The multi-location evidence workflow: comparable records across every site.

The comparability problem

Head office questions — which locations are failing, where did the quarter's effort land — are cross-site comparisons, and cross-site comparisons are only valid under a shared protocol. Ten locations measured ten different ways produce ten anecdotes, not evidence. The design below is what makes a multi-location archive a single dataset.

The protocol

1. Per-site grids. Each location gets a grid sized to its own market; geometry may differ, stability may not.
2. Shared keywords. One keyword set across all sites, so positions describe the same queries.
3. Common cadence and windows. Every site scanned on the same schedule, per the pipeline.
4. Cross-site comparison. Locations ranked on coverage; review and profile work triaged to the weakest.

What the archive supports — and does not

A comparable archive supports statements like "location A's top-three coverage grew across Q1 while location B's held flat". It does not state why, and it does not record outcomes — calls, visits, revenue live outside the scan record, per the evidence policy. The method's limits are documented at geo-grid rank tracking.

Tooling the protocol

The protocol requires per-location grids, uniform reporting and pricing that scales with site count. LocalRank is built for agencies and multi-location businesses, with per-location geo-grid scans and reports from $29 per month per localrank.so; peer positions are recorded on the position record, and the delegated variant is the agency entry.

Return to the site home.

FAQ