Ugh - local pack dominated by two locations?

[Margaret Ornsby]

Okay this just looks so wrong to me.
One seven pack, two addresses, three clinics.

2015-04-01_13-47-14.png - Margarets_Files's library

Positions 1 & 3 - same address & phone
Positions 1 & 7 - same URL (he's really the same URL, they just didn't tie his doctor page to the practice website)
Positions 4, 5, 6 - same address, phone, URL

2 is the only "non-duplicated" practice.

Rethinking practice over practitioner approach.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Weird Margaret, that's the 1st time I've seen a pack like that. Once in a blue moon I see 2 from the same office. But never anything like this.

 

[Phil Rozek]

Nice find, Margaret.

The fact that Evergreen CO is a tiny town (nay, a "census-designated place" has a lot to do with the homogenous results. Google can't be as picky.

 

[Margaret Ornsby]

Ah, so that's the key then? Population density? Good to know. Thanks Phil!

 

[Phil Rozek]

@Margaret

Population is one factor of many, yes. But it also depends on how many other doctors there are in town. In a small pond all fish are big.

 

[Margaret Ornsby]

Okay, so it's not just population then. Whew!

Looking at other cities in the US with similar situations, none are anywhere near as bad as this one - most have 3 packs. To me, a 3 pack makes more sense than all these from basically 3 practices.

Wondering if this G doing a lousy job with the pack or is a loop-hole being exploited? And I'm thinking it's the second.

Doing the same search for Rocklin CA, a clear case of listing both the practice and the practitioner in a 3 pack. #1 and #2. Seminole FL does same with a 7 pack.

Sitka AK has 7 pack, shows 5 doctors from the same place, all same address, phone, URL.

It is more than population because I don't get these bad listings in every place I look at with similar populations. But that size population is certainly highlighting "poopy-packs"