11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Client wants new site, how will this affect Google + Local

by umc
9 replies
His current site is through the Yellow Pages, and he'd like to get away from them and get a better site. We've talked about it, and he'd like to go with a different domain. If nothing else, he's not sure that he could get his current one from YP. So let's say I build him a new site on a new domain. How hard is it going to be to get his old Google Places (now + Local) stuff switched over to the new site? Anyone have experience with this?
#affect #client #google #local #site
  • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
    Not difficult... you will just want to change the domain on the page, and in your citations, that is all.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7551553].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author umc
      Cool. I just wondered if there would be any hangups. Sounds like a smooth process.
      Signature

      Simple "pay what you want" life coaching services online.
      Get out of your own way in business. It's personal. Click Here

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7551558].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jtchaschowy
    Yeah yellow pages owns the domain, pretty sure you can rent it from them though. That expense may be worth it depending on how established the domain is, and what the renting cost is.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7553453].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kung Fu Backlinks
    Yeah, if the domain has some good links to it and pagerank, it may be worth buying or renting from them. If the domain is branded, clearly you want to try and get it from them. If you don't need to go through that, then just do as IAN said. Piece of cake.
    Signature
    G+ LOCAL SETUP ___and____ Custom WordPress - Genesis Child Themes (see portfolio here)

    SCHEMA.ORG + GEOTAGGING + KML + PUBLISHERSHIP + so much more...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7553704].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Catalyst eMarketing
      However be advised that with the current Google Local blended algo 90 - 95% of the ranking is based on pure organic ranking factors (not the Place page or # of citations or anything).

      So if the new site is not as well optimized or is a new domain with no backlinks or whatever it will def affect the Google+ local ranking. I've seen YP sites that rank pretty high plus that could be a mature listing. So typically a new site would rank much lower, then take awhile to build up.
      Signature

      Linda Buquet :: Google+ Local Specialist and Google Top Contributor
      ADVANCED Google+ Local Training :: Also offering White Label Local SEO
      Latest Google Local News, Tips & Tricks

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7562148].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
        Originally Posted by Catalyst eMarketing View Post

        However be advised that with the current Google Local blended algo 90 - 95% of the ranking is based on pure organic ranking factors (not the Place page or # of citations or anything).
        Can you share the source for that? I haven't found that to be true, although I have noticed an increased factor of the actual site being optimized, but nowhere near the 90-95% you just stated. I have found it to be about 50%, if that. This also doesn't explain the local listing that have no website and are ranking higher than the others if it is 90% based on organic factors.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7562265].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Catalyst eMarketing
          Just my opinion but I've tested it and many top experts agree with me.

          I agree though that listings ranking high is an exception to that rule.

          But on the other hand you can see listings that are empty, unclaimed, no reviews, few citations ranking in the A spot. If you check for the Google PURE organic results (with no local results) which you can see at the Organic rank checker on my blog or on AOL search, you see that listing is #1 in pure organic. So it's there based on the strength of the web site, not Places factors.

          However on the other hand IF there are problems on the Places side of the house like dupes, violations and penalties it can drop a listing right out of blended.
          Signature

          Linda Buquet :: Google+ Local Specialist and Google Top Contributor
          ADVANCED Google+ Local Training :: Also offering White Label Local SEO
          Latest Google Local News, Tips & Tricks

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7566070].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
            Originally Posted by Catalyst eMarketing View Post

            Just my opinion but I've tested it and many top experts agree with me.

            I agree though that listings ranking high is an exception to that rule.

            But on the other hand you can see listings that are empty, unclaimed, no reviews, few citations ranking in the A spot. If you check for the Google PURE organic results (with no local results) which you can see at the Organic rank checker on my blog or on AOL search, you see that listing is #1 in pure organic. So it's there based on the strength of the web site, not Places factors.

            However on the other hand IF there are problems on the Places side of the house like dupes, violations and penalties it can drop a listing right out of blended.
            WOW, AOL search, lol.

            Well the thing about exceptions to the rule when it comes to google is that often times the rule just doesn't exist. That is why, logically, and from an algorithm standpoint, 90% of local ranking can not be based on organic factors especially when many of them do not have a website but are still ranking well and above those that do have websites.

            One could argue... that perhaps the listings below are penalized, but I don't believe that is it.

            I could go as far as saying 50% could be based on organic factors, but I just can't believe 90%. Is it possible you may have just threw that number out, or exaggerated the percentage?

            The only thing I can think of that would make you say 90%, is the possibility of... well, not a glitch... but, a technique (or just good practices). That technique is using the company name in the title of the website, along with the main keywords you are targeting through your places listing, when the website is attached. I believe that gives you somewhat of a "BONUS" when doing it that way, so instead of it being purely on 90% organic factors, I believe when the website is attached, your on page optimization can give you a bonus boost in the places results, and that is just based on MY testing.

            I'm sure you've tested more than me, but is it possible that, that is what is happening? Not a general 90% organic factor rule, but a potential optimization bonus that only really helps when it is done a very specific way?
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7566199].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Catalyst eMarketing
              It was 90% IMHO for a long time.

              I proved it. I would go to AOL or my pure organic search tool and run queries. Track who was 1, 2, 3 etc. Then do same search in Google and the exact same listings would be A, B, C in the exact same order. Exceptions being if an organic listing was missing from G local due to dupes, violation, mismatched NAP or one of the other reasons G disconnects listings in local.

              When I would do on-site SEO - no citations, no backlinks, no Places optimization, pure on-site Local SEO with local hooks - I'd move almost every client on average from #16 - #2. In my Local SEO course, all the consultant I teach my methods to get the same results on average. I know for a fact that building a bunch of citations or getting reviews will not move the needle much in blended. It will in the old Pack listings but NOT in the new blended algo. It's mainly about organic.

              But I admit lately it seems to be changing and there seem to be other factors at play so I have not analysed lately. But I still would bet it's a least 80 - 85%.
              Signature

              Linda Buquet :: Google+ Local Specialist and Google Top Contributor
              ADVANCED Google+ Local Training :: Also offering White Label Local SEO
              Latest Google Local News, Tips & Tricks

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7575304].message }}

Trending Topics