Google Places - What is the best Service Areas Strategy?
-
I've found a lot of useful info on this topic in these forums, but still can't seem to find the answer to my specific question.
Client has one physical location and services many areas.
I have seen various comments that claim setting a service area actually has a negative effect on rankings and the login makes sense to me, so we don't want to do that.
Using the actual physical address, seems to be what google would prefer, but the address is actually on the outskirts of the city and would mean that competitors that have addresses closer to the city center would show up before us.
Our current places listing has the actual address, but the previous SEO put the larger city, with the smaller city zip on the on the website.
City Center: San Diego, 92101
Actual: Street Address, El Cajon, 92020
On website: San Diego, 92020
It this large City + Actual zip code strategy any good?
Which of these 3 strategies should we use to standardize all of our listings?
*we will not be considering a location or mailbox per service are to use multiple listings at this time
-
Hello VernonMack,
Thanks for coming to Q&A with your question. I'm the Local SEO Associate here in the forum. I think the most important point to respond to in your post is this one. You write:
Using the actual physical address, seems to be what google would prefer, but the address is actually on the outskirts of the city and would mean that competitors that have addresses closer to the city center would show up before us.
It isn't so much a matter of Google's preference, but a matter of adhering to their guidelines which specifically state that you must use your real physical address. Unfortunately, this means that businesses likes yours on the borders of major cities do not have the strength to overpower the rankings of competitors actually located within the big cities. As you can imagine, this is a very common issue for all local businesses located just outside of metropolitan locations. Google will always view you as most relevant to the city in which you are located, so for your company, that will be El Cajon - not San Diego. I cannot recommend attempting to mash up the city and zip of the two different locales.
You can, of course, create content on your website about any work you do within San Diego, but should not expect this to take precedence over your actual physical location.
I truly sympathize with the wish to compete for the big search terms, but the usefulness of Google Places depends on accurate representation of data. For now, you are located in El Cajon and should correctly list yourself as such. If it becomes clear to you in future that you need to move locations into the city of San Diego, you will be doing what some other local business owners have done due to Google's handling of location. For some businesses, moving shop just isn't feasible, but for others, getting that inner city address is a must and a smart move.
Hope this helps, and good luck!
-
I can't say 100%, but it looks like El Cajon is still in San Diego County, which might mean it's close enough to still count. Again, you might want to get a second opinion, but I don't think it would be too much of a problem using your actual zip code with San Diego. For instance, where I am (Maryland) there are several small towns that people just incorporate into the bigger city while keeping their unique zip codes.
-
Thanks, Nick. do you have any additional insight into the strategy that combine the large city with the actual city zip code? The listings (NAP) are currently all over the place we will standardize them once we have chosen the best format.
-
This is a tricky one - you're more likely to come up for the smaller city if you're far from the city center, but it's not as likely to get as many searches.
I'd suggest using whatever address most commonly appears on the web. One thing Google really relies on is a consistent NAP - Name, Address and Phone Number. If your website says San Diego, and you have other local citations (directories, etc) that say San Diego, go with San Diego - that should help boost all your local rankings.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Best Web-site Structure/ SEO Strategy for an online travel agency?
Dear Experts! I need your help with pointing me in the right direction. So far I have found scattered tips around the Internet but it's hard to make a full picture with all these bits and pieces of information without a professional advice. My primary goal is to understand how I should build my online travel agency web-site’s (https://qualistay.com) structure, so that I target my keywords on correct pages and do not create a duplicate content. In my particular case I have very similar properties in similar locations in Tenerife. Many of them are located in the same villa or apartment complex, thus, it is very hard to come up with the unique description for each of them. Not speaking of amenities and pricing blocks, which are standard and almost identical (I don’t know if Google sees it as a duplicate content). From what I have read so far, it’s better to target archive pages rather than every single property. At the moment my archive pages are: all properties (includes all property types and locations), a page for each location (includes all property types). Does it make sense adding archive pages by property type in addition OR in stead of the location ones if I, for instance, target separate keywords like 'villas costa adeje' and 'apartments costa adeje'? At the moment, the title of the respective archive page "Properties to rent in costa adeje: villas, apartments" in principle targets both keywords... Does using the same keyword in a single property listing cannibalize archive page ranking it is linking back to? Or not, unless Google specifically identifies this as a duplicate content, which one