Google giving extra weight to proximity affecting ranking

[chriscc]

Morning Joy, yes definitely impacting - calls/directions/clicks down. Yes, chrome browser searches still show local packs (no AI overviews), and the local pack results are like the maps results (i.e. proximity prioritised)

 

[Nycnite]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in October Bright stopped using Google search pack rankings for their grids and use map search rankings instead. The difference in rankings between the two can be vastly different.

I think it was a boneheaded move because most people are likely using search, not maps, to find "plumber Houston", etc.

 

[aldo_quantic]

The jump from 27 to 123 distinct businesses in the top three is more useful here than average rank, since changing the search depth can distort that average. I'd keep the original 11×11 coordinates and 200 m spacing fixed, then compare the share of pins in the top three within separate distance bands from each business, before and after the change. A loss mainly on the outer pins, with the nearest pins holding up, would support the proximity explanation without proving an algorithm change. Since you've already checked a dozen points while logged in, I'd use those same points to record the search pack and map results separately, with the exact query and time, rather than assume the two surfaces match. Also split the queries with a neighbourhood name from those without one, given the difference you noted in post #19.

 

[chriscc]

Hi Aldo, fully agree, the count of businesses occupying top3 spots in a grid tells us much of what we need to know; I also am not a big fan of average rank. I'll start comparing search pack and map results - that would be interesting. I generally only use grids without specifying a neighbourhood name as I just want the 'raw' heatmap by keyword. I'm certain the change is to emphasise proximity, as the podcast Joy linked to explains

 

[JoyHawkins]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in October Bright stopped using Google search pack rankings for their grids and use map search rankings instead. The difference in rankings between the two can be vastly different.

I think it was a boneheaded move because most people are likely using search, not maps, to find "plumber Houston", etc.

Oh wow. I had no idea. Was that change basically around the last week? It could easily explain the drastic jump he saw in the Edward Sturm podcast.

 

[Mohammadehsani]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in October Bright stopped using Google search pack rankings for their grids and use map search rankings instead. The difference in rankings between the two can be vastly different.

I think it was a boneheaded move because most people are likely using search, not maps, to find "plumber Houston", etc.

From a tyre shop's point of view, most people looking for tyres enter search queries on their mobile phone, such as 'tyre shop near me', so I'd think that search pack would be the most important. Has anybody got any figures on how they compare against the same keyword and location? I would like to know just how far apart they really are.

 

[aldo_quantic]

Good call on leaving the neighbourhood name off if you want the raw heatmap — that's why I suggested splitting those queries in the first place. And Joy's note about Bright switching grid rankings from the pack to Maps could also inflate the "distinct businesses in the top 3" count without the local pack itself changing, so comparing pack vs Maps on the same pins should show which one actually moved. I'll be curious what you see when you run that.

 

[JoyHawkins]

Oh wow. I had no idea. Was that change basically around the last week? It could easily explain the drastic jump he saw in the Edward Sturm podcast.

They just replied and said this change happened Oct 21.

 

[chriscc]

Ha! This is amazing, every time I think we've got it figured it out someone else shows up with a good explanation. @Nycnite You're right that most of the effect I see is indeed BL's shift to Maps data (and the Edward Sturm podcast was also presenting grids from BL, so just trying to diagnose the same problem). I had replicated BL's grid searches using maps and saw a good match, but that only ran from late Oct, after their change. I 'normalised' average ranks for BL changing search depth from 20=>100 but BL wasn't just changing search depth, it was changing the source data! I've now run grids at the same time/keyword using pure maps data AND local finder, side-by-side. My ranks are wayyyy better in local finder, and quite close to where they were on BL before the change. So I think the answer all along was that (a) the real-world drops in clicks/calls were down to a drift in local finder ranking that could probably be explained by my own laziness having not paid attention to GBP profiles; and (b) the big drops in average rank were down to BL changing source data. The only thing it doesn't explain is the increase in advertising by competitors, but that could well be my confirmation bias

In any case, now I'm running search and maps grids side-by-side (not using BL)

Thanks everyone for your input!