Vender Hijacked our 7 Pack Listing
-
A dentist I work with contracted with a company called Z O C D O C (ZD). ZD ' S goal is to deliver patients to the dentist. To my surprise, ZD created a domain name called s t o n e b r i d g e d e n t a l t e x a s.com that forwards to the doctors ZD doctor page.
(You can see the Google results listing by Google search: dentist mckinney tx or click this link http://imgur.com/liq05at)
Apparently, ZD calls this their "kick start" program so basically ZD is redirecting traffic from what should have been the dentists 7 Pack listing (which would have gone to the dentist website) to the ZD's doctor page.
So now, the dentists 7 pack listing domain is owned by ZD but ZD has this hooked up to the doctors office address.Issues swimming inside my head:
1. Is there anything that can be done here? I can't really ask them to take their site down since they own it.
2. Even if ZD takes this site down, there is no guarantee the dentists website will replace the one that's in the 7 pack currently
3. I am pretty sure that the dentist site won't appear in the 7 pack because that would mean there would be two listings with the same address right?
4. As a side-issue, looks like Google removed the links to the Google-Plus pages? Not it only shows reviews.Any words of wisdome here? It would be nice that if when somebody clicked on the link to Stonebridge Dental that it would go to the dentist website, not ZD.. like it should be
-
The Stonebridge Dental Plus Page that ZD created is here:
https://plus.google.com/104280204877579676759/about?gl=US&hl=en-US- Notice that it is not a verified listing
The Plus Page I claimed on behalf of the client which is verified is here (which I can log in to):
https://plus.google.com/b/115007218006913673410/115007218006913673410/aboutLooks like ZD purchased a domain which then forwards to the ZD doctor page and then created a new Google Plus profile with my clients address and phone.
I might have to ask them for their contract with ZD and see if there is something in there I'm missing.
-
I did an individual claim. I always claim everything in the clients name. Also, our Google+ listing is verified. (I had the postcard go to client and I entered the code)
I claimed in Places for Business dashboard.
Here is our real Google+ page:
https://plus.google.com/b/115007218006913673410/115007218006913673410/aboutThe client knew about the ZD "Jump Start" program but had no Idea what that meant technically.
stonebridgedentaltexas.com domain is owned by ZD
-
Hi Bob,
When you claimed the client's Google Places listing on their behalf, did you
- bulk claim or individual claim
- claim in the new Google+ dashboard or the Places for Business dashboard
?
-
Bob, what a strange situation. Are you SURE that your client hasn't given permission to ZocDoc to create this page on their behalf? If not, sure seems pretty sleazy on their part.
As far as a tactical fix, I'd recommend that your client (and their friends, and you, and your friends) click the Report a Problem link on the lower righthand side of this page:
https://plus.google.com/104280204877579676759/about
and let Google know that the URL for this listing should be stonebridgedental.com. With enough of those reports, Google should make the edit, although that may or may not solve the problem of having duplicate listings in this instance
-
Hi Bob,
I'll start with the easiest part of this first: question #4. Yes, Google is not typically showing Google+ links in the SERPs anymore. This applies to all businesses, not just your client's, so that is not something to worry about.
Now on to the harder part.
To make sure I have the details right, this is your client:
http://www.stonebridgedental.com/
This is the domain ZD buit with their own branding on it:
http://stonebridgedentaltexas.com/
If I've got this right, the big question here is how your client's +Local listing got associated with the new URL. Is the client in control of their +Local dashboard? Which URL is there in the dash? Did ZD create a new listing? Typically, when one uses the word 'hijacking', it means that a third party has taken control of the listing. Has ZD actually done this or does your client still control their own dashboard?
On the one hand, because of the strategy of ZD, your client has earned both an organic and local listings on page 1 of the SERPs (hard to accomplish). On the other hand, if the client has no control over what ZD is doing, this may be a problematic situation. What happens if the client cancels their account with ZD? Does the client own the domain? If no, could be problematic. Same with any reviews earned. It sounds to me as if maybe neither you nor the client understood what would be involved when you signed up for this. Is that correct?
If the client is still in control of their dashboard and needs to point the URL back to their own website, they may still be able to maintain their local listing, but could possibly lose that second organic listing. It might be helpful if you could provide further details on this. This is the first time I've heard of ZD, so I'm looking at the situation without having encountered it before. If you can explain more about the situation, I'll be happy to read.
