Linda Buquet
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 13,313
- Reaction score
- 4,148
UPDATE: 8:09 AM. Google just informed us this change has not happened yet - but I still think the behaviours I refer to below are something new???
OK I'm going out on a bit of a ledge here, but I think the page removals actually happened yesterday. Or maybe just the 1st stage happened and there is more to come. At least the following is behavior I have not seen before and it appears to be what Google told us what would happen.
BUT there is some good news in code at the bottom.
I was researching last night and picked accountants, because they often have not verified their G+ local pages. Here's an example.
As you can see the Considine and Cashuk listings have no Google+ link. Well the links were removed on unverified pages awhile back, so that's not the difference.
But search Google+ for their exact name, or their phone, or their name and address, or their name and phone... and no matter how you search you get "no results found for X".
Go ahead, search G+ anyway you want. You won't find their unverified G+ pages.
But they have them. Here they are: Considine and here's Cashuk.
So the pages are live, it's just that they are undiscoverable by the average person who does not possess Google super powers. (Secret below.)
Search for any of the other accountants in that pack that have plus pages and you'll be able to find their plus page - with Google+ search.
.................................................
Now yesterday Joy posted some screenshots in post #13 and 15 in the thread below.
<a href="http://www.localsearchforum.com/local-search/34957-%2A%2A-change-coming-july-28th-%2A%2A-google-announcement.html">** Change Coming July 28th ** Google Announcement</a>
I asked for examples of unverified pages we could track to see the changes.
BUT the ones she posted were odd balls in that they had NO web site, so only a G+ link.
Then joereadseo did a new thread and screenshot with a theory.
<a href="http://www.localsearchforum.com/google-local/35080-changes-map-pack-line-july-28th-rollout-uk.html">Changes to the Map Pack - In Line with the July 28th Rollout?? (UK)</a>
You need to go read the post and look at screen shot for this to make sense but I think his theory is correct:
Joe's theory...
"these changes took place on the other two listings as Google could associate a website URL with them and therefore could delete the G+ page whilst still keeping the businesses listed in the map pack.
Google does not associate a website URL with J Myatt and therefore cannot make the same changes."
So at least at this stage, it looks to me like Joe's theory is correct. If a listing ranks in the pack BUT has no site associated, it will still link to the G+ page because the listing needs to anchor to something. If no site, it needs to stay anchored to the G+ page.
BUT if there is a site and the G+ page is unverified - you won't be able to find it by searching G+. HOWEVER the page is still out there.
THE SECRET - (In Code because I don't want some all seeing all knowing being finding the loophole and closing it) - is MC's tool. That's how I found the hidden pages. (Those in the know will be able to figure out what I mean. If you don't know, please don't email me. I can't have 100 people emailing me. My carpal pain is too bad to respond.)
The listings are also in Map Maker, so if you know how to find CID in MM and turn CID into a G+ L link, you'll be able to do find them that way.
But the main thing is that unless you do lots of troubleshooting like a few of us do, these hidden pages don't even need to be discovered in most cases. They are just dormant. BUT if you have ranking problems I think you'd want to uncover every stone and check for these. They could be dupes or closed listings, both of which would likely hurt rankings. But if you know the ninja way to search for dupes, you'll be able to find these, if you need to.
Search for some UNverified listing that DO have a site in the pack and see if you can replicate the scenario above. Can you find the G+ page without using the MC tool?
Again, this may just be phase 1 and there may be something else coming. Possibly the MC tool because of the source it pulls from, has just not caught up with the change yet?
CYA Disclaimer: I need to point out, I have not done extensive testing. But in checking several examples, I'm pretty sure the above is correct and this already happened yesterday.
What do you think???
<meta property="og:type" content="article"><meta property="og:title" content=""><meta property="og:description" content="">
<meta property="og:image" content="">
OK I'm going out on a bit of a ledge here, but I think the page removals actually happened yesterday. Or maybe just the 1st stage happened and there is more to come. At least the following is behavior I have not seen before and it appears to be what Google told us what would happen.
BUT there is some good news in code at the bottom.
I was researching last night and picked accountants, because they often have not verified their G+ local pages. Here's an example.
As you can see the Considine and Cashuk listings have no Google+ link. Well the links were removed on unverified pages awhile back, so that's not the difference.
But search Google+ for their exact name, or their phone, or their name and address, or their name and phone... and no matter how you search you get "no results found for X".
Go ahead, search G+ anyway you want. You won't find their unverified G+ pages.
But they have them. Here they are: Considine and here's Cashuk.
So the pages are live, it's just that they are undiscoverable by the average person who does not possess Google super powers.
(Secret below.)Search for any of the other accountants in that pack that have plus pages and you'll be able to find their plus page - with Google+ search.
.................................................
Now yesterday Joy posted some screenshots in post #13 and 15 in the thread below.
<a href="http://www.localsearchforum.com/local-search/34957-%2A%2A-change-coming-july-28th-%2A%2A-google-announcement.html">** Change Coming July 28th ** Google Announcement</a>
I asked for examples of unverified pages we could track to see the changes.
BUT the ones she posted were odd balls in that they had NO web site, so only a G+ link.
Then joereadseo did a new thread and screenshot with a theory.
<a href="http://www.localsearchforum.com/google-local/35080-changes-map-pack-line-july-28th-rollout-uk.html">Changes to the Map Pack - In Line with the July 28th Rollout?? (UK)</a>
You need to go read the post and look at screen shot for this to make sense but I think his theory is correct:
Joe's theory...
"these changes took place on the other two listings as Google could associate a website URL with them and therefore could delete the G+ page whilst still keeping the businesses listed in the map pack.
Google does not associate a website URL with J Myatt and therefore cannot make the same changes."
So at least at this stage, it looks to me like Joe's theory is correct. If a listing ranks in the pack BUT has no site associated, it will still link to the G+ page because the listing needs to anchor to something. If no site, it needs to stay anchored to the G+ page.
BUT if there is a site and the G+ page is unverified - you won't be able to find it by searching G+. HOWEVER the page is still out there.
THE SECRET - (In Code because I don't want some all seeing all knowing being finding the loophole and closing it) - is MC's tool. That's how I found the hidden pages. (Those in the know will be able to figure out what I mean. If you don't know, please don't email me. I can't have 100 people emailing me. My carpal pain is too bad to respond.)
The listings are also in Map Maker, so if you know how to find CID in MM and turn CID into a G+ L link, you'll be able to do find them that way.
But the main thing is that unless you do lots of troubleshooting like a few of us do, these hidden pages don't even need to be discovered in most cases. They are just dormant. BUT if you have ranking problems I think you'd want to uncover every stone and check for these. They could be dupes or closed listings, both of which would likely hurt rankings. But if you know the ninja way to search for dupes, you'll be able to find these, if you need to.
Search for some UNverified listing that DO have a site in the pack and see if you can replicate the scenario above. Can you find the G+ page without using the MC tool?
Again, this may just be phase 1 and there may be something else coming. Possibly the MC tool because of the source it pulls from, has just not caught up with the change yet?
CYA Disclaimer: I need to point out, I have not done extensive testing. But in checking several examples, I'm pretty sure the above is correct and this already happened yesterday.
What do you think???
<meta property="og:type" content="article"><meta property="og:title" content=""><meta property="og:description" content="">
<meta property="og:image" content="">
