Local Listing Question
-
We will be starting local SEO efforts on a medical practice that has 4 locations & 15 doctors each location (so 60 listings total). I will submit each doctor & each location to InfoGroup, LocalEze, Axciom & Factual. Also, I will only submit each location (not doctors) to Google. The problem I'm seeing is the fact that each listing would have the same exact phone number - it all goes to one main routing center. What kind of problems could come of this? Do we need a separate phone numbers for each of the four locations (at the very least)?
-
Miriam, you are a rockstar! I just want to add my two cents.
Most citation sources find your listing by phone number so putting more then one phone number per location will generally be rejected or merged by those sources. I strongly agree that each of your locations should have a separate number. Your NAP (name, address phone number) consistency is also a ranking factor. (Here is Miriam's post about local seo ranking factors http://moz.com/blog/top-20-local-search-ranking-factors-an-illustrated-guide)
If you are building citations for each of your doctors, I recommend separate numbers for them too (but it's not required). I use a company called ifbyphone.com. They have a basic service plan at $49 per month and $2/month per phone number plus minutes. You have them forward to one number if you want but it's a good way to get around the issue. That's about $200/month plus minutes but you can use these numbers for multiple things like marketing too (ie AdWords, Billboards, Radio Commercials, etc)
That being said, Google Maps said
- "Some doctors may share the same office address with other doctors. If the listings have different doctor names, they are not duplicates, even if they have the same phone number. The same goes for lawyers, insurance agents, etc." https://support.google.com/mapmaker/answer/1731387?hl=en
The reason I recommend different numbers is for third party citation sources. If you can justify the $200 per month expense, I would highly recommend using separate numbers for each doctor. You'll be able to build strong rankings that way. I always worry about Google changing it's policy in this area so I think that separate numbers is a better idea.
-
Hi JohnWeb12,
Sounds like an exciting project! So, here's the deal. The guidelines you are dealing with are these:
- _Individual practitioners may be listed individually as long as those practitioners are public-facing within their parent organization. Common examples of such practitioners are doctors, dentists, lawyers, and real estate agents. The practitioner should be directly contactable at the verified location during stated hours. A practitioner should not have multiple listings to cover all of his or her specializations. _
- _Departments within businesses, universities, hospitals, and government buildings may be listed separately. These departments must be publicly distinct as entities or groups within their parent organization, and ideally will have separate phone numbers and/or customer entrances._See: https://support.google.com/places/answer/107528?hl=en
-
The separate 4 locations MUST have unique phone numbers, because they are going to be associated with unique physical addresses.
-
With the practitioners, this is a subject surrounded by grey area. I highly recommend that you read the discussion on Mike Blumenthal's post in which there are many interesting points raised surrounding this very topic in the comments:
I recommend you read the entire thread to pick up on some of the nuances surrounding the doctors having an identical phone number and the concerns about merging. Mike's advice on this:
"I think having the same phone number is OK by the rules but unfortunately the algo may merge the listings. I have some that are the same that have stayed intact and others that have merged."
My feeling is that each of the 4 offices should have a unique phone number, and that the guidelines do not require that each doctor have his own within the practice, but that there is some risk of merging if they don't. The guidelines are not 100% clear on this, as is the case with many points of order surrounding Google+ Local. I hope the post I've linked to will help you consider the ins-and-outs of this topic!
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
-
Conditional Noindex for Dynamic Listing Pages?
