Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I have an issue regarding local rankings for multiple locations within the SAME city, and I'm hoping to start a productive discussion about the various options for helping a second location gain visibility in the local pack. Here's the context…My business is an electronic cigarette shop in New Orleans, called Crescent City Vape. Our first location (Uptown) opened up a year ago and ranks very well in the local-pack as well as organic results for target keywords, as well as brand terms. Our second location opened up 2 months ago, also in New Orleans (Lower Garden District), about 3 miles away from the first shop. This shop, however, is not visible locally or organically, unless we get extremely specific with a branded search query like "Crescent City Vape Lower Garden District" or "Crescent City Vape St. Charles Ave." It does not rank locally for "Crescent City Vape" or "Crescent City Vape New Orleans" We have one website: crescentcityvape.com -- and both shops have a location landing page on the main site: crescentcityvape.com/uptown
crescentcityvape.com/lower-garden However, when we launched our local SEO work for the first shop, we used the homepage as the URL in Google+ Local, as well as all of our citations. When we launched the second shop, we used the location landing page as the URL for G+ and all of our citations. We also added a location modifier to the business name on G+ Local: Crescent City Vape - Lower Garden District Both shops have 5+ reviews on Google+ Local, and both shops have citation profiles that are better than any other competitor. I'm confident that the local SEO basics are covered…and this is evident from the solid local and organic rankings for the original shop. My concern isn't that the second shop is ranking worse than the first. I expected this. But I am very concerned that the second shop doesn't even rank for a branded search like "Crescent City Vape." You have to get unrealistically specific with local descriptors to see the G+ local result for the second shop. e.g. "Crescent City Vape Lower Garden District". Here are some of the options and questions I've been pondering. Would love anyone's thoughts on what's worth trying and what might be too risky…since obviously I do not want to sacrifice rankings for the original shop. Changing the G+ URL of the second shop to the homepage (rather than that local landing page). In this case, G+ pages for both locations would link to the homepage. Then updating Moz Local and other citations accordingly with the URL as the homepage. My concern is that this will end up hurting rankings for the original shop more than helping rankings for the second shop. Removing the location modifier from the second shop's Google+ Local business name. When you google "Starbucks" or "McDonalds" you get a local-pack that usually includes 3 of their locations in the pack, and none have location modifiers. I'm wondering if the modifier is sending the wrong signal, because right now, when you Google "Crescent City Vape" only the original location shows up with a local result. Changing the modifier for the second shop's Google+ Local business name to something like "Crescent City Vape: New Orleans E-Cigs". Some of our competitors have added keywords to their G+ names and it's been effective for them. I know this is not aligned with Google guidelines, and may be a risky play. We don't have anything to lose with the second location if we try this…However, is there any chance this would negatively affect our original shop's rankings (since it's the same domain)? If we went in this direction, should I update our citations accordingly? And build new ones with this new "name"? Does page authority of the business URL have an impact on G+ Local rankings? i.e. would building quality links to the local landing page have much of an impact? i.e. is that a productive use of time and resources, as opposed to promoting the homepage and other more important landing pages? Appreciate your thoughts and feedback! Hopefully this discussion will be helpful for other businesses trying to rank for more than one location in the same city. Thanks!

We just started working with a local business with several offices across Virginia. All of their locations have G+ local pages, and all rank pretty well in map-pack results for their respective cities....except for one location. Two of their offices happen to be in the same city. One ranks well in the local pack, and the other one is totally buried. This is the only location that doesn't rank in the map-pack for its target local queries. This company still has a TON of work to do to clean-up their citations and improve their G+ local pages across all the locations, but I'm wondering if there are any best practices for handling two locations within the same city...we obviously want both offices to rank in the map-pack, and don't want to do anything that might hurt the one that is currently ranking well. I'm confident that generally cleaning up their profile across the board, and adding new citations for all locations would be beneficial, but would appreciate any suggestions or best practices for getting both locations in this one city to perform well. Thanks!

