#personal injury attorney in san rafael

[rushinjurylaw]

[noithatotoaz]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[thanhtuandoan89]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[drummcarpentry]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[lakelandseo]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[epackingvietnam]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

#túi_giấy_epacking_việt_nam #túi_giấy_epacking #in_túi_giấy_giá_rẻ #in_túi_giấy #epackingvietnam #tuigiayepacking

[bfxenon]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[rushinjurylaw]

Rush Law

Rush Law is a full-service personal injury law firm in Novato, San Francisco, California. We are a leading San Francisco personal injury attorneys firm. Our law offices are located in Novato, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Napa, Oakland, San Jose, Redwood City, Newark, Redwood City, Pleasanton, and Sacramento.  We represent people throughout the San Francisco Bay Area in personal injury and wrongful death claims. This is the sole focus of our work and has been for more than a decade. Our focus and depth of experience have resulted in million- and multimillion-dollar outcomes for people whose acts of negligence have hurt. Were you injured in an accident and looking for a personal injury attorney in San Francisco, CA? Our Novato accident attorneys are available 24/7 to help you. 

[nutrifami]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[xaydungtruonggia]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[ductrungnguyen87]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[camerasieunhovn]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[gamebazu]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

https://ift.tt/317VMfP

[kjt-lawyers]

The Local Finder vs. Google Maps: How Different Are They?

Posted by MiriamEllis

Google must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces!

Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings.

Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces.

Methodology

I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results.

Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder

Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results:

Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.

Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different. I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following:

Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.

Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people.

I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match.

Here’s a further breakdown of the data:

Average percentage of difference by search phrase

burgers (11%)

grocery store (19%)

Pediatrician (12%)

personal injury attorney (18%)

house cleaning service (10%)

electric vehicle dealer (16%)

best tacos (11%)

cheapest tax accountant (41%)

nearby attractions (8%)

women’s clothing (39%)

Average percentage of difference by city

Angels Camp (28%)

San Jose (15%)

San Rafael (24%)

San Francisco (4%)

Sacramento (16%)

Los Angeles (25%)

Monterey (14%)

San Diego (16%)

Eureka (25%)

Grass Valley (15%)

While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%.

It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%).

Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs.

For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally.

Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why?

The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed.

GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says:

“I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.”

Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level:

Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details:

“Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.”

Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight!

Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms:

“What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.”

In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms.

What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables?

As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform.

That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study.

1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases.

I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California:

For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results:

The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles.

Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps:

Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles!

As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders.

But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results.

For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things!

As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome:

The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).

Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.

The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment.

If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases.

2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing

As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new.

The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments:

Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboard

Add to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business Profile

Be sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank for

Earn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I

I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables.

3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future

Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps.

Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet.

I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version.

Summing up

Image credit: Ruparch

We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead.

I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age.

I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community.

Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide

Read the Guide!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[11alexanderlawgroupplc]

Should I Hire a Personal Injury Attorney?

You have probably seen the ads on blow showcasing failure attorneys, committing you legal lessening that you are so desperately in stipulation of. If you have recently been in an accident, or have been injured in a means that you sense someone else is liable for, then it may be best to consider hiring a personal violence attorney. There are many reasons why one would hire a professioanl attorney. The chasing are a few benefits to hiring an attorney.

Injury broker tins be very complex for an flag person to matter with, especially if that fellow is injured and under a enclosure of stress. If you are injured, then the health beings you should be focusing on is paperwork and legal semantics. This is just one opinion why hiring a personal wrath champion may be best for you. These attorneys will automate the entire legal current for you, so you won't have to anxiety closely categorizing any paperwork. Another foresight why hiring a personal injustice proponent would be a good goal is to receive reparations for any sovereignty misdeed that may have occurred during the claim in which you were injured. Often times property offense and offense go fist and hand. Aside from receiving financial intensity aid, it would be best to ensure the shelter and well creature of your independence as well, and a personal madness supporter can relief you with that.

One of the amount stressful parts of slices with any transgression box is having to go through the interviews that may be required when you submit your insurance claims. An supporter tins assistance you through these interviews and do mass of the talking for you. Also, if you have had to revenue time off of work, the champion will type sure you are granted whatever output you have missing do to the injury. You testament also receive help with any medical bills that have or evidence occur in the past and future. If you have an outstanding medical bill, and you are unsure how you are going to pay for it, then you should consult a personal bad booster as soon as possible.

Those are just some of the BASIC reasons why you should consider hiring a personal anger attorney. The benefits you testament reap from hiring a personal bad proponent evidence far outweigh any initial costs, as you evidence see a gains on your investment through the financial supporting you will receive due to the services of your attorney. Being injured is not an easy thing to go through, especially when you have to fear closely paying your bills in the process. It tins be very difficult to type a full healing financially, physically and mentally if you do not have a personal sin supporter at your side.

Brian Dinday is a personal damage https://www.alexanderlawgroupplc.com/   and San Francisco wrongful annihilation buddy  33 years of experience. He is a judge pro tem, arbitrator, and an educator for other attorneys polishing MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) credits. He has published numerous legal articles and has offices in San Francisco and in San Rafael, California.

[eliaandponto1]

San Rafael

San Rafael Personal Injury Attorneys | Accident Lawyers

At Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, we are dedicated to helping victims of personal injury and wrongful death get their lives back. If you have incurred significant medical bills, lost income, and other costs due to the negligence or intentional wrongdoing of another person, we want to hear your story. Our San Rafael personal injury attorneys will review your case for free and help you make informed decisions.