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 directories for a new(ish) hospital to be listed on?
Just thought I'd throw this question out to the Moz community. Anyone have leads for good, credible directories where I could get a smaller, local hospital listed on? (besides the obvious ones like HealthGrades, etc.,) Thanks!
Technical SEO | | TaylorRHawkins1 -
Google Listing Brand Name as Page Title rather than actual set Title
Any search result including our website is displaying our search result title like this: "Brand Name: Partial Page Title" instead of what it should be "Page Title" (as an example). Where is the "Brand Name:" coming from? We've verified we don't have any code that could cause this, and we're blocking in robots.txt directory listings being used for our search result title/meta. This isn't happening for our competitors. Any ideas on why this is, and if it's something we can control?
Technical SEO | | Closetstogo0 -
How can I provide titles and descriptive text for our list of USPs on the same page optimized both for usability and SEO
I am rebuilding our website together with an agency and I am stuck with the following problem: We have a page which will provide the visitor with a quick and convincing impression why he should chose our enterprise. On this page we want to show our USPs (Unique Selling Points) each with a title and a short description. Now my preferred way of presenting those USPs would be of a list of the titles (which permits to see all USPs without having to read a lot of text) where each title can be clicked to expand the description (in case you want to know more about this specific USP) and if you click on another title the previously clicked title description will collapse and the new description expand and so on (similar to this page: http://www.berlin-city-immobilien.de/38.html - I'm talking about the list in the middle of the page starting with the headline "Dabei profitieren Sie von folgenden Vorteilen"). Since I also want to use these descriptions as on page SEO-texts I checked whether Google might not index or at least value "click to expand content" less than plain text in the body of the page and I stumbled over this article: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html. According to this article Google will definitely discount the descriptions on my page. Does anyone have an idea how to solve this problem? Either by suggesting a different way to show titles and descriptions on the page or maybe by suggesting a workaround so Google will not treat the descriptions as "click to expand text". Thank you already in advance for your input.
Technical SEO | | Benni
Ben0 -
Does all in one seo pack still have a rel canonical issue?
Hi All, I know that the all in one had errors in its rel canonical links on Wordpress but I wondered if this has been fixed. I get mixed info on the web. Anyone know for sure? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | xvpn9020 -
DMOZ listing
Hello, My website is not listed in DMOZ. Is DMOZ important? And how to submit website to DMOZ directory? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | JohnHuynh2 -
Google place listings and search results- quick question.
Has anybody else noticed that they are ranking better on 'places' yet they have dropped off in the actual search results? We've had no message through webmaster tools. The same seems to have happened to our competitors.
Technical SEO | | onlinechester0 -
How long does it take for an article or a page to be listed by google
Hi, my question is a two parter. I think i must be doing something wrong. With my site map, it is set to show different section of my site while on my old site the site map listed every single article - i am not sure if setting it to each section is correct, can someone please advise me on this. The second part of the question is, how long does it take for an article to be listed by google. This article on my site was written today http://www.in2town.co.uk/lifestyle/holidaymakers-ignore-the-importance-of-travel-insurance-according-to-survey Holidaymakers Ignore The Importance of Travel Insurance According To Survey but when i check to see if google has listed the article yet by putting in the whole title, it does not come up, i even added the website name at the end and still it did not come up. This is worrying me a bit as a lot of my articles are news stories which means they are current articles so if google is not picking them up then no one else will be. can anyone let me know what i should be doing so google picks them up quicker please.
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Best usage of rel canonical in case of pagination for content list ?
I've looked at most of the question in the Q&A who speak about pagination but didn't find a clear answer to my concern. So here is my question : On the website i work for, we have list of recipes with this info for each recipe : picture, title, type, difficulty, time and author. 10 recipes per pages and X pages for each list. Would you use link rel canonical on page X with first page as value ? (i've seen this answer in one question here)
Technical SEO | | kr0hmy
Or canonicalize to page X keeping each page of the list in the index ?
Would the content be seen as duplicate if we don't use rel canonical and just add page X in the title? Or would it be unique enough with all the infos? Thanks for your help on this !0