern and that’s how Chris read it who is the one that went back and forth with support several times trying to get the Dr dupes removed. Here are the original quotes.

    1st support email was for 2 Dr. dupes. 1 was still at practice, 1 no longer was. Google replied: “If a business and medical practitioner exists at a location, we want it to be displayed on Google Maps in order to give our users the most comprehensive information possible.”

    So they won’t remove EITHER. But suggested for the one that’s no longer there, closing it.

    2nd support email: 3 Dr dupes, 2 Drs. were still there, 1 was not. Google replied: “The following listings will not be merged as at the moment we do not remove or merge individual practitioners.” (They indicated all 3 would not be removed)

    So they will not remove any of them, but went on to say the Dr that is gone – mark listing as closed.

23. #23 Monica wrote on June 20, 2012 :

    If Doctor A has left, contact Doctor A and get him as a client. Edit the information to reflect his new place of business and correct the Map Marker. I’m sure that he would appreciate that. If a Doctor has a Place Page and he’s only a Doctor, not a Place, it probably needs to be closed anyways…..the Clinic should be who has the Place because that’s the Place. Get the Doctors as clients individually and manage their personal G+ pages and promote each of them individually. Places pages are for places, not individuals….separate them out and there should be no problems.

24. #24 Linda Buquet wrote on June 22, 2012 :

    strong>UPDATE: 6/22 11 AM – I have a strategy and tips that should help with issue a lot so the practitioner dupes won’t impact ranking or cause other problems for the main practice listing. Just need to find time to explain. Hopefully will blog Mon or Tues.

25. #25 Garth wrote on June 23, 2012 :

    I agree with Monica, the practice is the “Place,” not who works there. There are customers who prefer specific hair stylists, bartenders and supermarket clerks, so should all those employees have individual Places pages? I think not.

    Google has made it clear that they do not care about local businesses, their mission is to provide the best experience to their customer, the searcher. Yet, they continually do things contrary to their mission, like how what is mentioned here means searchers will be given incorrect information about local businesses – - either that a practitioner is there, when they really are not, or the practice is closed, when it is not. But you can’t tell Google that, they are too big to fail (so they think).

    I don’t worry about Google so much any more. I just make sure everything I publish is correct, and eventually, maybe, Google will catch up.
    Garth recently posted..10 Keys To Effective Mobile SEO

26. #26 Overcoming New Google Places Duplicate Listing Problems for Dentists, Doctors, Attorneys - Google Places – Google+ Local SEO Blog wrote on June 26, 2012 :

    [...] could impact rankings and cause other problems for professional practices. In a brief nutshell, Google will no longer remove or merge practitioner duplicate listings which can hurt ranking for the main practice [...]

27. #27 Linda Buquet wrote on June 26, 2012 :

    See new post with solutions here:

    Overcoming New Google Places Duplicate Listing Problems for Dentists, Doctors, Attorneys
    Linda Buquet recently posted..Overcoming New Google Places Duplicate Listing Problems for Dentists, Doctors, Attorneys

28. #28 Doctor Duplicate Listings Challenge with Google+ Local wrote on June 29, 2012 :

    [...] Doctor Duplicate Listings Challenge with Google+ Local Recently Google has decided they will no longer merge professional’s listings with the main practice listings in Google+ Local.   It is causing all kinds of duplicate listings with Google+ Local for such businesses like: dentists, lawyers, doctors, etc.   Linda Buquet first blog about it back on June 19th, 2012 here. [...]

29. #29 Google’s New Policy on Professional Practices & Practitioners wrote on July 2, 2012 :

    [...] Linda Buquet explains some of the problems this change is creating: When you have a client come to you that says “I was ranking A, B, C, now I lost my reviews and map marker – I don’t rank in blended any more, but now just rank #1 organic” – well one of the BIGGEST reasons sites and Place pages become disconnected in the search results, is due to duplicate confusion. (There are a few other reasons, but dupes are #1 IMO.) [...]

30. #30 Dr. Dupes and Google+ Local User Edits wrote on October 5, 2012 :

    [...] [...]

Home - Google Places Optimization | Google Places Optimization Blog - Local SEO Blog | Contact US - Google Places Help | Top

© 2001 - 2013 Catalyst eMarketing 1874 Matin Circle San Marcos CA 92069 (Serving San Diego CA and US Clients)