One of the questions on the minds of some local publishers prior to this week’s “Farmer” Google algorithm update focused on the outlook for local SEO going forward. If you’re an individual business or niche site you’re probably doing fine; if you’re an “aggregator” you might not be.
Now Farmer raises additional questions about how Google is treating local sites that essentially use the same data from mostly the same sources.
In July, 2010 John Hanke, then in charge of local/maps for Google, made the following comment at a conference about what constitutes a good local directory or site for ranking purposes: “A good local site is one that adds rich information and doesn’t simply regurgitate the Acxiom local database.”
The Farmer update is intended to strike a what Google perceives to be “low quality” sites. It’s impact appears to be not just on individual pages but site-wide. Here’s what the Google Blog post said:
But in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking—a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries—and we wanted to let people know what’s going on. This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on.
I tried to speak with Google and determine whether this would impact sites that republish the local database, as well as new sites relying on myriad local data APIs (CityGrid, deCarta, SimpleGEO, Factual). Google spoke to me off the record but wouldn’t comment on the specifics.
I didn’t come away with greater clarity about Google’s attitude toward the myriad sites that use the same local data. My guess however is that Farmer equally applies to local sites. Here’s the statement Google provided me:
In general we don’t comment on how specific algorithmic improvements impact specific websites.
The operative language, which I was referred back to, is this: “sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful.” My interpretation is that sites that only publish the “Acxiom local database” (as mentioned) without substantially more content and functionality built around it will suffer.
I haven’t been systematically monitoring rankings among the local sites so it’s hard for me to do “before” and “after” analysis today. However, I noticed some things that suggested some of the familiar local publishers may be getting hit.
A search for “San Francisco plumbers” features only one IYP site (Superpages) in the 11th position, out of 12. It’s also well below the fold. Yelp is the top organic link. My memory from the post Places algo changes is that the IYPs were still doing pretty well. However Superpages is the top organic link for “HVAC repair Dallas.”
The search “divorce attorney” showed no IYP sites and the search “divorce attorney San Jose” showed only Superpages in a similarly low below-the-fold position though still on page one. I also saw Citysearch in lower positions than I recall for some local search categories.
I’m curious to hear what others are seeing as well as theories about how Farmer may or may not impact the local space. I do think it’s going to effectively wipe out many “tier 3 or 4″ local sites that rely primarily on SEO traffic and have no presence or identity in the market otherwise.
Update: See this analysis and which sites are off post-Farmer. Among others, Business.com, AmericanTowns and MerchantCircle seem to have been hit according to this analysis.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I see few changes vs. three months ago. For example, “Plumber Hartford CT” still places Superpages in #1 position. There is a slight re-shuffeling of Place listings, and the same local business sites fall into the reminaing positons on first page. Second page; more superpages links and some additional aggregators (eLocal, Service Magic, Indeed.com). No Merchant Circle, no other IYP’s – which is surprising. I’d like to know why Google thinks other directories like MC and yellowbook.com are less relevant than showing two or three more links to Superpages? Good news overall – solid, honest SEO is more important than ever; R.I.P. link and content farms.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Yes . . . yellowpages.com doesn’t seem to be around either.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Similarly, I also have a question: What are the standards that Google adheres to so that a website will not be considered as an “aggregator?” I’ve noticed that Google is widely used for internet marketing for local businesses, that’s why I wanted some clarifications. Thanks for this post!
February 27th, 2011 at 12:20 am
[Caveat - I am a deCarta employee]. Interesting that Google gets even more “hostile” to the IYP community. Wonder if this will change more of their opinions about partnering with a competitor that can (and will) change their relevance in the blink of an eye. Should be interesting to see
February 27th, 2011 at 4:57 am
I had someone whose site had been demoted today say to me that Google is punishing aggregators “because it wants to be the aggregator.”
February 27th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Greg, your last comment is spot-on. And anyone who hasn’t seen this coming three years ago has not been paying attention…Andrew has been preaching for years that IYP-type sites need to differentiate their content in some meaningful way, beyond just advertising options, if they want to continue to draw organic traffic from G.
February 28th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Creative content is king. Big g wants to take this to the next level and become the ISP (clearwire). They are forcing video (YouTube) media to be created and becoming the aggregator of all online media. This rocket is only going in one direction…to the moon
February 28th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Years ago we learned that if one gets high rankings, the IYP’s become unnecessary and in fact Google becomes the world’s biggest IYP. All others lose their importance. All the subsequent steps taken by Google, including the latest “farmer update” only emphasize that point.
David, referencing Andrew Shotland’s comments about publishers needing to create unique content is simply reinforced, once again.
Assuming many publishers and aggregators take a web beating I’m wondering how this might impact the ability to obtain NAP (name, address, phone number) citations going forward.
February 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
It takes a content farmer to know one… or two… or three… or…
March 1st, 2011 at 2:57 am
Here’s the irony guys – from what I can see a lot of smaller IYPs, particularly those with offline brands, just got a bump up thanks to the Farmer Update, despite being mostly just a set of local biz listings and not much more.
March 1st, 2011 at 3:02 am
That’s just bizarre.
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 am
Even if you have unique content (ie Yelp), Google just scrapes it and pastes it into their product as illustrated by Greg’s recent SEL article. Aside from reviews, what other unique, and more importantly, relevant content can sites create for searches like [San Francisco plumbers]?
Totally agree with the above comments…Most everyone has seen this coming. Google knows that the IYP model is the solution to these types of queries. And with the surge of mobile, what better time to create and expand their own version of a local IYP offering. And what better way to introduce such an offering than through the auspices of organic “universal search”?
If they continue to build a sales force and break into the SMB marketing niche (think boost, deals, etc) in the way it seems they’re trying, it’s going to get really interesting.
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:14 pm
[...] Will Google’s ‘Farmer’ Algo Impact Local? [...]
March 26th, 2011 at 8:28 am
d