Hi, We have dynamic listing pages that are sometimes populated and sometimes not populated. They are clinical trial results pages for disease types, some of which don't always have trials open. This means that sometimes the CMS produces a blank page -- pages that are then flagged as thin content. We're considering implementing a conditional noindex -- where the page is indexed only if there are results. However, I'm concerned that this will be confusing to Google and send a negative ranking signal. Any advice would be super helpful. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yaelslater0 -
Duplicate Content Question With New Domain
Hey Everyone, I hope your day is going well. I have a question regarding duplicate content. Let's say that we have Website A and Website B. Website A is a directory for multiple stores & brands. Website B is a new domain that will satisfy the delivery niche for these multiple stores & brands (where they can click on a "Delivery" anchor on Website A and it'll redirect them to Website B). We want Website B to rank organically when someone types in " <brand>delivery" in Google. Website B has NOT been created yet. The Issue Website B has to be a separate domain than Website A (no getting around this). Website B will also pull all of the content from Website A (menus, reviews, about, etc). Will we face any duplicate content issues on either Website A or Website B in the future? Should we rel=canonical to the main website even though we want Website B to rank organically?</brand>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | imjonny0 -
HTTP to HTTPS Question
Hello, I have a question regarding SSL Certificates I think I know the answer to but wanted to make sure. One of our clients’ site uses http for their pages but when they started creating Registration forms they created a full duplicate site on https (so now there are two versions of all of the pages). I know due to duplicate concerns this could be an issue and needs to resolved (as well as the pros and cons of both) but if they are already set up with https does it make sense to just move everything there or in some instances would it pay to keep some pages http (using canonical tags, redirects, htccess…etc)? – Most of the information I found related to making the decision prior to having both or describing the process but I couldn’t find anything that specifically related to if both are already present. I thought that the best approach because everything’s already set up is to just move everything over to the more secure one but was curious if anybody had any insight? Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ben-R0 -
Content Cannibalism Question with example
Hi, Since I love writing and I write a lot I always find myself worried about ruining for my self with Content Cannibalism. Yesterday, while looking to learn about diamonds I encountered a highly ranked website that has two pages ranking high on the first page simultaneously (4th and 5th) - I never noticed it before with Google. The term I googled was "vvs diamonds" and the two pages were: http://bit.ly/1N51HpQ and http://bit.ly/1JefWYS Two questions: 1. Does that happen often with Google (presenting two lines from the same site on first page)? 2. Would it be better practice for the writer to combine them? - creating a one more powerful page... Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet1 -
URL Structure Question
Am starting to work with a new site that has a domain name contrived to help it with a certain kind of long tail search. Just for fictional example sake, let's call it WhatAreTheBestRestaurantsIn.com. The idea is that people might do searches for "what are the best restaurants in seattle" and over time they would make some organic search progress. Again, fictional top level domain example, but the real thing is just like that and designed to be cities in all states. Here's the question, if you were targeting searches like the above and had that domain to work with, would you go with... whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/seattle-washington whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/washington/seattle whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/wa/seattle whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/what-are-the-best-restaurants-in-seattle-wa ... or what and why? Separate question (still need the above answered), would you rather go with a super short (4 letter), but meaningless domain name, and stick the longtail part after that? I doubt I can win the argument the new domain name, so still need the first question answered. The good news is it's pretty good content. Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Microsite question
Good morning, I have a client who is a local realtor www.chantre.com and they have several locations in their region. We created individual sites for their locations that are linked from their main site (on the left bottom). I need some advice and guidance... Are the location sites a good consideration as microsites? I know we should include the rel=canonical tag and are in the process of doing so, but any comments on this would be appreciated I know the answer to this one, but the client insists on continually asking about it...would it be better to have the location sites linked from the main site as subdomains? Any other suggestions to either prove or disprove our technique in breaking out the location sites, whether it's a good idea or if we are harming their SEO is appreciated THANKS!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gXeSEO
Darlene0 -
Googlebot on paywall made with cookies and local storage
My question is about paywalls made with cookies and local storage. We are changing a website with free content to a open paywall with a 5 article view weekly limit. The paywall is made to work with cookies and local storage. The article views are stored to local storage but you have to have your cookies enabled so that you can read the free articles. If you don't have cookies enable we would pass an error page (otherwise the paywall would be easy to bypass). Can you say how this affects SEO? We would still like that Google would index all article pages that it does now. Would it be cloaking if we treated Googlebot differently so that when it does not have cookies enabled, it would still be able to index the page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | OPU1 -
Yelp, yahoo, local directories..
We are currently in one location and we are moving our office. Would it be better to leave all the directories and add new listings with the new address? This way we get 2 listings until someone in this address claims a business here. or Would it be better to change all the existing to the new address?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEODinosaur0