Google Places – What Triggers Merged Local Listing over Old 7 Pack Style Listing
What triggers a newer style Google local “merged” (or blended) business listings over the old Google Place “Pack” style listing? Why are more of the old “Pack” style listings showing up, even for core keywords in major metro areas? Why do the different styles keep flip flopping all over the place?
If you deal with Google Places or local SEO you have undoubtedly asked yourself these questions multiple times per day. Don’t worry you aren’t alone! For opinions from some of the leading experts in the local search space, read on.
David Mihm’s Local Search Ranking Factors 2011 just came out on Friday. I was a contributor this year, however I don’t recall a specific question about why the merge vs pack layout gets triggered. The commentary about that question appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle because there was just SO much info included. So I thought it was worth mentioning and linking to that overlooked part of the content.
Blended vs. “Pure” Local Search
What follows here is the wisdom (or folly) of what are generally considered to be the sharpest minds in Local Search. Most of us seem to feel that it is part of a large-scale experiment by Google to see what satisfies searchers better, with a significant percentage of us hypothesizing that there’s some interaction between category of search & the number (or lack) of “pure” Local results that would satisfy that category.
We’re all speculating, but there are some potential nuggets in here for frustrated business owners.
UPDATE: Someone asked via email so thought I should explain… The screen shot above is not one of the really strange markets I’m referring to below. That was simply a screenshot to illustrate the merged vs pack style listings.
I’ve been trying to so some testing for a couple consulting clients and it’s driving me (and them) nuts trying to figure out why the site and Place page merge properly in the new merged results for all keywords EXCEPT their core keyword. Searches for their core keyword shows them as #1 organic ABOVE the merged listings (which is great) but their site is disconnected from the Place page which features tons of great reviews they want highlighted in their listing too. They have all the right local hooks and Google is able to connect the site and Place for all their other keywords. Then for yet other keywords the algo seems to totally shift to some algo that does not make sense at all. It’s not the new algo, it’s not the old algo, it’s like a broken algo that returns TOTALLY bad results from unrelated industries.
In another case I’m working on a BLANK TOTALLY generic template that does not have a single word of related content and has NAP like: Your Name Here, Anytown USA, (555) 222-2222 on the site is not only merged but ranking HIGH. This is an UBER competitive market I routinely follow and measure in my algo testing. Many of the Drs. in this market use black hat marketing techniques and it’s a constant dog-eat-dog fight to try to get to page 1 and stay there. So how does this BLANK template with a fake address on Place page and no real address or content get ranked HIGH in a market this competitive. Also in this particular SERP result many top listings just got bumped and were replaced with Places pages that are riddled with KW spam and Google Places rule violations. So it’s almost like the algo is rewarding the spammiest listings.
At any rate, there are some crazy results out there! Read all the commentary at the link above, then I’d love to hear your thoughts about any crazy mixed Google results you’ve been seeing.
Attention SEOs, Agencies & Google Places Consultants
ADVANCED Google+ Local (Google Places) & Local SEO TrainingIncluding: Optimization techniques, templates, time savers, forms & lots more
Visit the Web's Most Thriving "Local" Community
Join the LOCAL SEARCH FORUM Today!
New here? Subscribe to RSS feed or follow me on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
I couldn't believe my results! Went from #44 to #1 (Chiropractor Washington)
#1 Andrew Baker wrote on June 6, 2011 :
I’ve been monitoring the merged / pack listings since the change in the algo last year, I’ve not been able to apply any set conditions to it yet.
However in the most part I find that a location modified query will return merged listings dependant on some conditions, the website use of keywords, use of mark-up or location data + others
Although on some highly competitive location modified queries a 7 pack is returned, eg hotels, restaurants…
For a service type query without a modifier I normally see 7 pack results.
Hope that helps
#2 Linda Buquet wrote on June 6, 2011 :
Hey Andrew, thanks for weighing in.
When I started testing and monitoring after the Oct 2th change, I figured out the algo fairly quickly and it seemed to stay pretty consistant for several months. For the key words and markets I tracked it was primarily core keywords that pulled a merged listing and less competitive KWs that pulled the old 7 pack.
Then it started to change and more and more KWs were pulling packs – even core keywords in major markets sometimes.
But then starting around mid April I started to see certain markets that seemed to have some new really flaky algo that didn’t make sense. Almost like the algo was totally broken, or they were trying to see how they could deliver the absolute worst results possible.
One market I track: Seattle Chiropractor is really strange. Sometimes it just stops showing local results at all and shows only organic. The last few days I checked G showed local results duing the day, but organic only at night. Makes no sense!
#3 Andrew Baker wrote on June 7, 2011 :
Linda I have seen that sort of activity on markets such as SEO, web design, digital marketing, etc… standard results are shown during the day then at night merged results were displayed.
This happened at the start of 2011 and lasted around 2-3 months, it was almost as if G was testing different formats of results.
#4 Plamen wrote on June 7, 2011 :
You have a strange blog Linda. I’m used to read blogs that give answers and most of the time you are asking questions… which is kinda cool.
So my answer – combining pure local with organic was a good idea but Google failed with the algo testing and just rolled out some beta version. Then the guys from Google just observed what will happen. They will need more time (maybe more than 1 year) to get this blended search working.
Why? Because the organic ranking factors are complex enough and then you have the local search factors (distance, reviews, UGS, etc). The combination of those is some kind of monster and sometimes the things get very ugly – like having unoptimized listing on A and your shiny listing somewhere down the Places pages.
There are bugs. Many of them. Today one of my clients was the only local result for very competitive keyword. I have to change some details and add some more photos and suddenly there were 7 blended results without my listing among them.
The “good” thing is that the ordinary Google Places user will give up pretty easy to the bugs and will call you, me or Andrew to get their business on the first page.
#5 Linda Buquet wrote on June 7, 2011 :
Hey Plamen,
I’ve seen you around, so am glad you stopped by to weigh in.
Nice to meet you!
You’re probably right. Maybe there probably is no making sense of it, because it’s just half baked, flaky and buggy.
“You have a strange blog Linda. I’m used to read blogs that give answers and most of the time you are asking questions… which is kinda cool. ”
Well thanks, I guess?
Never had anyone tell me my blog was strange & didn’t realize I mainly asked questions instead of giving advice. I guess I ask a lot of questions as a way to stimulate discussion, provoke thoughts/ideas and get a variety of opinions my readers can benefit from.
I could just blab what I know or “think” I know.
Where’s the fun in that???
#6 Google Places Blended Results – Photos MIA | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search wrote on June 9, 2011 :
[...] could not find a recent screen shot of blended results from the recent past so I stole one from Linda Buquet for comparison. When sized to the same pixel heights the local results take up less width on the [...]