I can't imagine a real-life scenario where everything else is equal. They would all have to be at the exact same location with the exact same number of reviews, the exact same website and the exact same backlinks. Citations such as Yahoo are not worth losing a bit of sleep over.
It's a hypothetical question, hopefully in an attempt to boil the equation down to a single factor, or very limited set of factors, with the ultimate point being, however low the value of these citations being "lost" (for lack of a better characterization), they still have SOME value. What that value is, is the question. My post is an attempt to define the LSEO landscape in (hypthetical) "mathematical terms", divorced and separated from any other factors. This idea stems from a fundamental belief that I have, that I've mentioned in another post, which is that Google is at core a computer, and it's "decisions" are based on data that Google uses to determine (in this particular case) placement on a search results page. LSEO is about attempting to discern what those factors are, and how important each of them are, relative to all the other factors (or "signals"). Also, it just now occurs to me that the math wizards at Google may have secondary "equations" that affords higher or lower weight ("juice") based not in the singular and standalone data (a Yahoo local citation, for example), but on the relationship of multiple factors together, i.e.:
1) Yahoo + Yellow pages = a pound of juice.
2) no Yahoo, and no Yellow pages = a half pound of juice.
3) Yahoo, but no Yellow pages = a quarter pound of juice.
4) no Yahoo, but Yellow pages = 3/4 pound of juice.
Note this is the present "outer limits" of my theorizing, i.e. "spitballing". Doesn't mean (or matter if) I'm right or wrong; it's an attempt to share the idea that thinking about these things (analysis) might result in a new (and profitable) discovery. Another way of saying it is the "structure" of my thinking.
