Hi everyone,
I’m dealing with an interesting local SEO situation and would love to hear your thoughts.
I run a service website in a small town in Poland (around 15k population), but the competition is very high because companies from a 50 km radius are targeting the same main city in the region.
Here’s the situation:
- For the query: “service name + city”, my page ranks Top 3 (was Top 2 for a long time).
- I also rank Top 1 for several smaller surrounding towns using dedicated location pages.
- My Google Business Profile is Top 1 in the Map Pack with strong reviews, and the website is linked from the profile.
- Competitors have older domains and many of them clearly use PBNs.
- I built dedicated blog-style location pages for each town and city.
- I continuously improve UX, internal structure, and build my own supporting sites.
The problem is this:
When someone types only “service name” and Google automatically detects their location (the same city where I rank Top 3 for “service name + city”), my website is completely invisible in organic results.
What’s interesting:
- My competitors rank with the exact same pages for both queries: “service name + city” and just “service name” with implicit location.
- In my case, Google treats these as completely different worlds.
- I previously implemented Geo schema / geojson, but it didn’t change anything.
So it looks like:
Google understands my site perfectly when the city is explicitly in the query,
but fails to connect me with that same city when the location is implicit.
Has anyone dealt with a similar issue where:
you rank well for explicit geo queries, but are invisible for implicit local intent queries?
I’m trying to understand whether this is:
- an entity / topical authority problem,
- internal linking / structure issue,
- homepage vs location page conflict,
- or something related to how Google interprets my site’s geographic relevance.
Any ideas or experiences would be greatly appreciated.
[link] [comments]
from Search Engine Optimization: The Latest SEO News https://ift.tt/lrpJnHK
Comments
Post a Comment