I have a client with two websites. Here are some details, sorry I can't be more specific! Their older site -- specific to one product -- has a very high DA and about 75K visits per month, 80% of which comes from search engines. Their newer site -- focused generally on the brand -- is their top priority. The content here is much better. The vast majority of visits are from referrals (mainly social channels and an email newsletter) and direct traffic. Search traffic is relatively low though. I really want to boost search traffic to site #2. And I'd like to piggy back off some of the search traffic from site #1. Here's my question: If a particular article on site #1 (that ranks very well) needs to be updated, what's the risk/reward of updating the content on site #2 instead and 301 redirecting the original post to the newer post on site #2? Part 2: There are dozens of posts on site #1 that can be improved and updated. Is there an extra risk (or diminishing returns) associated with doing this across many posts? Hope this makes sense. Thanks for your help!

One of our clients has a blog with an English and Spanish version of every blog post. It's in WordPress and we're using the Q-Translate plugin. The problem is that my company is publishing blog posts in English only. The client is then responsible for having the piece translated, at which point we can add the translation to the blog. So the process is working like this: We add the post in English. We literally copy the exact same English content to the Spanish version, to serve as a placeholder until it's translated by the client. (*Question on this below) We give the Spanish page a placeholder title tag, so at least the title tags will not be duplicate in the mean time. We publish. Two pages go live with the exact same content and different title tags. A week or more later, we get the translated version of the post, and add that as the Spanish version, updating the content, links, and meta data. Our posts typically get indexed very quickly, so I'm worried that this is creating a duplicate content issue. What do you think? What we're noticing is that growth in search traffic is much flatter than it usually is after the first month of a new client blog. I'm looking for any suggestions and advice to make this process more successful for the client. *Would it be better to leave the Spanish page blank? Or add a sentence like: "This post is only available in English" with a link to the English version? Additionally, if you know of a relatively inexpensive but high-quality translation service that can turn these translations around quicker than my client can, I would love to hear about it. Thanks! David

Howdy, A client of mine has a shared office space, where several other businesses share the exact same address, including the same suite number. I realize that this is likely one of the biggest issues holding them back in local/blended search results in their market, which is a very competitive one. (They do have a completely unique local phone number.) They have tons of citations -- way more citations than anyone else at the same address -- so they are definitely the most visible. They are ranking pretty well -- top of page two in organic results (overall top 10 organic if you exclude the places results) and top of page 3 in places results for some select local search terms. But obviously top of page one as a blended result is where we want to be. They have a lot of great content, a lot of quality links and citations. Out of all the competitors ranking ahead of them, a few do indeed deserve to be there, but most do not -- i.e. they have lower DA, PA, worse links, fewer links, no content / shit content compared to my client, and some even have incomplete Google profiles. I really think this could be the sole issue holding my client back from appearing in blended results on page one. What should we do? If I convince them to change their address, we'll have to update thousands of citations, many of which we don't have access to. In reality, we would be able to update some, but not all citations. This also could cause a short term rankings decline, and/or Google Places limbo for who knows how long! Is it possible to overcome this problem if they keep the same address? In a less competitive market I would think it's quite possible, but I'm not so sure in this case. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
David

I have a client who has 10 locations throughout Colorado. Each has it's own claimed Google Places profile. I know that Google is encouraging a unqiue page on your site for each individual office location, and then aligning each location's page with it's Google Places profile. Could this create a duplicate content or thin content issue though? Each location's page on the site would have essentially the same or similar content -- just with a unique address and phone number. They're a law firm, so the company information is the same across all locations, other than the address and phone number. We could re-write the content so it's not completely the same, but for 10 locations that gets a little crazy, and still doesn't create truly unique/original content. If we get too creative with the content on each page, it would be counterproductive because these are landing pages so i want them to have the firm's major selling points to help convert. Also, the firm is ranking very well in organic and blended/local search for Colorado terms and all individual locations EXCEPT Denver, the biggest and most important market by far. Trying to move from page 3 to page 1 in Denver is important enough to warrant making the necessary changes. I just don't want to damage all the progress we've already made. I look forward to your feedback! Thanks!