Looks like Dupe as Google appended Business name to practitioner listing :(

[Chris McCreery]

Ok this has been causing me strife for....I can't even remember now.

Here is the main listing, which has been claimed, verified etc in the new dashboard (was in the old one but was upgraded automagically). It ranks...(in theory) above the listing below but is still around 30th.

http://bit.ly/1ijUyAq

Here is the listing that is causing some issues. This is a listing for one of the lawyers in the firm. Never claimed or verified. There is a review but it mentions Mrs. but there is no Mrs. It uses the same address and phone as all lawyers share reception as the main contact point. The website url was changed by me in Map Maker edits (using a different account than that of the claimed listing above) to point to the bio page of the lawyer.

http://bit.ly/1cHNsVu

There are also some other individual lawyer listings but don't seem to affect the main listing.

Another new development, they were using YP for online advertising and YP created their listing with the wrong business name (Mother F(#$%(#*$%) which of course got scraped and added to a bunch of directories. I have since had them amend that listing and have started NAP clean up on the other sites.

Would my best bet to be give Local support a call and ask what might be best to do in this case?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Have you tried changing the name in MM?

There are 249 matches on Google.ca for "Nicholson Smith & Partners LLP: Nicholson Ross R".
Most are YP but a bunch are on this site who maybe copied it from YP.
Nicholson Smith & Partners Llp: Nicholson Ross R @ 295 Central Aven...

 

[Chris McCreery]

Thanks Linda. I have tried changing it in MM but didn't see any results in over 2 months. I attempted it again in MM this week but nothing yet.

Actually there are only 18. Google likes to "estimate" the first page of results but if you click through you can see how many there actually are.

So since those individual lawyer listings are part of their YP "service" do think it would be good to cancel those?

Thanks again.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Sorry Chris, not sure. Plus even if cancel, not sure if those listings will go away.

Hopefully Nyag or someone that deals with citations more than I do will weigh in. I just know if the algo keeps running across that name she's more likely to change it.

Wait, just checked in MM. Looks like you tried to delete the entire listing? Am I reading that right? Can't read your edit note/explanation. But I don't think it will get approved. Should have just tried to edit practice name out.

 

[Chris McCreery]

Was pretty sure that I just attempted to edit the listing name but maybe I tried marking it as a dupe before that. Crap.

 

[Chris McCreery]

Intresting, I just noticed that the address for the additional lawyers at the firm was incorrect. The street name in map maker included the number as the street name e.g. "125 Central"

Do you think that might have caused issues with my ranking for the main firm?

 

[Linda Buquet]

Not sure I understand, Chris. All the listings including the practice listing are at 295 Central and that's the address on the site. Plus if the atty listings were slightly off that would maybe be a good thing and differentiate them from the practice. It's mainly important the practice listing is right.

 

[Chris McCreery]

The lawyer listings all had "295 Central". It was missing the "ave". In map maker the actual street name was "295 Central" instead of "Central Ave". The listing that google seems to think is the primary listing is the one with Nicholson Ross R and the firm name. When I zoom in on maps to their address it doesn't show the firm listing

Do you think it's preferring the lawyer listing because it has a review and is marked as general practice attorney where as the firm's categories are specific the the various areas if practice (employment, personal injury, etc)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda Buquet]

OK so here is the crux of the problem. Proof of what's going on.

Search via phone#. All 5 listings show up. http://goo.gl/maps/9P5Dy

Now for KW searches, a listing may rank low due to competition, penalties or other issues for KW + City. BUT should always rank for KW and exact address.

Search for "attorney 295 Central Ave London, Ontario and the practice DOES NOT RANK even narrowed down to his own address, none of them do except for that combo name.

More dramatic proof of serious problem: Search for the main practice KW that's right on the listing: Personal Injury Attorney 295 Central Ave London, Ontario. I searched for that KW because it's not on the unclaimed combo listing, only on the practice listing. It shows all kinds of attys near there but NONE at that address. So the practice is not ranking at all.

