Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Etna, I don't have anything official from Google that I can point you to but I think this is fine. There are lots of examples of this in the wild, for examples: http://www.sainsburysenergy.com/products-and-services/reviews.html Your intent also isn't manipulative so I don't see what Google could be upset with you about. Just make sure to attribute the reviews appropriately and to show a balance. Sorry, I don't have anything more concrete to point you to. Craig

For the sake of my example let's use 4 URLs, 2 homepages, 2 internal pages (one for each language). www.domain.com www.domainjp.com www.domain.com/page.html www.domainjp.com/pagejp.html I am suggesting that in the of www.domain.com: In the of www.domainjp.com: In the of www.domain.com/page.html: In the of www.domain.com/pagejp.html: Using hreflang will just tell the search engines that they are the same pages, only in different languages. If that is true of the pages on each site, then you should implement a structure like the above. You would want a language change option on the sites just in case someone wants to change languages, but it's not necessary.

Hey Charlie - I realize this is a slightly old question post, but I am just now starting to dig into the details on this for my clients.  One thing many of these articles that offer a 'solution' is failing to address is what number to actually put on your local search listing. I understand DNI and as long as your website has your 'regular' static local number on the homepage, and you use the static number in all of your local SEO efforts - You should not see any penalties.  I have many clients that use DNI and do not have an issue, plus I have read that Google can even read the javascript and see the number the DNI is replacing. The DNI is only useful if someone actually clicks past the initial search result to call - So basically, you may still only be getting partial data if someone does not click to your site but just rather calls the number in search results. What my clients are now asking for, and I am pushing back on , is whether we can use separate call tracking numbers on separate Local SEO mediums. Here is an example - Google: 800-555-1234 Facebook: 800-555-1235 Bing Places: 800-555-1236 This would still keep the static/owned number on the site - but show us who is calling from where.  This would give good data in call tracking reports but from what I know and have researched, kills local SEO success due to NAP inconsistency.

I never mentioned anything about Pigeon?

Definitely just disavow.  John Mueller from Google said in a hangout that you should not be paying for link removal unless for some reason you feel that you have inconvenienced the site owner and feel that you ought to pay for the link to be removed.  In the same hangout a Google employee, Mariya said, "No! Don't pay for link removal!  That's what the disavow tool is for."  I've transcribed the video and given my thoughts on it here: http://www.hiswebmarketing.com/should-you-pay-for-link-removal/

Sorry for the cliffhanger, but I did some more research and wanted to follow up. After looking over the mobile site's backlink profile, I'm convinced it's not related to the mobile version having a better backlink set than the desktop (mobile backlinks = 4, desktop = 1,400). The overall quality of the backlink profile on the desktop version does not send up any red flags for me (or any of the software used to analyze). Mostly industry related Q&A links, local business listings, fairly low on general directories (about 3%), other hospital links (client is in the healthcare industry) No manual penalties were ever issued to the desktop version. I appreciate your feedback as well Bridget, the rel=alternate & rel=canonical for each version of the site appear to be appropriately inserted based on Google's guidelines, so I'm still scratching my head trying to figure this one out.

Charles its very difficult for me to respond to this question unless i have the url and the search queries . how the pages are optimized the g+ page where is it linking to for more information about the venice update check out this post on moz http://moz.com/blog/understand-and-rock-the-google-venice-update

Thanks for your responses. After digging around some more, I'm leaning towards this being related strongly to sitelinks and Google's discretion about where to display that snippet in the 7-pack. I tested this in Google's Structured Data Tool, and the site in question showed no authorship nor any structured data to display. Now I'm wondering if there's any connection between the position of the listing in the local-pack and G's tendencies to display these mini sitelinks.