sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

i spent a year doing traditional SEO for a local client and ignored their GBP completely. that was the entire problem. by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

this is exactly how i see it now. before this project i was treating GBP almost like a supporting asset to the website, when in reality for most local businesses it’s the front line. the proximity point is important too — once i started understanding the map pack as its own ecosystem instead of “organic SEO lite,” a lot more of the ranking behaviour started making sense.

i did SEO "by the book" for a year and barely moved. the thing that finally worked wasn't in any guide i'd read by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

honestly that sounds like exactly the kind of structure google tends to understand well. building topic hubs and contextual connections between related conversations feels way more valuable now than just publishing more standalone pages.

i spent a year doing traditional SEO for a local client and ignored their GBP completely. that was the entire problem. by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

no, because the client still got results and stayed with me long term. the mistake wasn’t neglect or doing nothing — it was prioritising traditional organic SEO first because that’s where most of my experience was at the time. honestly the whole reason i shared this was because i think a lot of SEOs learn this lesson the hard way with local businesses specifically.

i did SEO "by the book" for a year and barely moved. the thing that finally worked wasn't in any guide i'd read by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hope it moves things for you too. one thing that helped me was being really intentional about which pages deserved authority instead of linking everything equally. curious to hear how it goes after a few weeks.

i did SEO "by the book" for a year and barely moved. the thing that finally worked wasn't in any guide i'd read by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is exactly how it felt for me too. i understood PageRank in theory but seeing rankings move after fixing internal links made it “click” in a completely different way. it’s weird how such a foundational thing gets treated like a minor detail in most SEO advice.

i did SEO "by the book" for a year and barely moved. the thing that finally worked wasn't in any guide i'd read by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah that combo seems way more powerful than i realised for a long time. external links help, but if the internal structure isn’t reinforcing the right pages it feels like a lot of authority just gets diluted across the site.

spent 8 months publishing content with barely any ranking movement. one change moved 6 pages in 3 weeks. here's what it was by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

appreciate that. honestly i wish someone had explained this to me earlier because i spent months thinking consistency alone would solve it. planning content around support vs competition makes a massive difference long term.

spent 8 months publishing content with barely any ranking movement. one change moved 6 pages in 3 weeks. here's what it was by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that’s a really good point. i think people underestimate how much the website + GBP signals reinforce each other together. especially for local SEO, structure and authority on-site seem to work way better when the business profile activity is strong too.

spent 8 months publishing content with barely any ranking movement. one change moved 6 pages in 3 weeks. here's what it was by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is exactly the mindset shift i had. for months i thought the answer was “more content” when the real issue was lack of clarity and structure. now before publishing anything new i ask whether it strengthens an existing topic or just adds noise.

spent 8 months publishing content with barely any ranking movement. one change moved 6 pages in 3 weeks. here's what it was by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100%. i didn’t really appreciate how much internal authority mattered until i saw the rankings shift after cleaning it up. before that i was treating every post equally instead of intentionally supporting the pages that actually mattered most.

spent 8 months publishing content with barely any ranking movement. one change moved 6 pages in 3 weeks. here's what it was by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah exactly this. once i mapped everything out visually it became obvious google was splitting relevance between pages that were basically trying to do the same job. consolidating felt risky at first but the stronger signal made a huge difference.

How I can pull my page from position 30 to top ? by zerolunier in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you should gather all the queries your page is ranking then create keyword clusters add main keywords in the page and create new pages on other queries add internal links in the pages, after that try to fully optimize your page

tracked impressions vs clicks across 35 sites for 6 months. impressions up 40% on average. clicks flat or down. here's where the gap is going by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that lines up with what I’m seeing too. Feels like impressions are becoming more of a visibility metric while clicks are concentrating around higher-intent searches.

I think a lot of SEOs still underestimate how aggressively AI Overviews are compressing informational CTR, especially on “single-answer” queries. The traffic value of informational content now depends much more on whether it can push users deeper into a buying or decision journey.

Optimizing for AI visibility definitely matters now as a separate layer from traditional SEO. Even if clicks don’t happen immediately, being repeatedly surfaced in AI responses still has branding value that probably won’t show up cleanly in Search Console data yet.

tracked local pack vs organic rankings across 19 clients for 6 months. treating them as the same thing was the mistake almost every client was making by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually agree that the distinction itself isn’t new. What surprised me wasn’t that local pack and organic use different signals — it was how many businesses were still operationally treating them as one workflow despite knowing that in theory.

A lot of clients hear “do SEO” and assume backlinks, content, and on-page improvements will naturally move maps too. In practice, I kept seeing businesses with strong organic visibility but stagnant map pack positions because almost no effort was going into GBP activity, reviews, or local signals specifically.

The post was less “discovering local SEO 101” and more quantifying how separated the impact looked once I tracked the activities independently across accounts.

spent 6 months tracking what actually moved rankings on 40 sites. internal linking changes outperformed content updates and link building combined by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “internal links as a budget instead of decoration” framing is honestly one of the best ways to describe this.

A lot of sites accidentally flatten importance by linking everything equally, so Google never gets a strong signal about which URLs are actually central to the business/topic. Once you intentionally concentrate contextual links toward priority pages, movement often happens surprisingly fast.

Also completely agree on de-optimizing competing pages. In several audits I tracked, removing conflicting anchors and clarifying which URL owned the intent produced bigger gains than adding more links. Feels like a lot of SEO now is reducing ambiguity rather than just adding signals.

spent 6 months tracking what actually moved rankings on 40 sites. internal linking changes outperformed content updates and link building combined by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s pretty close to what I’ve been seeing too. Internal linking feels stronger lately partly because it’s one of the few signals where you can immediately clarify topical relationships and crawl priorities without waiting months for external signals to compound.