There’s no charge for the initial consultation, and if you decide to retain our legal services, you won’t owe any attorneys’ fees unless we win your case. Our law firm has recovered more than $300 million in settlements and verdicts for clients just like you. Call 1-800-GO-HARRIS today to schedule a case evaluation.

Types of Accident Cases We Handle in San Rafael, California

Auto Accidents

Commercial Truck Accidents

Train Wrecks

Motorbike Accidents

Dog Bites and Animal Attacks

Bus Accidents

Rideshare Vehicle Accidents

Turo Crashes

Airplane and Other Aircraft Accidents

Serious Burn Injuries

Spinal Cord Injuries (SCIs)

Brain Injuries

Pedestrian Injuries

Bike Accidents

Boat Accidents

Scooter Injuries

Premises Liability

Slip and Fall Accidents

Wrongful Death

Other Personal Injuries

We’ve Recovered Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for Clients

You can tell a lot about a law firm by reviewing the past results they have achieved for other clients. At Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, we have won more than $300 million in settlements and trial verdicts, making us one of the most accomplished law firms in the country.

Many of these cases involved complex disputes related to liability or damages. With many decades of combined experience, our attorneys have encountered just about every scenario that can arise during the claims process. We know what it takes to avoid and overcome disputes that could delay the proceedings or prevent our clients from recovering the full compensation they deserve.

It all starts with the initial consultation. One of our San Rafael personal injury lawyers will review any evidence you have gathered and ask questions to determine if you have grounds for a claim and how to approach the investigation.

Those questions might include:

How did your injuries occur?

Did you contribute to the accident that caused your injuries?

Did anyone witness the incident?

Did you notice any surveillance cameras that might have captured the accident?

Did police attend the scene? Were any chemical tests performed?

What evidence have you gathered?

Have you visited a doctor? What were your diagnosis and prognosis?

Has your injury prevented you from returning to work?

How has your injury affected your personal relationships?

You can ensure the investigation gets off to a strong start by considering your answers to the questions above and by bringing the following evidence with you to the initial consultation:

Medical bills and invoices;

Diagnostic imaging and other medical documentation;

Contact details of all parties involved including eyewitnesses;

Any other receipts, invoices, and estimates for accident-related expenses;

Recent tax returns and paystubs;

Any relevant insurance policies;

Photos of injuries, property damage, and the accident scene; and

The police report.

How Our San Rafael Injury Lawyers Can Help

The aftermath of a serious injury or death in the family is a stressful time. Getting answers to your questions is one of the easiest ways to quell any anxiety you are feeling about the proceedings. Our attorneys can provide the answers you seek and help you determine the most strategic way to proceed with the claims process.

Here are a few more ways our legal team may be able to help with your case:

Performing a Thorough Investigation: It is not uncommon for claimants to overlook important evidence. Our attorneys can visit the accident scene and perform a detailed investigation to compile all available evidence of liability and damages.

Consulting Experts in Various Disciplines: Medical, financial, vocational, and accident reconstruction experts often play an important role in claims investigations and litigation. Our San Rafael personal injury lawyers work with a broad network of experts in various disciplines who may be able to assist with your case.

Calculating Damages: If you overlook any damages you have incurred, you might wind up accepting a settlement that is less than what you are owed. Our lawyers can make sure you account for all potentially recoverable losses.

Negotiating with the Opposing Party: Our attorneys are skilled negotiators who know what it takes to maximize the potential value of our clients’ cases.

Speak with Our San Rafael Personal Injury Legal Team Today

If you’re searching for a law firm with a track record of success and a reputation for providing effective representation, turn to Harris Personal Injury Lawyers. We will provide an honest assessment of your case and be transparent regarding the strengths and weaknesses of your claim.

Schedule a free consultation by calling 1-800-GO-HARRIS. You can also fill out our contact form to reach us online.

Our Location

San Francisco{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}



San Francisco

650 Delancey Street #105,

San Francisco, CA 94107

United States (US)

Phone: 415-495-0440 Fax: 415-495-0444

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}

Call Us, We Can Come to You! Se Habla Español

415.495.0440

REQUEST A FREE CONSULTATION

Fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential consultation.

[contact-form-7]

San Francisco

650 Delancey Street #105,

San Francisco, CA 94107

United States (US)

Phone: 415-495-0440 Fax: 415-495-0444 Price range: Free Consultations & No Fees

Monday12:00 AM - 12:00 PMTuesday12:00 AM - 12:00 PMWednesday12:00 AM - 12:00 PMThursday12:00 AM - 12:00 PMFriday12:00 AM - 12:00 PMSaturday12:00 AM - 12:00 PMSunday12:00 AM - 12:00 PM

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@id":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/?post_type=wpseo_locations&p=19659\/#wpseo_location-19659","name":"San Francisco","url":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/san-francisco\/","@type":"LegalService","image":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","logo":"https:\/\/harrispersonalinjury.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/HPI-logo11.png","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"650 Delancey Street #105","addressLocality":"San Francisco","postalCode":"94107","addressRegion":"CA","addressCountry":"US"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":"37.7827982","longitude":"-122.3897154"},"openingHours":["Mo 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Tu 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","We 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Th 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Fr 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Sa 12:00 AM-12:00 PM","Su 12:00 AM-12:00 PM"],"telePhone":"415-495-0440","faxNumber":"415-495-0444","priceRange":"Free Consultations & No Fees"}

The post San Rafael appeared first on Harris Personal Injury Lawyers.

from https://ift.tt/2zX3g7Y