Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for specifying the duplicate content considerations here John. I think we've envisioned all of the above re-uses containing links and explicit reference to the original site and review. Having not yet read each site's stipulations, it seems to me like they'd appreciate the free publicity and resulting backlinks to their sites. We'd even envisioned having branded site icons next to each re-used/referenced review so users can click directly to said review and read others on the original site. I'm curious to explore the stipulations to see if there's expressed reasoning for not liking the practice.

booya. I think I was remembering an earlier iteration of this, perhaps before the GetListed acquisition. But that's essentially what I'm looking for. Thanks Rand. Don't know why I didn't see that particular link. Have a good one. Take care of my home Seattle for me.

This makes sense, and is a good way of framing it. Thanks very much. Your answer here made me see that my two tests (Indianapolis and Rossville) actually showed somewhat different algorithm principles. I understand that with the increase of mobile and thus 'conversational' voice searches, the inclusion of a place name is less and less common. Thus with the 'Rossville' example, since 'Rossville' is ambiguous and was not differentiated from other Rossvilles I can see how others might creep in. Even so, I would think Google would be programmed to first see that my location is set in Rossville, IN, and thus conclude that Rossville, IN must be the one I'm referring to. If every search was done on mobile, then I can maybe understand seeing Rossville, PA, and Rossville, GA in the SERPs. But even then, not in position 1 and 2 before Rossville, IN, where I am located... So, when I specified a very unambiguous place name (Indianapolis), while my location is set to that same unambiguous place (Indianapolis, IN), would Google's algos look outside of Indianapolis, like it did with Rossville? It turns out the inverse process is happening here (I think). I went back to look at the results for 'foundation repair indianapolis' and found that the listings were extra-localized, starting with businesses that have an indianapolis address, and moving concentrically outward from there. But again, we rank highly when location is set to Indianapolis, IN, and simply search 'foundation repair'. Apparently in this case, when a search string does not specify disambiguated place-names, Google produces items related to {foundation repair} in the general vicinity of {indianapolis}, based on the inferred location data, instead of the other approach which yields limited results within the city. This is surprising to me (though beneficial to us). I'm probably constructing too detailed of a process here based on just a couple small tests. I'd love any other input. And sorry for the novel!! I'm trying to work all this out. It's an interesting discussion though. I hope it's helpful to someone in the forums.