Do I have a hidden dupe/merged listing?

[Jamie Steigerwald]

I have had issues for sometime trying to increase local rank for my client and I decided go back and double check there wasn't any dupes. In the process I found this when using the Adwords Express technique Linda posts about using Google Places. Notice the suite number is different. But I can only determine one Places storeid 1130663576797542977.



Checking further I noticed mixed results when doing different kids of searches on maps. Notice the logo appears on one and not the other.






I also found that I can bring up the Google+ page using two separate CID numbers, 0x2a75f8d41fa5a659 and 3059625111815824985, using http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&cid=. However http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=90&cid=0x2a75f8d41fa5a659 produces a no result found.

If anyone can give me insight into if this is a problem that needs to be fixed or just normal results using different google searching methods. If it is something that needs to be fixed please point me in the correct direction to fix it.

As always thank you very much for helping out. I really appreciate it.

 

[Linda Buquet]

I also found that I can bring up the Google+ page using two separate CID numbers, 0x2a75f8d41fa5a659 and 3059625111815824985, using http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&cid=. However http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=90&cid=0x2a75f8d41fa5a659 produces a no result found.

Hi Jamie that 1st # is not a CID. Not sure what it is or where you found it but not CID.

I don't see evidence of a hidden merged dupe. Not the kind that causes problems. What makes you think there is a hidden merged dupe?

Do you have the ability to respond to review? If you do, then since I'm not seeing other symptoms, I'm thinking that's not it.

Was this listing newly verified or re-verified? Does not look like it from what I can see in MM
Because it's not even showing up on Map search for KW + Street Address + City.
"Real Estate 14 Hughes Irvine, CA"

If it was not recently re-verified then looks like ranking penalty because any listing should rank if you search maps for KW + exact address.

I can see some other issues that could be causing that type of ranking penalty which is all covered in detail in training.

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

I thought there might be a hidden dupe because of the first screenshot from Adwords Express showing both Google+ and Places with different suite number format.

Yes, I have the ability to respond to reviews.

It is not a new listing or recently re-verified.

Unfortunately I won't be in a position to take the class until after the new year. Any guidance you or anyone else can provide would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Linda Buquet]

I thought there might be a hidden dupe because of the first screenshot from Adwords Express showing both Google+ and Places with different suite number format.

Yes, I have the ability to respond to reviews.

Yes Google is reconciling and merging dupes in the background all the time. Many you'll never see and they don't cause a problem - IF they are not claimed. So if Google just scrapes a slightly diff version of address and merges it into main listing it's no problem.

What I call hidden merged dupes are only a problem because the listing is claimed in another account and I'm not seeing symptoms of that in this case.

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

Thank you for the explanation. That puts my mind at ease regarding dupes. Now to figure out the other issues that are causing the ranking problems.

 

[Cleaner44]

Thank you for the explanation. That puts my mind at ease regarding dupes. Now to figure out the other issues that are causing the ranking problems.

I would start by fixing the address on the Google listing and then do the same at Bing and Yahoo.

Website:
14 Hughes, Suite B102


Google:
14 Hughes b102

Bing:
14 Hughes Ste B102

Yahoo:
14 Hughes, Ste B102

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

Hi Cleaner44... In the dashboard for all 3 I have listed Suite B102. However the systems chose to display something different. My understanding was that when is comes to the Suite the systems changing it to the abbreviation Ste and # are okay. With regards to Google I have tried to get it to display correctly several times and finally called the support line which they told me it was okay as is.

Please let me know if you have some insight into how to update the abbreviation on those systems to all be the same.

If anyone else has some insight into what could be causing the ranking penalty all help is appreciated.

 

[Cleaner44]

Hi Cleaner44... In the dashboard for all 3 I have listed Suite B102. However the systems chose to display something different. My understanding was that when is comes to the Suite the systems changing it to the abbreviation Ste and # are okay. With regards to Google I have tried to get it to display correctly several times and finally called the support line which they told me it was okay as is.

Please let me know if you have some insight into how to update the abbreviation on those systems to all be the same.

If anyone else has some insight into what could be causing the ranking penalty all help is appreciated.

Do you have the suite number in address line 2 on the Google listing? You may want to test changing it from the Google Places for Business dashboard and also the Google+ page both.

---------- Post Merged at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 09:17 AM ----------

Clearly things are working to some extent:
real estate consultant near Irvine, CA 92618
6 out of 8,967 results
http://goo.gl/maps/FgykV

It is obviously a very competitive category and location:
real estate agency near Irvine, CA 92618
? out of 16,909 results
http://goo.gl/maps/dfTfB

 

[Linda Buquet]

Do you have the suite number in address line 2 on the Google listing? You may want to test changing it from the Google Places for Business dashboard and also the Google+ page both.

@C44 - After you are merged you are not supposed to edit in the Places dash.

Jamie, I wonder if Google dings the listing when the SEO consultant working on the listing also leaves a review for their client? (Didn't notice your review til now.)