So essentially that says to me the practice listing is not in the local database or is totally penalized OR Google only recognizes one of the listings at that location and it's the wrong one.

But I'm not sure why. So sorry but I don't have more time to invest in researching this one. I've spent over an hour already doing background research on this one, which is my cut off point. Unfortunately there is only so much N/C support I can invest in each case because I have to spread myself thin trying to help everyone here, at Google and other forums.

I suggest you get some consulting to help you figure this one out. Please email me if you'd like a referral to the company that does the best job in cases like this. I'm booked and not personally accepting any new clients at this time. (Behind schedule getting my new Local SEO training course finished.)

 

[Chris McCreery]

Thanks very much Linda. I had done the same search as well at their exact location and noticed they don't appear at all for their KW (learned that from you in another thread ) I will keep on truckin ahead and see what I can figure out on my own.

Thank you again for all the help. It's much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris McCreery]

Follow up. I chatted with a CSR at Google Places today to see what was going on. Apparently the individual lawyer listing that contained the firm name go merged with the main firm listing and since there was a change in service area it seemed to be stuck in limbo and "not flowing properly to maps". She was able to separate the two for me.

She also said that in the case where there are practitioners that share a main line that I can include an extension number in the second line of the address field to differentiate them. Thoughts on that suggestion?

Thanks.

 

[Chris McCreery]

Re: Possible dupe

Is it possible to have both a places listing and a g+ local page with different urls?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EDIT BY LINDA - COLAN THIS IS THE START OF THE OTHER THREAD I MERGED HERE.

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Re: Possible dupe

Is it possible to have both a places listing and a g+ local page with different urls?

Not 100% sure what you mean. A places listing and a G+ Local page are essentially the same thing. Google Places is the name of the back-end dashboard where edits are made and the G+ Local page is the live listing that the consumer interacts with.

 

[Chris McCreery]

Re: Possible dupe

Sorry wasn't as clear as I should've been.

I have this as what I assumed was our main listing, claimed, verified, etc.
https://plus.google.com/+NicholsonSmithPartnersLLPLondon/about

Today I discovered this one. Has the exact same data but doesn't show that it's claimed or verified.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/118435008615198878344/about

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Re: Possible dupe

Good point. Yes, an upgraded G+local page will have the G+ dash and sometimes it will also have a Google Places dash depending on the scenario.

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Re: Possible dupe

Try not to think in terms of Google places and G+ local. Think of the difference as being upgraded and not upgraded G+ local pages.

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

 

[Chris McCreery]

Re: Possible dupe

Is that why I am seeing the various urls for what is basically the same listing?

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Re: Possible dupe

Sorry wasn't as clear as I should've been.

I have this as what I assumed was our main listing, claimed, verified, etc.
https://plus.google.com/+NicholsonSmithPartnersLLPLondon/about

Today I discovered this one. Has the exact same data but doesn't show that it's claimed or verified.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/118435008615198878344/about

Hi Chris,

The first listing looks like a G+ Business page created in the Local category. It's got the verified check mark but it doesn't look like it has merged with a Google Places page so that it can rank in the local (Google Places) SERP's. Can you confirm that you created that page in the "Local Business or Place" Category?

The second one is a regular old Google Places (G+ Local) page that hasn't been upgraded.

 

[Chris McCreery]

Re: Possible dupe

Hi Colan, I had created a new listing and verified just the one in the original Places Dashboard. One day when I logged it, it had said I had been upgraded to the new Dashboard and started to display the first listing(with verified check). I've never seen the second listing anywhere until yesterday when I stumbled across it.

I had called Google Places support and they said they "unlinked" a listing that had been merged with one of the the individual lawyer listings (not claimed). I'm wondering if that's what I'm seeing now. If I select "Manage this page" on

https://plus.google.com/u/0/118435008615198878344/about

it just takes me into my dashboard where is shows that it's verified.

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Re: Possible dupe

Hey Chris,

That's really odd, I haven't really seen that before.

This deserves it's own thread. If you are ok with it, I can brake this off into it's own thread in the help section of the forum so we can get more eyes on it.

Is that good with you?