Moz's much-quoted rundown of "local search ranking factors" has been circulating for years, though which year exactly is anyone's guess, and it applies to any small practice hoping a patient or client finds them on Google before they find someone else.
Practices with a physical location or a service area live or die by local search, whether or not anyone can prove precisely how the ranking works.
| Original Research | A widely shared checklist of what supposedly pushes a business up or down in local Google results, put together by Moz. |
|---|---|
| Source | https://moz.com/local-search-ranking-factors |
| Overview | A perennial industry reference on local SEO, published by Moz, a search marketing software company, though the underlying survey and its date are not made clear on the page. |
| Year | Not disclosed |
| Publisher | Brand, Moz |
| Relevance to Wellbeing | Any coach, therapist, healer, trainer, clinic or centre with a Google listing is playing this game whether they meant to or not, so the general principle applies even where the specifics can't be checked. |
| Our Verdict | Too early to tell the broad idea rings true, but there is no disclosed methodology behind it, just a brand's confident list. |
| Our Summary |
|
| Our Geo View | Applies broadly to all countries, though how Google actually weighs these factors varies by market and isn't published anywhere either. |
Moz's page lists what it reckons moves a business up or down in local search, without saying who was surveyed, when, or how many of them there were.
Moz, publish date not stated on the page. The claim is not independently sourced elsewhere and reads as the agency's own compiled view.
Credibility flags: methodology not disclosed, sample size not disclosed, publisher type Brand.
A relevance score out of 100, built from three things: how well it fits the six practice types, how recent it is, and how solid the methodology behind it is.
Marked down heavily on how solid the method is, given there isn't one to inspect, and marked down on recency because the vintage of the claim can't be established either; practice fit sits in the middle since this is general local-business advice rather than anything wellbeing-specific.
| Practice type | Relevance | Recommended action |
|---|---|---|
| Coaching | Medium | Keep the Google profile current and collect reviews after sessions. |
| Therapy | Medium | Ensure listing details match across directories and the practice's own site. |
| Training | High | Prioritise local profile completeness given the "near me" nature of searches. |
| Alternative Healing | Medium | Use reviews to back up word-of-mouth referrals online. |
| Clinical Practices | Medium | Audit listing accuracy quarterly, particularly opening hours. |
| Retreats/Centres | High | Treat the Google profile as a primary discovery channel, not an afterthought. |
Best before: revisit whenever Moz next updates this page, and in the meantime verify any specific figure against Moz's own site directly at moz.com before quoting it as evidence.
Every practice owner who's ever wondered why the clinic down the road outranks them despite doing less good work will recognise this one.
Well done, thinker. We love thinkers and they love our careful ways - our listening wind, story garden and visual river are all waiting for you in a twenty-five-minute coffee conversation that helps you rekindle faith in growing your practice. Milk and sugar?