More Helpful than Last Year* Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews (+31.6) Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews (+23.7) NAP in hCard / Schema.org (+22.82) Age of Place Page (+20.18) Product/Service Keywords in Reviews (+17.55) * in comparison to Blended answers from last year; degree of change normalized for increased number of factors in 2012

Less Helpful than Last Year* Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (-22.82) Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (-21.06) Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (-19.31) Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (-16.67) Location Keywords in Place Page Custom Attributes (15.8) * in comparison to Blended answers from last year; degree of change normalized for increased number of factors in 2012

The Local Search Ranking Factors

Volume 5 | Published June 11, 2012 SKIP TO RESULTS »

Introduction

Over the course of the past year, we've seen the search engine result pages that Google returns for Local Intent searches get more and more complex. Just over a year-and-a-half ago, Google introduced Blended Place Search, merging its traditional organic algorithm with its index of Local businesses from Google Places. But this was just the beginning.

Google Plus was formally launched in late June of last year, but for most of the year, its release only seemed to affect a few results visually, rather than algorithmically. Much more important were the "Panda," "Venice," and "Penguin" algorithm updates that took down a lot of low quality websites (albeit almost none of them traditional small business sites).

From a Local Search perspective, the former updates seemed to be the more important of the three, as we saw the number of "pure" Local results (those showing traditional "7-pack" formats) go from a consistent majority to a consistent minority. And we also saw Local organic results start to percolate into prominence, as this article from Mike Ramsey details.

Of course, all of this preceded the colossal sea change represented by the release of Google +Local on May 30. This release actually came just as the responses for this year's survey started pouring in. Which means that although this year's version is more likely to be outdated sooner than previous years, it will represent an incredibly valuable historical data point, and I'm already looking forward to looking at the differences in 2013's survey.

For further background on the Local Search Ranking Factors, you may also want to read the introduction to last year's results.

Helpful Background Articles on Local Search:

+ Bill Slawski's Local Search Glossary

+ My own version of a Local Search Glossary

+ Mike Blumenthal's Digital Equity Infographic

+ Matt McGee's 10 Likely Elements of Google's Local Search Algorithm

+ My Own "Local vs. Traditional SEO: Why Citation Is the New Link"

+ Lisa Barone's "How to Launch that Small Business Website"

+ My own "A Brief History of Google Places"

+ Dev Basu's "Local Landing Page Best Practices"

+ The Local Search Ecosystem



The Survey

Participants were asked to rank 90 possible positive factors and 18 possible negative factors that drive Google's Local Search algorithms. Participants were asked to rank the positive factors based on the following question:

“When Google ranks a business in its Local Search results, I believe this is the ____ overall most important factor in those rankings.”

Results were then tabulated via inverse scoring, where the #1 ranked factor received the most "points" for that question, and the lowest-ranked factor received the fewest points. Thus, the more factors deemed irrelevant by a particular respondent, the heavier the weight given to the factors that they did rank.

The first number listed to the right of each factor indicates the relative change in importance as compared to last year's position. A positive number means the factor became more important this year; a negative number means it became less important. You'll note that these numbers include fractional values as I tried to normalize the change in ranking based on a substantially-increased number of factors that I asked about this year.

The second number listed is the average position of that factor in respondents' rankings. The higher the number, the more important it was considered.

The third number listed to the right indicates the standard deviation of the responses. The lower that number, the higher the agreement of the panel. The higher the number, the more the experts' responses varied.

Overall results are presented below, as well as results within each grouping of factors (i.e. on-page, website, off-place/off-page, and reviews).

Negative ranking factors are presented in order of most damaging to most benign.

Discussion

My initial reaction to the results of this survey can be found here on my blog. If you would like to comment on this project, please join the discussion here.

