Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The only time Google will factor zip code into a search is if you specifically enter the zip code in your search: “Dentist near me 11219”. In which case you are telling Google to return results for dentists in that zip. Otherwise, the algorithm will use your location and give you results based off of distance.

Organic Google search results are less affected by proximity than Google Maps results.

This is invaluable data which helps you determine which keywords need better optimization, and when an area is so far out of reach for ranking well that a PPC campaign would be a good option.

Zip code tracking is perfectly fine for some industries. If you work with an industry like dentists or restaurants that have a high density of competition in a small radius, zip code tracking will be very inaccurate. I’d suggest scanning some manually in Incognito mode using this Chrome extension to see if there is much variance within the same zip code. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gs-location-changer/blpgcfdpnimjdojecbpagkllfnkajglp

I am not making any sort of definitive statements

What moves me, however, is when I look at 100 keywords I start seeing the same content-oriented theme arise again and again.

What I’m trying to say, and as you’ll see in the examples I will get into later, is that the content that was more focused on the specific topic mentioned in the query did better. So while the "ultimate guide” here did get to the topic the query deals with, it was not exclusively about that topic.

This might call the entire strategy of creating these ultimate guides into question. Perhaps you can’t cast a wide net in that way anymore? Perhaps, the "ultimate guide” is only really suitable for people who actually want to get a more broad understanding of a topic? (Crazy to think, I know!)

The pages from Rocket Mortgage, on the other hand, is only about how much you need for a down payment:

So too is the page from Quicken Loans:

The Moral of the Story: If I want to understand how much money on average I need to put down when buying a house or what the various options generally are and what they mean long term, the CFPG page, .gov or not, doesn’t really help me. Its content is not specifically honed in on that particular topic. Again, we have another page that takes a sweeping look at a topic that lost rankings when the query reflected a more specific sort of intent!

What’s interesting here is that unlike the previous examples, where too much content resulted in the page’s topical relevance being diluted, the lack of such content here is what I think caused the ranking loss. Look, it’s not bad content. However, it’s pretty much the "general” kind of content you see here, there, and everywhere for all sorts of topics. Just compare it to what the page from the Credit Card Insider offers:

This just oozes depth. The third topic on the page alone (6 Ways to Pay Off…) rivals the depth shown on the CreditCards.com page! What differentiates this page from the "guides” shown in the other examples is that this is a guide that drills deep into one topic as opposed to trying to span multiple subtopics. Also, have a look at the formatting, it reminds me of what we saw on the Motley Fool’s page:

It’s deep content that is easy to digest. It’s not hard to see why Google swapped these two pages.

The Moral of the Story: Exact content relevancy is not only about what topic you talk about. You can be topically aligned but it has to offer real information to the user. It’s even better when that information is digestible. In other words, if you want to rank for a keyword with topic specificity it might be better to create an "ultimate guide” that drills deep into the topic itself versus trying to cover every subtopic under the sun in order to try to rank for more topics with one piece of content.

The by-line really sums it up. It tells you this article is about the fact that you most likely won't get addicted to painkillers, but it’s definitely possible so here’s the scoop. To me, it’s far more in line with the average user’s intent of learning about the risks of addiction versus understanding the fine difference between addiction and dependence. It’s the same story with the WebMD page:

The Moral of the Story: Again, the issue here is not how authoritative or how substantial the content is. There is no doubt that content from the NIH is both substantial and authoritative. The issue here again seems to relate to Google being better able to show content that is specifically relevant to the nature of the query.

First things first, the page doesn’t speak to the query directly. While in the process of learning the difference between sadness and depression one could understand the signs of depression that route is certainly indirect. You could argue that the query how to tell if you have depression could be taken as ‘how do I know if I am just sad or depressed?’ but that really doesn’t seem to be the essential intent here. That topical line (i.e., sadness vs. depression) would most likely produce its own unique query (i.e., am I sad or depressed). From the content shown on the WebMD page, it appears that Google thinks of the intent as understanding the symptoms of depression:

The WebMD, in contradistinction to the MHA page, speaks to the "plain meaning” of the query’s intent… how can you tell if you’re suffering from depression? Aside from that, the WebMD page offers a bit more in terms of substance. While it doesn’t go into great detail per se, the WebMD page does offer a pretty comprehensive list of items. Compare that to the MHA page which, if you read it, is a bit thin and lacks tremendously in offering much of any details (even a basic list as seen on the WebMD page). The Moral of the Story: Relevancy is a two-pronged equation (at minimum). It requires the content to be topically focused on the one hand as well as substantial on the other

I’ve saved the best for last. This is my favorite example that I came across when diving into the December 2020 Core Update. I mean, for crying out loud, we’re talking about the CDC losing rankings in favor of a .org domain I never heard of. How could this be? Let’s understand the intent of the query. If I were searching for this it would be because I found something on my body that I thought might be skin cancer. If I could be so bold, I would imagine that this is why most of us would search for this term. I wouldn’t, and again I imagine most people in most instances wouldn’t search for this in order to understand if regular screening is officially recommended or not. Yet, that is what the CDC page is about:

I hate to make assumptions, but I would also think that someone running this query is most likely not interested in the common tests and methods doctors use to determine if skin cancer is present. Yet, this is what the page from Cancer.net focuses on:

Again, I would search for this term if I saw something weird on my body that made me think "Holy crap, do I have skin cancer?”. The page from the AOCD is entirely made for people on the verge of freaking out at the possibility of having skin cancer:

To me, when you see this page relative to the pages from Cancer.net and the CDC is painfully obvious why this page got the ranking boost. The Moral of the Story: Again, I think what has transpired here is painfully obvious. Google has looked past the immediate authority of some of the pages here and has more heavily considered how relevant the content is to the query. As with the cases I have shown earlier, Google is rewarding content that speaks in a highly-focused way to the intent and nature of the query. What Was the December 2020 Core Update About? Are you expecting a one-liner that definitively characterizes the December 2020 update? You’re not going to get one from me.  This update, like any other, certainly included a whole plethora of different "algorithmic considerations” and themes. That said, from where I sit, while other core updates did things to help put the most authoritative content at the top of the SERP, this update seemed to me as being more about pure relevancy. Updates of the past have done things to weed out sites using a marketing tone within YMYL informational content or have rewarded sites that put the right content ahead of their affiliate pursuits. All of that, while part of relevancy, speaks more to a need for something authoritative at the top of the SERP. Seeing so many .gov pages drop in favor of pages from sites like Healthline or WebMD seems to point to the update rewarding relevancy to the nth degree. Perhaps Google felt as if it had "authority” at the top of the SERP in order, paving the way for a focus on relevance? Who knows. All I can say is that I personally have not seen such a strong focus on pure relevance on page one of the SERP. Content Creation Takeaways Practically speaking, I think the era of broadly reaching pages is quickly coming to an end. I think that has been the case for a while. However, seeing Google pull pages off page one of the SERP because they deal with multiple subtopics is a new level, at least for me. It shows that you have to create content that talks about one topic and one topic only (unless the keyword reflects a specific desire for a broader survey of a topic). I wonder if the idea of having one ultimate guide so as to win numerous keywords should be replaced with multiple posts where each post deals with one specific topic or subtopic. (If you do that, please don’t create thin content, that is not what I am advocating for.) It’s a rather logical concept. As Google gets better at understanding content it is going to prefer highly-focused content around a specific topic to that which is of a more broad nature unless the query specifically shows intent for a general survey of a topic.

Older listings are more likely to have place labels. 

If you have an editorial summary, there is a pretty good chance you’ll also get a place label

User engagement is likely a large factor for determining which businesses get a place label.

Listings that had popular times graphs on them (ie: businesses that get a lot of physical store visits) were a lot more likely to have a place label

In Toronto, only 5% of businesses that we looked at had an active Google post.

Professional services (lawyers, dentists etc) are the least likely to have them.

In Toronto, the businesses that had place labels in the 0-3 zoom levels had an average of 8,659 searches a month.  For the businesses that didn’t get a place label, the average was 565.

During this study, we looked at 12 different factors on 395 businesses in 3 different cities.  We purposely chose cities that had varying populations to see how this differed for businesses that had tons of competition.