Robert Charlton
msg:4148457 | 11:18 pm on Jun 7, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Catalyst... I concur. This is a must read.
I'd recommend checking out the surveys of past years as well.
|
anallawalla
msg:4148595 | 4:19 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0) |
As a contributor, I am biased but I have found it a valuable experience to compare findings with other local search experts, particularly when their niche has given them a different interpretation of a signal. This disagreement can be frustrating but it goes to show that ranking for local search is not simply following a checklist that you pin next to the monitor.
|
Robert Charlton
msg:4148638 | 5:53 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0) |
It was interesting to me that "Defining a Service Area for Your Place Page" aroused as much unease as it did among participants. I'm similarly concerned, thinking that it might perhaps "dilute" an already established location... or that there might be glitches in initial implementation... but I agree with Mike Belasco that he can't believe this is Google's intent. It would be very handy for some types of companies.
Further discussion in this thread....
Google Adds Service Area Listing Tool
http://www.webmasterworld.com/local_search/4136898.htm
[webmasterworld.com...]
|
Silvery
msg:4150829 | 10:16 pm on Jun 10, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I think it's expectable that there may be some diversity among those surveyed. Google cites that they have 200+ ranking signals, and local search ranking is arguably got more variables involved than regular websearch likely does.
Among so many variables, it's quite difficult to isolate one signal's effect over that of another, much less figure out which signal provides more benefit than the other.
What's really fun to see are the factors that have very high agreement among recipients -- those would be ones which everyone has consistently seen to be effective by some significant amount.
{Disclosure: I'm another of the contributors.}
What will be really fun will be a more thorough ranking of citation sources -- I sense that David might intend to do that at a future time.
|
|