David Mihm

Portland, Oregon

June 11 2012

The Results

MAX POSSIBLE SCORE → MIN POSSIBLE SCORE

LOWEST STD DEV → HIGHEST STD DEV

+/- CHANGE FROM 2011

GENERAL SIGNALS 5 → 1 0.52 → 1.17 ▲ Place Page Criteria 4.46 0.97 ↑1 Off-Place Page/Off-Site Criteria 4.03 0.79 ↑1 Website Criteria 3.72 1.17 ↓2 Review Criteria 2.33 0.74 NC Social/Mobile Criteria 1.18 0.52 –– Place Page Factors Physical Address in City of Search (PLACE PAGE) 0 Proper Category Associations (PLACE PAGE) 0.87 Proximity of Address to Centroid (PLACE PAGE) ↑

15.8 Local Area Code on Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↑

14.04 Individually Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↓

4.38 Product / Service Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE) ↑

4.38 Location Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE) ↑

14.92 Association of Photos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE) 0.87 Product / Service Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE) ↓

1.75 Location Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE) 0.87 Age of Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↑

20.18 Product / Service Keywords in Place Page Custom Attributes (PLACE PAGE) 0.87 Number of Actions Taken by Searchers on a Place Page (e.g. Driving Directions, Mobile Phone Calls) (PLACE PAGE) ↑

1.75 Numerical Percentage of Place Page Completeness (PLACE PAGE) ↑

7.9 Marginal Category Associations (PLACE PAGE) ↓

0.87 Bulk Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↓

6.14 Matching Google Account Domain to Places Landing Page Domain (PLACE PAGE) ↓

3.51 Association of Videos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↑

3.51 Location Keywords in Place Page Custom Attributes (PLACE PAGE) ↓

15.8 Inclusion of Offer on Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↓

5.26 Off-Site Factors Quantity of Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators) (OFF-SITE) 0.87 Quality/Authority of Structured Citations (OFF-SITE) n/a Consistency of Structured Citations (OFF-SITE) n/a Quality/Authority of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts) (OFF-SITE) n/a Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

3.51 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain from Locally-Relevant Domains (OFF-SITE) n/a Quantity of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts) (OFF-SITE) ↑

1.75 Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

3.51 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL from Locally-Relevant Domains (OFF-SITE) n/a Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

7.9 Diversity of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

5.26 GeoTagged Media Associated with Business (e.g. Panoramio, Flickr, YouTube) (OFF-SITE) ↑

11.41 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) 0.87 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) 0.87 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

8.77 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

21.06 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

16.67 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

13.16 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

22.82 Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

19.31 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

10.53 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

12.28 Quantity of MyMaps References to Business (OFF-SITE) ↓

2.63 Popularity (# of Views) of MyMaps References to Business (OFF-SITE) ↓

3.51 Matching, Public WHOIS Information (OFF-SITE) ↓

8.77 Participation in Adwords Express or Google Offers (OFF-SITE) ↓

2.63 On-Site Factors Domain Authority of Website (WEBSITE) ↓

1.75 City, State in Places Landing Page Title (WEBSITE) ↓

1.75 HTML NAP Matching Place Page NAP (WEBSITE) ↑

11.41 Page Authority of Landing Page Specified in Places (WEBSITE) ↓

4.38 Product / Service Keyword in Website URL (WEBSITE) ↓

7.02 Geographic Keyword in Website URL (WEBSITE) ↓

4.38 NAP in hCard / Schema.org (WEBSITE) ↑

22.82 City, State in Most/All Website Title Tags (WEBSITE) 0 City, State in Places Landing Page H1/H2 Tags (WEBSITE) ↓

7.9 City, State in Most/All H1/H2 Tags (WEBSITE) ↓

3.51 KML File on Domain Name (WEBSITE) ↓

14.92 Loadtime of Places Landing Page (WEBSITE) ↓

6.14 High Numerical Rating of hReview/Schema Testimonials (WEBSITE) n/a Volume of Testimonials in hReview / Schema.org (WEBSITE) ↓

2.63 Volume of HTML Testimonials (WEBSITE) ↓

1.75 Review Factors Quantity of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text) (REVIEWS) ↑

16.67 Product/Service Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

17.55 Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

23.7 Location Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

8.77 Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

31.6 Quantity of Reviews by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc) (REVIEWS) n/a High Numerical Ratings by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc) (REVIEWS) n/a Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party) (REVIEWS) ↑

