Local SERP's Now Pointing To Google Maps

[Colan Nielsen]

Anyone else seeing this link to Google Maps below the local results? This is new to me. Makes perfect sense as Google is trying to draw more and more attention to Google Maps:

 

[Eric Rohrback]

AAANNNDDD... it's back lol I'm seeing that on my tests as well. Nice catch!

 

[Colan Nielsen]

AAANNNDDD... it's back lol I'm seeing that on my tests as well. Nice catch!

It's back, but different since the old link kept the user in Google Search, not Maps.

 

[Eric Rohrback]

Good point. It's been so long since I've seen that link I forgot it directed to another SERP page, not maps....






The first screenshot is just me clicking the link to maps... and if I sort by reviews look how many ads pop up. I didn't want to de-rail this, but I was kind of surprised that if I want to see "top reviewers" I get results for mostly ads. I'm sure this happens in normal maps search, but i'll have to test/compare.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Oh wow, thanks for head's up Colan! Nice catch!

I was going to work on a big post this week with some important observations about the new Google Maps, but then Phil's post about how the Maps changes are not a big deal, kinda made me feel like I was over-reacting. So I didn't prioritize getting that post done.

But this shines a light on the fact that maps is going to start taking more center stage. And once the maps update goes live, things will change on a few levels.

Google Maps is going to become kind of a big deal, not huge, but big - I feel it in my bones. So I'm going to go ahead and work on that post to show you guys some important stuff. Problems to be aware of so your client does not get buried AND hidden as well as new opportunities to get them ranked where you could not before.

But I don't like to do big posts on Friday because not as many are online. So will hopefully post it Mon or Tues.

 

[Nick Rink]

Am seeing the same "See results for..." over here in the UK too.

I've really been enjoying using the new Google Maps, so am looking forward to your post next week Linda.

 

[Phil Rozek]

Nice catch, Colan!

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Nice catch, Colan!

Thanks Phil

 

[Jim Froling]

Darn you, Colan! I thought I might have a catch here. But you scooped me by 10 hours. Hey, I've been busy!

Nice catch though. Yes, I'm seeing it also in virtually every local search done today.

 

[MichaelJ]

I was going to work on a big post this week with some important observations about the new Google Maps, but then Phil's post about how the Maps changes are not a big deal, kinda made me feel like I was over-reacting.

But this shines a light on the fact that maps is going to start taking more center stage. And once the maps update goes live, things will change on a few levels.

Google Maps is going to become kind of a big deal, not huge, but big - I feel it in my bones. So I'm going to go ahead and work on that post...

It's a big deal to me Linda & to a lot of others so I'll be watching for your post. And the beauty of this forum is the diversity of opinions so please, go with your gut!

Thanks in advance

 

[Phil Rozek]

@MichaelJ

I agree with Linda, that the new Maps is "kind of" a big deal. I'm sure you saw my post and noticed that I took pains to say the Maps could really stir things up, but that that's probably a ways off - because of hurdles like slow adoption of Google+.

 

[Linda Buquet]

"but that that's probably a ways off - because of hurdles like slow adoption of Google+"

I know you've said that a couple times Phil, but I'm not really seeing connection between Maps and G+ adoption. But I admit I'm a bad skimming, so need to go read your post because I know you made some great points, just don't get the G+ adoption part.

Unless you are referring to the filters to see results from top reviewers or circles? If so, ya I'm not worried about that part. I think folks will just ignore both and go to view top results. And that poses new problems.

What I'm concerned with has nothing to do with G+. I think that as soon as the update goes live it's going to effect search results for anyone that searches direct on maps or clicks away from the 1st page SERPS to see more results. Up until today if they wanted to see "more" they'd have to click the maps tab. But now with Google's invitation to "See more on the map" I think even more will go there.

What I'll show poses some problems, but there is also some new opportunities to take advantage of as well. I got a couple of the screenshots done today and will try to finish the long post over the next couple days. But have fam in town so am off most of the weekend.

 

[Phil Rozek]

Gotcha. My point about Google+ adoption is as follows:

If the average user of Maps doesn?t use Google+, then the ?circles? filter is pretty useless.

If Google doesn?t get more people to be active (and eventually ?Top?) reviewers, then the ?Top Reviewers? filter is pretty useless,too.

Without those, the new Maps is mostly a facelift.

 

[MichaelJ]

I did see that Phil & both appreciate and greatly respect both points of view And that is what keeps me coming back here and to your site!

 

[Linda Buquet]

Gotcha. My point about Google+ adoption is as follows:

If the average user of Maps doesn?t use Google+, then the ?circles? filter is pretty useless.

If Google doesn?t get more people to be active (and eventually ?Top?) reviewers, then the ?Top Reviewers? filter is pretty useless,too.

Without those, the new Maps is mostly a facelift.

Totally agree with the G+ part and I'm not worried about any of that because like you said I think that part is going to be pretty much a non-issue.

 

[MiriamEllis]

Totally agree that Maps likely became a sort of neglected area for many of us because Google seemed to be neglecting it. Not any more, I guess!

Linda, what I would love to see from you (because you write such killer posts) would be an explanation of differences you may be seeing between local (SERPs) rankings and Maps ranking and a discussion of what might be driving the differences in rankings (if any). I think we probably all need to bone up on Maps, right?

 

[Linda Buquet]

Hi Miriam, working on one, but have family in from out of town. Hoped to finish the post tonight but family plans just came up so won't get to it.

Hope to finish tomorrow and publish Wed AM to get in newsletter. It's a pretty big (as in long) post with lots of screenshots and explanation so is taking more time than planned. Plus other things like "Bots Gone Wild" keep getting in my way.

 

[MiriamEllis]

That would be so great, Linda!

I am a bit mystified regarding 2 opposing points I've seen made. One being that the carousel rank is based on blended and the other that it is based on non-blended factors (like reviews and citations). I never saw Mike B. respond to your comment on his post about this. Clearly, there is some confusion going on here.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Ya I've seen several others who I don't consider experts in the field say the Carousel is based on reviews which it isn't - at least IMO and that's all I have is opinions and sometimes educated guesses.

Pretty easy for me to see it's the same blended algo we've had which is primarily based on organic. But now we are talking about the carousel in the maps thread which may confuse folks. That one is more of an educated guess and I could show some proof, but that would take time I don't have.

To be clear the post I'm working on is not about the Carousel algo but about a bunch of different issues around the new Google maps - ranking, algo, troubleshooting, and... not sure how much of what I'm concerned about is going to fit into this one post. Guess for this one I should stick to one part of the picture - ranking/algo/discoverability.

 

[JoshuaMackens]

Just skimmed the posts but I'm incredibly surprised by this move from Google. They have pretty much bypassed Google+ in favor of the maps. I truly thought they would integrate Google+ heavily and try to form something like Yelp which could be the jump start that Google+ could use.

Very, very surprised.