Google Believes It Has Ended (Some) Hijacked Listings In Google Maps

Recent statements suggest that Google believes it has eliminated the hijacking of claimed business listings in Google Maps, and that hijackings overall (of both claimed and unclaimed listings) are now a rarity.

Speaking last week at SMX West, Google’s Jennifer Chin, also known as “Maps Guide Jen” in the Google Maps Help Forum, said that overall hijacking is “rare” now on Google Maps. I paraphrased Jen’s comments on my Small Business Search Marketing blog:

“We’re confident that hijacking is rare now, and we’ve put in a lot of checks to prevent it. Some cases that look like a hijacking really aren’t.”

Most hijackings on Google Maps involve unclaimed business listings, as Danny Sullivan showed previously when he took over Yahoo’s listing, put it in Microsoft’s name, and turned them into an escort service. The problem here is that Google takes a wiki-like approach to unclaimed business listings, allowing anyone to change them.

The more specific issue surrounds the hijacking of claimed business listings, something that should, in theory, never happen. But in practice, it does.

Mike Blumenthal wrote last week that Google now says they’ve fixed a vulnerability that allowed spammers to take over claimed listings. This was a particular problem in the locksmith industry. From talking with marketers in that industry, Mike learned and described how amazingly simple it was for anyone to take over a claimed listing:

“The ‘blackhat’ would create, in their Local Business Center account, a new local business listing with exactly the same information as an existing Locksmith would. The fields would be identical to the legitimate listing with the exception of a different phone number which Google would verify against. Once the new record was validated, the content would merge with the other data in the cluster but take precedence as the most recent. Once the record was secure in the wrong LBC account, the URL could then be changed.”

Google didn’t specifically explain how they’ve fixed this vulnerability, but using a postcard to verify a phone number change — rather than calling the new phone number — would be one obvious step in the right direction.

Related Topics: Channel: SEO | Google: Maps & Local | SEO: Spamming | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is Editor-In-Chief of Search Engine Land. His news career includes time spent in TV, radio, and print journalism. His web career continues to include a small number of SEO and social media consulting clients, as well as regular speaking engagements at marketing events around the U.S. He recently launched a site dedicated to Google Glass called Glass Almanac and also blogs at Small Business Search Marketing. Matt can be found on Twitter at @MattMcGee and/or on Google Plus. You can read Matt's disclosures on his personal blog.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://www.planetc1.com/ chiropractic

    That’s good news Matt. I was surprised to receive a postcard from Google LBC with information that a request was to be made on my local listing. They included the email address the request was made from and it belonged to a competitor! It was a nice reminder of who to watch out for. :)

  • http://silvery.com Chris Smith

    At that SMX session, there seemed to be an awful lot of focus on the terminology used for “hijacking”, rather than significantly improved methods for the issues involved.

    Jen seemed to be saying that a lot of people incorrectly used the term “hijacking” when something else might’ve been going on.

    While proper classification of issues may be important within Google, I’m not sure that this really resolves what the business owners involved are complaining of, which is incorrect data that others are adding to their listings.

    Perhaps if one reclassifies the problems as non-hijacking, it makes it appear that hijacking isn’t happening as much.

  • http://ifdebug.com Alistair Lattimore

    I’ll be sure to put this through its paces as our business has numerous listings that have incorrect data in them (verified) that we’ve been unable to rectify them for months now.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide