VOTE: Which website to promote?

[Jim Froling]

A client is a dentist (hello, Linda!) with two websites. The first she paid a independent developer for and the second another SEO/SEM agency. She wants me to lift her G+ Local ranking and create/manage an Adwords campaign. But which website, and therefore G+ Local listing to work on.

The first site supports her practice's brand well and has a Google Page Rank of 1 with 23 pages indexed. LOTS of inbound links, all relevant, lots of good citations both local and industry sources. Her title tags are weak but she has a ranking of #44 organically (web). No Places or G+ profile. Of the present site content, the potential landing pages are weak which will negatively impact her Adwords campaign.

Second site doesn't support the practice's branding at all and has a PR of 0 (zero). I'm sure it's a template site. However it has 67 internal pages indexed by G, makes good use of title tags with local ID. Still, web organic ranking is something over 150 (or may not rank at all). No inbound links and just four citations. The Google+ Local rank is #28 (out of > 200 dentists in area). Content is much better with lots of choices for a variety of landing pages.

Moving forward, which site should I focus on lifting in local organic search? I hate to lose the branding, links and citations of the first site. The second site has better on-site SEO in place, some G+ Local ranking, and better options for landing pages.

One idea I've had (always suspect ) is to claim the G+ page, change URL to first site and lift that while using the second site strictly for Adwords campaign.

I'm tempted to make this a poll question and let you vote.

1. Go all in on first site. Branding, PR1, links & citations will rule;
2. Go all in on second site. At least she's #28, better on site SEO and Adwords compatibility, etc.
3. Drive first site for local and use second site for landing pages only.
4. None of the above. Instead, do this...

 

[Linda Buquet]

A client is a dentist (hello, Linda!)

Heeelllooo Jim!

Brain twister. So many questions... Some of this does not make sense to me. Stripped out a bunch to focus on the issues I need more info about.

The first site supports her practice's brand well... No Places or G+ profile.

Each site can't have a Places listing. Only one per business. So I don't understand saying this site does not and the other does. If there is just one Place page as there should be then it's just a matter of which site is entered on the Place page. Right? Or is there something else I'm missing?

Second site... Still, web organic ranking is something over 150 (or may not rank at all). No inbound links and just four citations. The Google+ Local rank is #28 (out of > 200 dentists in area).

1) There would not be an organic ranking if the G+ L page ranks. Or it would be way buried. This would be normal???

4 citations? Citations are based on NAP not site. Why is # of citations a factor here? Is she using a different name or phone on each site?

One idea I've had (always suspect ) is to claim the G+ page, change URL to first site and lift that while using the second site strictly for Adwords campaign.

So there IS a G+ L page. It's linked to site #2 but IS NOT CLAIMED? Do I have that right?

Since I have so many unknowns above, here are 2 other things I'm curious about.

1) What site does Dr want to rank in main search results? When you say it does NOT support practice branding I don't know how bad or off it is.

2) Go to AOL search. Set location to her city. Search City Dentist (assuming that's main KW). Tell me where each site ranks in PURE organic.

(Because the organic ranking for site 2 is obfuscated by local so would be helpful to know pure organic.)

Answer Qs above then I may have more for you.

 

[Jim Froling]

Helllloooo Linda
I'm glad I'm not the only one with a twisted brain. Sorry if I wasn't clear on the description. Tried to condense a lot into a little space. To answer your questions:

Each site can't have a Places listing. Only one per business. So I don't understand saying this site does not and the other does. If there is just one Place page as there should be then it's just a matter of which site is entered on the Place page. Right? Or is there something else I'm missing?

Yes, there is only one G+ listing and that's my dilemma. Site #1 (www.toothspa.com) has lots of good background support (links, citations, etc.) but no G+. Also, the URL supports the branding of the practice better. Site #2 (orangecadentalimplants.com) has the G+ listing (on Pg 3) and has good foreground support (Localized title tags, dedicated pages for various dental specialties, etc.). But little going on "off page" in "the background" i.e. links, citations. So, yes, it is just a matter of which site is entered into the Place page. But which one?

1) There would not be an organic ranking if the G+ L page ranks. Or it would be way buried. This would be normal???

Now I'm a little confused . I've not seen a G+ L and "web organic" ranking as being mutually exclusive. In fact, I've had several clients that ranked in both the 7 pack and organic on the blended results on first page. It's not "normal", but it's nice

4 citations? Citations are based on NAP not site. Why is # of citations a factor here? Is she using a different name or phone on each site?

My understanding is that the quantity, quality and consistency of citations is an important ranking factor. Hence the dilemma. Site 1 has lots of citations and links, site 2 not so much. Site 2 (setup by the other agency) uses different phone # which they created to track conversions and allow client to record inbound calls for QA purposes. Also, different URLs which also creates some inconsistency with the NAP(U).

So there IS a G+ L page. It's linked to site #2 but IS NOT CLAIMED? Do I have that right?

The G+page is linked to site #2 and IS CLAIMED. Would I be best off by having her (me) edit the G+ page with site #1 and phone # there and re-verify?

2 other things I'm curious about.

1) What site does Dr want to rank in main search results? When you say it does NOT support practice branding I don't know how bad or off it is.

Dr. says she wants Site 2 to rank, if only because she has a lot of $ invested/spent on it via the other agency. All of her marketing (even site 2, besides the URL) promotes the Tooth Spa, which is her "brand". I believe that she needs to promote and protect her brand as much as anything. In the overall marketing scheme of things, one's brand is paramount and consistency with it even more important than citation NAP(U)s. In my opinion anyways

2) Go to AOL search. Set location to her city. Search City Dentist (assuming that's main KW). Tell me where each site ranks in PURE organic.

Yep, Site 1 (toothspa.com) is on Page 3 (27th). Site 2 is nowhere to be found through 20 pages of SERP on AOL.

If it helps put some things into perspective, the agency that setup Site 2, the G+ page, etc. is Yodle. Mentioned as a point of reference as I'm sure you are familiar with their MO.