can see in Google Search Console under HTML Improvements and/or archive page has more incoming links than a single property? If targeting only archive pages, how should I optimize them in such a way that they stay user-friendly. I have created (though, not yet fully optimized) descriptions for each archive page just below the main header. But I have them partially hidden (collapsible) using a JS in order to keep visitors’ focus on the properties. I know that Google does not rank hidden content high, at least at the moment, but since there is a new algorithm Mobile First coming up in the near future, they promise not to punish mobile sites for a collapsible content and will use mobile version to rate desktop one. Does this mean I should not worry about hidden content anymore or should I move the descirption to the bottom of the page and make it fully visible? Your feedback will be highly appreciated! Thank you! Dmitry
Technical SEO | | qualistay1 -
Google Rejects Merchant Feed
Buon Giorno fromn 1 degrees C nearly dark & icy wetherby Uk... WTF Googles merchant centre has rejected my feed and In the time honoured zero customer service Ive grown accustomed to getting from Santa Clara County ive got bugger all idea how to fix it. Here is the feed:
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
http://ramsdensforcash.co.uk/sitefiles/handlers/googlemerchantdatafeed.ashx And here is the violation from the Google Gods themselves: http://ramsdensforcash.co.uk/sitefiles/handlers/googlemerchantdatafeed.ashx Anyone got any ideas why Google has given me the middle finger? Greazie tanto,
David0 -
Google webmaster errors
**If you know what these google webmasters errors mean, and you can explain it to me in simple english and tell me how I can locate the problem, I would really appreciate it!. <colgroup><col width=""><col width=""><col width=""><col width=""><col width="*"><col width="124"><col width="54"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO
| | | | | Server error | | | | Soft 404 | | | | Access denied | | Not found | | | Not followed | | | |** I have many of these errors, is it harming SEO?Yoseph0 -
Site being indexed by Google before it has launched
We are currently coming towards the end of a site migration, and are at the final stage of testing redirects etc. However, to our horror we've just discovered Google has started indexing the new site. Any ideas on how this could have happened? I have most recently asked for robots.txt to exclude anything with a certain parameter in URL. Is there a chance this, wrongly implemented, could have caused this?
Technical SEO | | Sayers0 -
Odd Google Indexing Issue
I have encountered something odd with Google indexing. According to the Google cache my site was last updated on April 6. I had been making a series of changes on April 7th and none of them show up in the cached version of the site (naturally). Then, on the 8th, my rankings seem to have dropped about 6 places and the main SERP is showing a text that isn't even on the Web site. The cached version has the correct page title from the page that was indexed on the 6th. How do I learn where Google is picking this up from? There is a clean page title tag on my Web site. I've checked the server, etc to see what's going on. The text isn't completely unrelated, but it definitely impacted my ranking. Does Google ever have these hiccups when indexing?
Technical SEO | | VERBInteractive0 -
Unexplained spikes in Google Analytics
My site has modest traffic (50 unique visitors per day). In the past week, I've seen two unexplained spikes in my Google Analytics. Yesterday, there were 140 unique visitors, and these unique visitors each visited one unique page. This appears to be a bot of some sort. If this is a bot, why does Google Analytics think these are unique visitors? Is there a was for small sites to deal with this? Best,
Technical SEO | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
Frustration With Google Places
I have been trying to solve this problem with Google Places for quite some time now and just can't figure out where to go from here. I've tried several sent messages explaining the problem and even received several phone calls from Google Places trying to correct the issue with no luck. I have even tried totally deleting the listing and started over from scratch and re-verified the address with a mailed postcard. My site: http://www.captainrichsmith.com has a Google Places account set up and verified http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&georestrict=input_srcid:1c8fa43cf77e0c93&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=0 For some reason when you do a Google search for one of my keywords Miami Fishing Charters On the listings normally under the letter "E" on the Map another website has a placemark at my location Miami Fishing Charters Directory
Technical SEO | | captainrichsmith
www.fishing-charters-miami.com/ - Cached Fishing Charters Miami is a quality directory of the best fishing boats in the Miami area. The top Miami fishing charters are listed on this website.
2550 South Bayshore Drive, Miami
(786) 263-9231
captainrichsmith.com (7) When you view this Google places listing further. I see it is using my images, videos, placemark on map but NOT the address, phone number, or reviews. Any help on this issue would greatly be appreciated0 -
Google Sandboxing
I have a new site with a new domain that ranked well the 1st week or so after it was indexed then it totally dropped off the SERP. My question is, does Google Sandboxing affect new sites on new domains that don't have any incoming links? The site dropped off before I began link building - from what I've read unnatural link build is often the cause. Can you still be sandboxed without any link building? If this is the case, are there things I can do to get out of the sandbox? Thanks folks, Jason
Technical SEO | | OptioPublishing0