- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 482
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 94
Something doesn't smell right. I'd be very reluctant to go out and make any drastic changes. I know I certainly won't be. This goes against everything Google preaches - "be natural" - so why would they allow this? It just doesn't make sense. I have to believe this will be reversed (once the spammers go to town and the search results go to hell as a result), or adding the descriptor will have little affect on rankings.
Personally, I think it's the latter. If Google is allowing this, it has to be because they feel it will help users quickly determine what the business is about BUT it won't affect your rankings. So the idea that you'd make this change and suddenly see your rankings improve is highly unlikely (IMHO).
I also believe it would be silly to waste your time to change all your citations to include a descriptor to get your NAP to match.
My bottom line take on all of this is go ahead and add a descriptor IF it makes sense to do so (i.e. if it will help the user experience), but don't expect any positive movement in your rankings because of this change. And don't waste your time changing the NAP on your citations! Just my two cents.
Travis
Personally, I think it's the latter. If Google is allowing this, it has to be because they feel it will help users quickly determine what the business is about BUT it won't affect your rankings. So the idea that you'd make this change and suddenly see your rankings improve is highly unlikely (IMHO).
I also believe it would be silly to waste your time to change all your citations to include a descriptor to get your NAP to match.
My bottom line take on all of this is go ahead and add a descriptor IF it makes sense to do so (i.e. if it will help the user experience), but don't expect any positive movement in your rankings because of this change. And don't waste your time changing the NAP on your citations! Just my two cents.
Travis