11.41 Quantity of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews (REVIEWS) ↓

13.16 Quantity of Native Google Places Ratings (no text) (REVIEWS) ↓

2.63 High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS) ↑

4.38 Velocity of Third-Party Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

5.26 High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS) ↑

2.63 Positive Sentiment in Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

1.75 Social/Mobile Factors Number of +1's on Website (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Number of Adds/Shares on Google+ (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Click-Through Rate from Search Results (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Authority of +1's on Website (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Velocity of Adds/Shares on Google+ (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Authority of Adds/Shares on Google+ (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Velocity of +1's on Website (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a Volume of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Facebook, Twitter) (SOCIAL/MOBILE) 0 Number of Shares/Likes on Facebook (SOCIAL/MOBILE) 0.87 Number of Followers/Mentions on Twitter (SOCIAL/MOBILE) ↑

6.14 Authority of Followers/Mentions on Twitter (SOCIAL/MOBILE) ↑

2.63 Velocity of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Facebook, Twitter) (SOCIAL/MOBILE) 0 Velocity of Followers/Mentions on Twitter (SOCIAL/MOBILE) ↑

2.63 Velocity of Shares/Likes on Facebook (SOCIAL/MOBILE) 0 Authority of Shares/Likes on Facebook (SOCIAL/MOBILE) n/a

OVERALL RANKINGS:

SPECIFIC FACTORS 79 → 1 3.11 → 32.34 ▲ Physical Address in City of Search (PLACE PAGE) – Proper Category Associations (PLACE PAGE) – Proximity of Address to Centroid (PLACE PAGE) ↑

15.8 Domain Authority of Website (WEBSITE) ↓

1.75 Quantity of Structured Citations (IYPs, Data Aggregators) (OFF-SITE) – City, State in Places Landing Page Title (WEBSITE) ↓

1.75 Quantity of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text) (REVIEWS) ↑

16.67 Quality/Authority of Structured Citations (OFF-SITE) – Local Area Code on Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↑

14.04 HTML NAP Matching Place Page NAP (WEBSITE) ↑

11.41 Consistency of Structured Citations (OFF-SITE) – Individually Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↓

4.38 Quality/Authority of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts) (OFF-SITE) – Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

3.51 Product / Service Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE) ↑

4.38 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain from Locally-Relevant Domains (OFF-SITE) – Quantity of Unstructured Citations (Newspaper Articles, Blog Posts) (OFF-SITE) ↑

1.75 Product/Service Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

17.55 Page Authority of Landing Page Specified in Places (WEBSITE) ↓

4.38 Quality/Authority of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

3.51 Product / Service Keyword in Website URL (WEBSITE) ↓

7.02 Location Keyword in Business Title (PLACE PAGE) ↑

14.92 Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL from Locally-Relevant Domains (OFF-SITE) – Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

23.7 Quantity of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

7.9 Location Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

8.77 Diversity of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

5.26 Geographic Keyword in Website URL (WEBSITE) ↓

4.38 NAP in hCard / Schema.org (WEBSITE) ↑

22.82 GeoTagged Media Associated with Business (e.g. Panoramio, Flickr, YouTube) (OFF-SITE) ↑

11.41 Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

31.6 City, State in Most/All Website Title Tags (WEBSITE) – Quantity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) – Quantity of Reviews by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc) (REVIEWS) – Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) – Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

8.77 Association of Photos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE) – Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

21.06 Location Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

16.67 City, State in Places Landing Page H1/H2 Tags (WEBSITE) ↓

7.9 Product / Service Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE) ↓

1.75 Location Keyword in Place Page Description (PLACE PAGE) – Age of Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↑

20.18 Business Title in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

13.16 Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

22.82 High Numerical Ratings by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc) (REVIEWS) – City, State in Most/All H1/H2 Tags (WEBSITE) ↓

3.51 Diversity of Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

19.31 Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party) (REVIEWS) ↑

11.41 Quantity of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews (REVIEWS) ↓

13.16 Product / Service Keywords in Place Page Custom Attributes (PLACE PAGE) – Quantity of Native Google Places Ratings (no text) (REVIEWS) ↓

