Google regional Search: check the market before changing the site

Google added its regional Search documentation on September 8, 2026. Use that date for the documentation record and verify each feature’s rollout separately. The practical starting point is to check which experience applies to the searcher's market before commissioning changes to a client site. Google's documentation changelog dates the addition.

The regional feature directory distinguishes EEA supplier and aggregator units from Türkiye's Places sites features. Treat those as separate audit routes. Our recommendation is to record the country, query and type of business on each task before assigning an owner. A project called "fix European search" is too broad to produce a useful acceptance test.

Start with the customer you want to reach

Choose a small set of commercially important searches and write down the intended customer location for each. For an Istanbul hotel selling to German travellers, make separate rows for a person searching in Germany and a person searching in Türkiye. Use this hypothetical example to define the audit, then record the results you actually observe. Keep the destination of the trip separate from the location of the searcher.

For each row, save the query, language, device, time and observed result layout. Note whether a booking platform, the hotel's own website or another business receives the click. Use observations from the intended market where available. Label any simulated location explicitly. A screenshot without that context should stay out of a client presentation because the team cannot reproduce what it represents.

Set a baseline before editing the site. Choose a consistent weekday and repeat the same checks. Include branded searches and a few generic searches with clear purchase intent. Do not expand the list until the first sample has a named reviewer. Ten carefully documented observations are a better starting assignment than a spreadsheet of hundreds of unreviewed rankings.

Give aggregators and direct suppliers different tasks

Google's aggregator guide describes an approval process for vertical search services, relevant content and data integrations. The unit sends clicks to the selected aggregator. A direct supplier follows a different route: Google's supplier guide says extra data beyond crawlable web content is not required, although feeds can enhance results. The supplier unit appears only alongside an aggregator unit.

For an aggregator, ask the product owner to establish whether participation has been requested, who maintains the integration and how errors are investigated. Keep the answers concrete: a responsible person, a system name and the last checked date. If the team cannot find the owner of its existing feed, resolve that before proposing another integration. An application is an administrative milestone, not evidence of visibility.

For a hotel or retailer selling directly, begin with the actual landing pages customers should reach. Check that the offer can be understood without a sales call: what is available, which variant or room is being sold, what the price includes and how to complete the booking. Record any mismatch between the page and the commercial team's current offer. Set agreement between those two as the acceptance criterion. Assess search placement separately.

Give the agency one task it can finish this week. For example, ask it to inspect the five landing pages tied to the highest-priority searches and return a list of discrepancies with screenshots. Separate content corrections from integration work. That makes it possible to approve a small fix while a more involved technical question remains open.

Keep Türkiye's Places sites route separate

Google's Places sites documentation covers hotel and local-business queries for users in Türkiye. It describes an aggregator carousel and a refinement option, with no additional markup required for eligibility. It also provides an interest form. This does not justify selling every local business a new schema package.

If your client operates a directory or booking platform, review this route against the actual business model. Write down the types of listings the site contains and the markets it serves. If it is an individual business, document where intermediaries appear for its important searches and investigate the onward booking path. Avoid presenting a directory's visibility as though it were the client's own organic visit.

Keep distribution decisions commercial. Before paying for a new listing arrangement, request the terms, identify the destination page and decide how you would recognise a useful booking. Our recommendation is to compare the expected work and cost with a small, defined test. A newly documented search feature alone is not enough reason to increase an intermediary's budget.

Do not confuse a carousel with a markup requirement

Google also documents a separate structured-data carousel. That feature requires the appropriate markup and remains a beta. The shared visual idea of a horizontal list does not make its implementation requirements interchangeable with Places sites or the supplier unit.

Ask anyone proposing development to name the exact feature and link its documentation in the work ticket. Require a sample page, a supported content type and a verification plan. If the proposal only says "add schema for the new Google carousel", send it back for that detail. The specification should let another person determine whether the work addresses the intended feature.

Keep deployment records alongside the observations. Note the pages changed, the release date and any simultaneous pricing or campaign changes. Where possible, make one small, coherent change first. Our aim is a readable account of what the team did, even if the resulting search appearance does not change. Do not set appearance in a search feature as a guaranteed delivery milestone.

Report observations without inventing causality

For the first report, use three headings: what the official documentation establishes, what the team observed and what remains unknown. Put the September 8 documentation date in the first category. Put a dated screenshot in the second. Put any estimate of future bookings in the third unless you have a separate, defensible basis for it.

Compare the same set of landing pages and markets over consistent periods. Annotate promotions, stock issues and site releases rather than silently attributing every movement to Google. If the evidence is mixed, recommend another observation period. Use the audit to identify the next action your evidence supports.

This adds a different diagnostic to our earlier article about the August spam update. Here the assignment is to identify an applicable result format and participation route. Keep any investigation of a suspected ranking problem in its own task, with its own evidence. Combining them would make the conclusions harder to check.

The working rule: name the market, the feature and the business role before approving the fix.

What to do this week

• Choose ten valuable searches and record the intended searcher country, language, device and landing page for each.
• Classify each client as a direct supplier or an aggregator for the specific offer under review.
• Attach the relevant Google feature guide to each proposed change and remove tasks based only on a generic carousel label.
• Inspect five priority offers for unclear terms, inconsistent prices or broken booking paths, and assign each finding to an owner.
• Save a dated baseline and schedule a repeat review using the same searches, with observed outcomes separate from predictions.

---

Sources

• Google Search Central: Documentation updates
• Regional Search features
• Aggregator unit guide
• Supplier unit guide
• Places sites guide
• Structured-data carousel

Our SEO and GEO work connects these checks with the broader work of making a business's information clear and useful.