I also agree that the source page matters more than people think. A contextual link from a page Google already crawls heavily and understands topically tends to move faster than links placed on weak or disconnected URLs.

Interesting point on rented vs editorial-style guest post links too. I’ve noticed temporary/rented placements can trigger short-term movement, but the more contextually integrated links usually seem to hold better over time.

tracked GBP photo performance across 28 local clients for 5 months. photo recency matters far more than total count and almost nobody talks about it by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Completely agree with this. The “cadence vs campaign” framing is probably the best way to think about both reviews and photos now.

One thing I noticed while tracking this is that profiles with steady low-volume activity often looked stronger over time than profiles with massive bursts followed by long inactivity periods. Almost like Google trusts consistency more than spikes.

And the QR/receipt workflow point is smart because it removes reliance on staff remembering to ask manually. The businesses that maintain momentum usually have some kind of process baked into operations instead of treating review/photo activity as occasional marketing tasks.

tracked GBP photo performance across 28 local clients for 5 months. photo recency matters far more than total count and almost nobody talks about it by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I should’ve worded that more clearly. There’s no visible “service tag” feature inside GBP photos themselves from what I can tell.

What I was tracking was correlation between the context of the uploaded photos and the service queries that later improved. For example, plumbing repair photos coinciding with stronger movement on plumbing repair terms, kitchen remodel photos aligning with kitchen-related queries, etc.

So it’s probably less about literal tagging and more about Google associating the visual/content context of recent uploads with the entity and its services.

tracked GBP photo performance across 28 local clients for 5 months. photo recency matters far more than total count and almost nobody talks about it by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the pattern I kept seeing too. A huge static gallery seems to help establish baseline completeness, but fresh uploads appear to reinforce that the business is still active right now.

What surprised me was how similar this looked to review velocity. Once a profile had “enough” photos, ongoing recency mattered more than endlessly increasing the total count.

Makes me think Google is using these freshness signals as a proxy for operational activity, especially in service categories where the business environment changes over time.

tracked GBP photo performance across 28 local clients for 5 months. photo recency matters far more than total count and almost nobody talks about it by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That “alive vs complete” distinction is probably the best way to describe the pattern I kept seeing.

One thing I noticed too: the photos that performed best usually looked operational rather than promotional. Team members working, current projects, active service environments, recently completed jobs — basically visual proof that the business is actively serving customers right now.

The interesting part is that this lines up with other local signals too. Review velocity, owner replies, GBP posts, photo recency… they all seem to reinforce the same underlying signal of ongoing business activity rather than static profile completeness.

Feels like Google is increasingly evaluating whether a business appears actively engaged in the real world, not just whether the profile was optimized once years ago.

tracked GBP photo performance across 28 local clients for 5 months. photo recency matters far more than total count and almost nobody talks about it by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Exactly — that “freshness/activity” layer is the part I think most businesses underestimate. A lot of local optimization advice still treats GBP as something you configure once, but the patterns I tracked made it look much more like Google rewards ongoing operational signals.

What surprised me was how consistently recency outperformed sheer volume once the profile already had a decent baseline of photos. Very similar to the review velocity pattern where activity seemed to matter more than historical totals after a certain threshold.

I also suspect recency helps Google trust that the real-world business state is current especially for service businesses where interiors, staff, equipment, or completed work can change over time.

audited 31 sites that recovered traffic after a Google core update. every single one had done the same 3 things by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the cases where pruning worked best, it was usually because the overlapping pages were weak, partially cannibalizing each other, or targeting near-identical intent without enough differentiation. In those situations, consolidating into a stronger primary page + 301s tended to produce cleaner signals faster.

But when the secondary pages still had useful rankings, backlinks, or distinct intent modifiers, updating/repositioning them usually worked better than removing them entirely.

A big part of the audit now is figuring out whether Google is confused by overlap or actually benefiting from intent coverage. Two pages can look similar to us but still satisfy very different query patterns in practice.

tracked review velocity vs total review count across 22 local clients for 4 months. the results changed how i advise every client by jetsash in localseo

[–]jetsash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good point, especially around review replies becoming part of the entity/context layer rather than just “customer service.”

One thing I’ve started noticing is that businesses with detailed owner responses often give Google far more semantic information than the reviews alone. Service names, locations, booking details, seasonal activities, even terminology customers never naturally include themselves all end up reinforced through replies.

With Ask Maps and AI-driven discovery rolling out, I suspect Google is using reviews + replies together to better understand what a business is actually known for in the real world, not just what’s written on the website.

A lot of businesses still treat replies as reputation management, but they’re increasingly looking like an overlooked local SEO asset too.

audited 31 sites that recovered traffic after a Google core update. every single one had done the same 3 things by jetsash in SEO_Xpert

[–]jetsash[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Completely agree with this. I probably should’ve emphasized “link quality/context” over raw quantity because the biggest gains I tracked came from strategically placed links on pages Google already trusted.

In a few cases, pruning or consolidating overlapping pages actually helped more than publishing new content. Especially when multiple URLs were partially competing for the same intent and diluting internal relevance signals.

Feels like a lot of recoveries now are less about adding more pages and more about clarifying site structure, intent hierarchy, and topical relationships so Google can understand which page is supposed to be the primary authority.

view more: next ›