Critical Insights from Leaked Google API Docs about Video Content, Click Behavior, Local Authority, and Beyond in Local Search
When news broke of the leaked Google Search API docs last week, our team swiftly analyzed them for insights relevant to local SEO.
Initially, it seemed much of the “local” content ranged from basic (like confirming Google uses business addresses) to obscure details about map data formats that seemed irrelevant (“This content describes a representation of a material used to define the appearance of geometry surfaces…”).
Our primary focus remains on how this information can help our clients rank better in local search engine results pages (SERPs).
Spoiler alert: I’m still uncertain, but I’ve started formulating some thoughts and questions.
Here are some everyday observations circulating online about potential factors that might impact rankings:
- Chrome browser behavior.
- Identification of “toxic” backlinks.
- Possible limits on the diversity of site types in search results.
- Mentions (or “citations”) of your site on other websites.
- Topic authority.
- The impact of clicks on your URL in search results on rankings.
- Considerations around authorship.
- The frequency required to update a page before Google treats it as refreshed.
Given there could be countless other factors at play, let’s cut to the chase: Is there anything in these insights that can guide us in enhancing our local SEO strategies?
Below are some preliminary thoughts for discussion and further exploration.
Emphasizing Video Content for Enhanced SEO
Video, video, video! While not strictly a “local SEO” tip, it’s the most actionable insight I’ve gleaned from the leaked docs – or so it seems. According to the documentation:
isVideoFocusedSite: A flag indicating whether a site primarily features video content, even if it’s not hosted on typical video platforms. A site is classified as video-focused if over 50% of its URLs lead to watch pages.
Video content resonates well with audiences across various sectors in which we operate, as evidenced by the increasing prominence of video results in search engine results pages (SERPs).
Deciphering the Impact of Local Bot Clicks
Are local bots clicking ‘CRAP’? Suppose you’ve been immersed in local SEO. In that case, you’re probably familiar with services using bots to simulate location-based searches and clicks, aiming to bolster local pack rankings by enhancing “prominence” signals.
While much has been discussed regarding Rand Fishkin’s demonstration years ago that clicks matter for non-local SERPs; there’s been little public discourse on its relevance for local packs.
That’s why “QualityNavboostCrapsCrapsClickSignals.t,” identified as the “CRAPS signal for the locale,” caught my attention.
CRAPS likely stands for “click and results prediction system.” This implies that different locations may have specific scoring for how clicks impact rankings. But how can you determine this score?
My initial thought is to conduct multiple local bot clicks on competitor businesses across various related queries (e.g., “vet near me,” “animal hospital,” “dog vaccines in Pleasanton”) and observe the ranking changes. Test periodically to gauge variations over time or on different days. Once a reliable pattern emerges, consider applying it to your site.
It’s crucial to note that this approach likely violates Google’s Terms of Service, so I don’t recommend pursuing it. I’m simply interpreting the available information.
Understanding Local Authority vs. Topic Authority
In local SEO, we often distill success to proximity (how close you are to the search area), prominence (your perceived quality), and relevance (how well you match the query).
A leaked API doc on NSR (likely “normalized site rank”) introduces:
- titlematchScore: Evaluates how healthy titles match user queries.
- localityScore: A component of the LocalAuthority signal.
Theoretically, combining relevant title tags (enhancing “relevance”) with a strong localityScore (boosting “proximity”) should enhance local rankings, assuming adequate prominence.
Proximity adjustments are limited to creating location pages and encouraging location-specific reviews.
For this exercise, assume your locationScore is fixed. Experimenting with title tags across your site could yield results. What does “playing around” entail?
Consider ranking third for “SEO Company Pleasanton” in the local pack. If you crawl the top two sites, you might find roughly 10% of their title tags targeting variations of this query.
What if you adjusted your site’s titles so that 20% aligns with title match score criteria? Could this potentially elevate local rankings, impacting organic results more than the local pack? It appears straightforward to test, and I’m eager to explore this further tomorrow.
Comparing LSAs and Google Ads: Impact on Organic Rankings
Recently, Fishkin raised an intriguing question:
“If Chrome click stream data is used for rankings, does that mean paid clicks could boost organic rankings?”
Assuming this hypothesis holds, another pertinent question arises: which advertising unit has the most significant impact on rankings?
In local search, we encounter traditional PPC ads alongside Google Local Service Ads (LSAs), which prominently appear above local packs and other local search results.
It appears feasible to conduct comparative tests on different ad units to gauge their influence on rankings and organic clicks. However, direct testing could incur costs. Instead, consider monitoring competitors who heavily invest in these ads to observe how their rankings fluctuate—or remain stable—over time.
Strategizing with Local Search Result Diversity
Mike King discusses Twiddlers in terms of category constraints:
“Twiddlers can offer category constraints, meaning diversity can be promoted by specifically limiting the type of results. For instance, the author may only allow three blog posts in a given SERP. This can clarify when ranking is a lost cause based on your page format.”
SEOs have traditionally emphasized query intent by analyzing SERP result types. Perhaps Twiddlers align with those who believe there’s “nothing new here.”
That said, this concept sparked a realization about our approach. A typical observation in local intent checks is finding a few local businesses and directories (e.g., Yelp, Angi, Forbes) on organic SERPs.
Rather than fretting over competing with directories like Yelp, I now think, “There are only three directories in this search result. How can my local business become one of them?”
This isn’t a criticism of Yelp or similar sites, but they are directories with business listings and related content.
For example, as a local accountant, creating a page on my domain or a new site about top local accountants in my city could prop me to the top spot. (Still figuring that part out! 😜)
This strategy has long been a staple in B2B practices. There’s no reason why a local business couldn’t adopt a similar approach.
If you need help, check out our monthly SEO packages and let the experts help you.
