- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 13,313
- Reaction score
- 4,148
OK so this is weird. Think I figured it out, but not sure...
Have you ever seen a plain G+ Business page rank in the pack?
(To tell it's not a G+ Local page - no review feature and "story" instead of description.)
This is the Los Angeles personal injury attorney SERP so many of us have complained about, due to the spammy violation filled listings that surfaced as soon as Pigeon hit.
Here is one of my screenshots from beginning of August.
In case you have not been following along. I explain the problem at bottom of the screen shot. C & D violate due to both being fake KW stuffed names, plus there are multiple listings for the same practice, (he has at least 3 other listings) plus they don't link directly to site which is another violation - they link to LA search results pages of high authority sites. And additionally - pre-Pigeon Google would not award 1 attorney 2 listings in a competitive pack like LA, especially with the same phone#.
Since I know many of us have reported those listings, I check the pack a couple times a week to see if they are gone. Today I checked and found something odd.
The one that's C above - that's linked to Avvo still ranks. BUT that's not the odd part.
The cray cray Pigeon is ranking that page even though now it's just a G+ Business page.
NOT a verified local page with reviews - so it's technically not even possible for it to be ranking.
Here it is in the SERPs los angeles personal injury attorney - The Avvo listing is now ranking B for me on both FF and Chrome. But check it out. It's NOT a G+ Local page! It's a G+ Business page!
So here is what I 'think' happened. When there is a GMB violation, Google sometimes instead of deleting or suspending the entire page, just deletes, suspends or disables the local part of the page - which leaves the G+ page with social features, BUT no ability to rank or have reviews.
So I think maybe Google finally took action on this page and disabled Local - it just for whatever reason is still in the pack. I'm hoping it drops out in the next couple days. Let's watch it and see.
Then lets all gang up on the one that's left and see if we can get it removed too. That is not the practice name - it's "The Law Offices of Robert A. Brenner" and he already has 3 other listings too.
Check that link above in Classic Maps. That Avvo listing is ranking in maps too and is even showing service area settings, but again when you click through, it's only a stripped down G+ page now.
Have you ever seen a plain G+ Business page rank in the pack?
You agree it was stripped of local and has just not dropped out of the pack yet?
Bets on how long it will take to drop off?
I say within 2 days
Who will gang up with me and report the other one???
PS I don't have a dog in this fight - don't even have clients any more. Just doing it for the integrity of the search results and to try to help train this cray cray Pigeon.
What do you think???
<meta property="og:type" content="article"><meta property="og:title" content=""><meta property="og:description" content="">
<meta property="og:image" content="">
Have you ever seen a plain G+ Business page rank in the pack?
(To tell it's not a G+ Local page - no review feature and "story" instead of description.)
This is the Los Angeles personal injury attorney SERP so many of us have complained about, due to the spammy violation filled listings that surfaced as soon as Pigeon hit.
Here is one of my screenshots from beginning of August.
<img src="http://marketing-blog.catalystemarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/LAinjuryAttorney8.2.jpg" alt="LAinjuryAttorney8.2" width="65%" />
In case you have not been following along. I explain the problem at bottom of the screen shot. C & D violate due to both being fake KW stuffed names, plus there are multiple listings for the same practice, (he has at least 3 other listings) plus they don't link directly to site which is another violation - they link to LA search results pages of high authority sites. And additionally - pre-Pigeon Google would not award 1 attorney 2 listings in a competitive pack like LA, especially with the same phone#.
Since I know many of us have reported those listings, I check the pack a couple times a week to see if they are gone. Today I checked and found something odd.
The one that's C above - that's linked to Avvo still ranks. BUT that's not the odd part.
The cray cray Pigeon is ranking that page even though now it's just a G+ Business page.
NOT a verified local page with reviews - so it's technically not even possible for it to be ranking.
Here it is in the SERPs los angeles personal injury attorney - The Avvo listing is now ranking B for me on both FF and Chrome. But check it out. It's NOT a G+ Local page! It's a G+ Business page!
So here is what I 'think' happened. When there is a GMB violation, Google sometimes instead of deleting or suspending the entire page, just deletes, suspends or disables the local part of the page - which leaves the G+ page with social features, BUT no ability to rank or have reviews.
So I think maybe Google finally took action on this page and disabled Local - it just for whatever reason is still in the pack. I'm hoping it drops out in the next couple days. Let's watch it and see.
Then lets all gang up on the one that's left and see if we can get it removed too. That is not the practice name - it's "The Law Offices of Robert A. Brenner" and he already has 3 other listings too.
Check that link above in Classic Maps. That Avvo listing is ranking in maps too and is even showing service area settings, but again when you click through, it's only a stripped down G+ page now.
Have you ever seen a plain G+ Business page rank in the pack?
You agree it was stripped of local and has just not dropped out of the pack yet?
Bets on how long it will take to drop off?
I say within 2 days
Who will gang up with me and report the other one???
PS I don't have a dog in this fight - don't even have clients any more. Just doing it for the integrity of the search results and to try to help train this cray cray Pigeon.
What do you think???
<meta property="og:type" content="article"><meta property="og:title" content=""><meta property="og:description" content="">
<meta property="og:image" content="">