- Jul 24, 2012
Oh gosh, one more question actually Do you think we should update the schema for Local Business markup on the website to "Practice Name: Physician Name" as well? Thanks!!
The format should be Physician Name by itself/first to avoid confusion with the practice listing. Either is acceptable but putting the practice name first just leads to trouble/confusion.Oh gosh, one more question actually Do you think we should update the schema for Local Business markup on the website to "Practice Name: Physician Name" as well? Thanks!!
I missed that. I never use the practice name rather use only the practitioner name and credential for non-claimed features. Its a horrible UX for people using map because the practicioner name often gets truncated in results, esp for long practice names. I have no idea why GMB would think this is a preferred format. It just logically makes no sense to put the less important info at the end and potentially confuse people when they are presented with multiple results that all look very similar.Hi Andrew,
This thread is about the new GMB guidelines, linked to in the 1st post.
The new rules explicitly state "Practice: Practitioner" is the recommended format now.
"Solo practitioners belonging to branded organizations
If a practitioner is the sole public-facing one at this location and represents a branded organization, the practitioner page should not be separate from the organization’s page. Instead, create a single page, titled using the following format: [brand/company]: [practitioner name].
Acceptable: "Allstate: Joe Miller" (if Joe is the sole public-facing practitioner at this Allstate-branded location)"
Is this in conflict with the way they recommend it in MM currently?
I hear you Andrew. Keep in mind though on your last comment this is only for sole practitioners and I think the confusion you are referring to is when there are several Drs or agents at one location. When that's the case it's still practitioner name only.and potentially confuse people when they are presented with multiple results that all look very similar.
Back when I still worked on Dentist listings, I always naturally did a combo name for solo practitioners. (Unless the practice name made it too crazy long.)
My thought process was, that way we can take credit for all the citations whether they are for practice or practitioner. But even more than that, I hoped it would help eliminate dupes. When Google continued to find citations for one or the other name, she'd hopefully attribute to the combo name listing instead of creating a new one.
So when Google came out with this new guideline I thought it was brilliant and confirms my thinking above. And I'm sure that's exactly why they did it. They realize many directories will list one name or the other, so hopefully the combo name will work as a catch-all.
2 strikes against me! I missed the solo part. I definitely need to parse the entire thing. It looks like they have some good rules on names for what is or isn't allowed. Thanks for setting me straight.I hear you Andrew. Keep in mind though on your last comment this is only for sole practitioners and I think the confusion you are referring to is when there are several Drs or agents at one location. When that's the case it's still practitioner name only.
But in the case of a solo Dr for instance Alpine Dental: John Smith DDS makes so much sense for the reasons I mentioned above.
Yes I'd minimize them just like other practitioner listings.I agree that I don't think PA-Cs should be considered practicioners. It's a bummer how they populate on their own though and requires cleanup work!