2.63 High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS) ↑

4.38 Number of Actions Taken by Searchers on a Place Page (e.g. Driving Directions, Mobile Phone Calls) (PLACE PAGE) ↑

1.75 Numerical Percentage of Place Page Completeness (PLACE PAGE) ↑

7.9 Marginal Category Associations (PLACE PAGE) ↓

0.87 Number of +1's on Website (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Bulk Owner-verified Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↓

6.14 Matching Google Account Domain to Places Landing Page Domain (PLACE PAGE) ↓

3.51 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Domain (OFF-SITE) ↓

10.53 Number of Adds/Shares on Google+ (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Velocity of Third-Party Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

5.26 Click-Through Rate from Search Results (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Authority of +1's on Website (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Association of Videos with Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↑

3.51 Velocity of New Inbound Links to Places Landing Page URL (OFF-SITE) ↓

12.28 KML File on Domain Name (WEBSITE) ↓

14.92 Quantity of MyMaps References to Business (OFF-SITE) ↓

2.63 High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS) ↑

2.63 Velocity of Adds/Shares on Google+ (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Loadtime of Places Landing Page (WEBSITE) ↓

6.14 Popularity (# of Views) of MyMaps References to Business (OFF-SITE) ↓

3.51 Authority of Adds/Shares on Google+ (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Positive Sentiment in Reviews (REVIEWS) ↑

1.75 Location Keywords in Place Page Custom Attributes (PLACE PAGE) ↓

15.8 Matching, Public WHOIS Information (OFF-SITE) ↓

8.77 Velocity of +1's on Website (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Volume of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Facebook, Twitter) (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Number of Shares/Likes on Facebook (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Number of Followers/Mentions on Twitter (SOCIAL/MOBILE) ↑

6.14 Authority of Followers/Mentions on Twitter (SOCIAL/MOBILE) ↑

2.63 High Numerical Rating of hReview/Schema Testimonials (WEBSITE) – Volume of Testimonials in hReview / Schema.org (WEBSITE) ↓

2.63 Velocity of Check-Ins on Popular Services (e.g. Foursquare, Facebook, Twitter) (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Volume of HTML Testimonials (WEBSITE) ↓

1.75 Velocity of Followers/Mentions on Twitter (SOCIAL/MOBILE) ↑

2.63 Velocity of Shares/Likes on Facebook (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Inclusion of Offer on Place Page (PLACE PAGE) ↓

5.26 Authority of Shares/Likes on Facebook (SOCIAL/MOBILE) – Participation in Adwords Express or Google Offers (OFF-SITE) ↓

2.63 Additional Factors Suggested Diversity of sites on which third-party reviews are present (REVIEWS)

Primary category matches a broader category of the search category (e.g. primary category=restaurant & search=pizza) (PLACE PAGE)

Proximity of Physical Location to the Point of Search (Searcher-Business Distance) (PLACE PAGE)

Product/Service in Places Landing Page URL (WEBSITE)

Product/Service Keyword(s) in Places Landing Page Title (WEBSITE)

Driving Directions to Physical Address (PLACE PAGE)

Quantity of Citations from Locally-Relevant Domains (OFF-SITE)

Quantity of Citations from Industry-Relevant Domains (OFF-SITE)

Product / Service Keyword in Landing Page URL (PLACE PAGE)

Geographic Keyword in Landing Page URL (PLACE PAGE)

COMMENTS FROM THE EXPERTS

Comments about Specific Factors

General Comments

Factor Difference Location and/or Product/Service Keywords in Title Tag of Places/Business Portal Landing Page Bing puts much more value than Google on this factor. Location and/or Product/Service Keywords in URL of Places/Business Portal Landing Page Again, Bing puts much more value than Google on this factor. Social Mentions (authority, numbers, velocity) Obviously, Google puts much more value on Google+, while Bing relies on Facebook’s social data. Location and/or Product/Service Keywords in Anchor Text of Inbound Links to Places/Business Portal Landing Page Google recently stopped putting high value into this factor, while it is still one of the most important ones for Bing.