I've seen it happen several times where a consultant comes to me with a ranking drop and one of several things I notice is a self review by the consultant. EVEN sometimes when they were actually a client and it was a totally legit 1st hand review. Google TOTALLY connects the dot on stuff like this. Trust me I know and have experienced it 1st hand.

But correlation is not causation and that may not be the problem AND in the other cases I've analyzed there were other problems that could have been the real culprit.

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

Thank you very much Linda for pointing that out. Yes, it was a completely legit review. He helped me with a real estate issue and that is how we meet . I deleted the review so hopefully that helps a bit.

We have the other thread talking about the issue with Suite number on Google, http://localsearchforum.catalystema...i-enter-suite-second-line-google-changes.html. Once that gets figured out I will update the format of the Suite number.

I am always concerned with the description looking spammy because Real Estate is the target keyword of service provided and also in the name so it shows up more then once. The other thing I am going to do is update the description making it text only removing the formatting and link.

If anyone has any links to best practices on the description or other Google+ best practices I would love to read up on it before making the change.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Thank you very much Linda for pointing that out. Yes, it was a completely legit review. He helped me with a real estate issue and that is how we meet . I deleted the review so hopefully that helps a bit.

I am always concerned with the description looking spammy because Real Estate is the target keyword of service provided and also in the name so it shows up more then once. The other thing I am going to do is update the description making it text only removing the formatting and link.

If anyone has any links to best practices on the description or other Google+ best practices I would love to read up on it before making the change.

Jamie no time to find but I've written tons of posts here about the fact name, KWs and city should not be repeated in description.

Repeating city can cause a 10 point or greater ranking penalty. I cover the whys and wherefores and best practices in detail in training but too much to type out here.

You have name repeated once, Irvine 3 times, CA once and KWs a few times.

See this thread: Organically doing well, Google + Local is a ?

He's one I referred to that had multiple problems similar to yours.

1) He self reviewed and then when I pointed it out he deleted it.

2) He had too much city/KW repetition.

Even though he fixed all the problems he's still locked out of the carousel when he ranks high organically and locally and should be in it.

Edited to add - found one: Description Best Practices in the NEW Google Places Dashboard

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

Cleaner44, thank you for the feedback.

Yes, before the account merged it was on line 2 in the old dashboard. Now with the new dashboard there are some issues that I talk about here http://localsearchforum.catalystema...i-enter-suite-second-line-google-changes.html.

Two things that I noticed that made me concerned that there is a major issue. One was the two options in Adwords Express that may indicate a dupe. Linda assured me I should be fine there. The other was the map showing instead of the logo which I usually see in an unclaimed listing, value real estate - Google Search.

Thanks again for your help trying to figure this all out.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Jamie, think we were posting at same time so wanted to be sure you didn't miss the post above yours I just posted.

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

Thank you Linda. You are a rock star.

 

[whitespark]

Hi Jamie,

I wouldn't worry about the address variations. Google normalizes all the addresses they find on the web, and small variations like the ones Cleaner44 pointed out shouldn't make a difference.

14 Hughes, Suite B102
14 Hughes b102
14 Hughes Ste B102
14 Hughes, Ste B102

There is a tool that uses the Google Maps API to normalize addresses. If you enter those address variations in the tool and they all resolve to the same single address, then you know that that is how Google will normalize them as well: Bulk Address Geocoding and Validation Tool

Here's a screenshot of what I entered, and they all normalized to one standard address:
http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/802/4380066738.png


As for the description, please know that Google doesn't consider it in the local ranking algorithm. Joel Headley, Head of Places Support at Google, has confirmed this a number of times at Local U events. Put whatever you want in there and it's not going to impact your rankings. The only way it can impact rankings is negatively. If a human reviewer looks at it and it's spammed to high hell, then they could penalize your listing. So, best practice is to write a nice human readable description that's designed to sell your business to customers, not to feed keywords to Google.

Hope this helps.

 

[Jamie Steigerwald]

Hi Darren,

Thanks for the link to the tool. Actually there is a slight variance in the result that I found very interesting.

14 Hughes, Suite B102, Irvine, CA 92618
14 Hughes Ste B102, Irvine, CA 92618
14 Hughes, Ste B102, Irvine, CA 92618

All those above resolve to 14 Hughes b102, Irvine, CA 92618, USA

While 14 Hughes b102, Irvine, CA 92618 resolves to 14 Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618, USA (without the suite number).

I would think that 14 Hughes b102, Irvine, CA 92618 would resolve to itself but it doesn't it leaves off the suite number and the other curious item is that the accuracy drops from 9 to 8.

I checked several other local addresses that have a suite number and in all the cases I used the same variance all 4 resoled to just a single address with an accuracy of 9.

While I don't think it is a big factor in effecting the ranking it is something that I want to look into more. Does anyone have any suggestions on what the next step would be to dig deeper into this?

Thanks for all your help.

 

[whitespark]

Hi Jamie,

Good catch. I think it makes a bit of a difference then. Any citations that are formatted as "14 Hughes b102" should probably be updated to make sure Google is crediting them to the correct listing in Google+Local.