Major Update: New Guidelines for Google My Business (Google Places)

[rossicone]

Oh gosh, one more question actually Do you think we should update the schema for Local Business markup on the website to "Practice Name: Physician Name" as well? Thanks!!

 

[Linda Buquet]

Hmmm... now that's a good question! I think it would be a good idea but I'm not sure it would be mandatory.

 

[Andrew Sawyer]

Oh gosh, one more question actually Do you think we should update the schema for Local Business markup on the website to "Practice Name: Physician Name" as well? Thanks!!

The format should be Physician Name by itself/first to avoid confusion with the practice listing. Either is acceptable but putting the practice name first just leads to trouble/confusion.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Hi Andrew,

This thread is about the new GMB guidelines, linked to in the 1st post.

The new rules explicitly state "Practice: Practitioner" is the recommended format now.

"Solo practitioners belonging to branded organizations

If a practitioner is the sole public-facing one at this location and represents a branded organization, the practitioner page should not be separate from the organization’s page. Instead, create a single page, titled using the following format: [brand/company]: [practitioner name].

Acceptable: "Allstate: Joe Miller" (if Joe is the sole public-facing practitioner at this Allstate-branded location)"

Is this in conflict with the way they recommend it in MM currently?

 

[Andrew Sawyer]

Hi Andrew,

This thread is about the new GMB guidelines, linked to in the 1st post.

The new rules explicitly state "Practice: Practitioner" is the recommended format now.

"Solo practitioners belonging to branded organizations

If a practitioner is the sole public-facing one at this location and represents a branded organization, the practitioner page should not be separate from the organization’s page. Instead, create a single page, titled using the following format: [brand/company]: [practitioner name].

Acceptable: "Allstate: Joe Miller" (if Joe is the sole public-facing practitioner at this Allstate-branded location)"

Is this in conflict with the way they recommend it in MM currently?

I missed that. I never use the practice name rather use only the practitioner name and credential for non-claimed features. Its a horrible UX for people using map because the practicioner name often gets truncated in results, esp for long practice names. I have no idea why GMB would think this is a preferred format. It just logically makes no sense to put the less important info at the end and potentially confuse people when they are presented with multiple results that all look very similar.

 

[Linda Buquet]

and potentially confuse people when they are presented with multiple results that all look very similar.

I hear you Andrew. Keep in mind though on your last comment this is only for sole practitioners and I think the confusion you are referring to is when there are several Drs or agents at one location. When that's the case it's still practitioner name only.

But in the case of a solo Dr for instance Alpine Dental: John Smith DDS makes so much sense for the reasons I mentioned above.

Back when I still worked on Dentist listings, I always naturally did a combo name for solo practitioners. (Unless the practice name made it too crazy long.)

My thought process was, that way we can take credit for all the citations whether they are for practice or practitioner. But even more than that, I hoped it would help eliminate dupes. When Google continued to find citations for one or the other name, she'd hopefully attribute to the combo name listing instead of creating a new one.

So when Google came out with this new guideline I thought it was brilliant and confirms my thinking above. And I'm sure that's exactly why they did it. They realize many directories will list one name or the other, so hopefully the combo name will work as a catch-all.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Mike did a post a couple days ago... missed adding it here.

<a href="http://blumenthals.com/blog/2014/12/08/google-my-business-guidelines-a-detailed-comparison-new-old-part-2-chains-brands-departments/">Google My Business Guidelines ? A Detailed Comparison New & Old ? Part 2 ? Chains, Brands & Departments | Understanding Google Places & Local Search</a>

 

[Linda Buquet]

I just created a little word cloud of the new guidelines to share on G+ and Twitter.

Here it is...

​

 

[Andrew Sawyer]

I hear you Andrew. Keep in mind though on your last comment this is only for sole practitioners and I think the confusion you are referring to is when there are several Drs or agents at one location. When that's the case it's still practitioner name only.

But in the case of a solo Dr for instance Alpine Dental: John Smith DDS makes so much sense for the reasons I mentioned above.

2 strikes against me! I missed the solo part. I definitely need to parse the entire thing. It looks like they have some good rules on names for what is or isn't allowed. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[steven]

So what's the consensus on Rossicone's suggestion on the schema markup...?

 

[Sperry7]

Hi Linda!

Every since the guideline update we've been updating our clients listings accordingly. However, we have one client who wants to market his name before his practice. What is your opinion on using the name format: "Physician Name: Practice Name" instead of "Practice Name: Physician Name"?

Thanks for all you help and advise!

 

[Linda Buquet]

Google seemed to be pretty strong on that particular format when we've discussed, but I'm not sure what would happen if you did it backwards. There could be some data issue or a particular reason they want it that way. Worst that could happen: you do G+ L that way, build citations that way and they flip it on you.

 

[rossicone]

Hello!

Does anyone know if this guideline update for solo practitioners is still applicable if there are PA-Cs (Physician Assistants) working at the practice? Many times Google already lists PA-Cs in G+. Are we still suppose to consolidate doctor/practice listings (Practice Name: Doctor Name)?

The majority of my clients who have PA-Cs working at their office are multi-doctor practices, so there is no need to consolidate practice and doctor listings. However I have one client who is a solo doctor (dermatologist) working with three PA-Cs.

Any input would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks,
Rachel

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Hi Rachel, I don't think physician assistants are permitted to have Local G+ Pages to begin with. So Google support should be able to remove them. I would check the data aggregators as well to see what's flowing from there.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Yes I agree with Colan. I don't think PA's would be considered practitioners.

 

[Dialady]

Hi Rachel,

I work with a dermatologist with three doctors in the practice. Only ONE of the doctors has showed up in an additional Google+ page and NONE of the PA's in the office. However, they have all shown up in Yahoo Local (and I have some old ones I can't seem to get rid of).

Hope that helps some.

Theresa Wagar

 

[rossicone]

Thank you all for the help!

I agree that I don't think PA-Cs should be considered practicioners. It's a bummer how they populate on their own though and requires cleanup work!

Oh wells, gotta do what you gotta do!

Thanks again!

 

[Colan Nielsen]

Hi Rachel,

If you are ok sharing some of the details I would be happy to see if we can find the main source of the listings..

My guess is InfoUSA.

 

[Linda Buquet]

I agree that I don't think PA-Cs should be considered practicioners. It's a bummer how they populate on their own though and requires cleanup work!

Yes I'd minimize them just like other practitioner listings.

I know you know this, but link for others that may be unaware:
<a href="http://www.localsearchforum.com/google-duplicates-merges/864-overcoming-google-practitioner-duplicate-listing-problems-dentists-attorneys.html">Overcoming Google Practitioner Duplicate Listing Problems for Dentists, Attorneys</a>

 

[rossicone]

Thanks Colan! You guessed right, it is definitely InfoUSA. I can't wait to start using Moz Local soon so we can easily clean these listing up! Whoop! Thanks for your help again!