Course → Module 7: Entity Reconciliation
Session 3 of 7

The Fingerprint Analogy

In biometric identification, a fingerprint works because the pattern is consistent. Every time you scan the same finger, the system gets the same ridges and whorls. If the pattern shifted slightly every time, the system could not match you.

NAP (Name, Address, Phone) is your entity's fingerprint. Google uses it as the primary matching key when reconciling signals from multiple sources. If the fingerprint is consistent, reconciliation succeeds. If it varies, even slightly, Google may treat each variation as a different entity.

NAP consistency is not about being approximately right. It is about being character-for-character identical across every source where your business appears.

How Small Variations Break Reconciliation

The variations that cause reconciliation failures are often trivial to a human reader but significant to a matching algorithm.

Signal Variation A Variation B Problem
Name PT Arsindo Perkasa Arsindo Perkasa Missing legal prefix
Name PT. Arsindo Perkasa PT Arsindo Perkasa Period after PT
Address Jl. Raya Bogor No. 45 Jalan Raya Bogor No 45 Abbreviation mismatch
Address Jakarta Selatan South Jakarta Language mismatch
Phone +62 21 555 1234 (021) 555-1234 Format mismatch
Phone 021-5551234 021 555 1234 Spacing and separator mismatch

Each of these looks like the same business to a human. To a reconciliation algorithm, they are ambiguous. The algorithm cannot tell whether "PT Arsindo Perkasa" and "Arsindo Perkasa" are the same company or a parent company and subsidiary with similar names.

The Master NAP Document

The solution is a master NAP document: a single source of truth that defines the exact, canonical version of your Name, Address, and Phone. Every online listing must match this document exactly.

graph TD M["Master NAP Document"] --> W["Website"] M --> G["Google Business Profile"] M --> L["LinkedIn"] M --> D1["Directory 1"] M --> D2["Directory 2"] M --> D3["Directory 3"] M --> S["Schema.org Markup"] style M fill:#222221,stroke:#c8a882,color:#ede9e3

The master document should specify:

The NAP Audit Process

Creating the master document is step one. Step two is auditing every existing listing against it. This is tedious work. It is also among the highest-leverage entity tasks you can perform.

BrightLocal's research on local search ranking factors consistently places NAP consistency among the top signals. Out of the top six foundational local ranking factors, three relate directly to citation quantity, quality, and consistency.

graph LR A["Collect all listings"] --> B["Compare each to master NAP"] B --> C{"Match?"} C -->|Yes| D["Verified ✓"] C -->|No| E["Log discrepancy"] E --> F["Update listing"] F --> B style D fill:#222221,stroke:#6b8f71,color:#ede9e3 style E fill:#222221,stroke:#c47a5a,color:#ede9e3

Priority Order for Fixes

Not all listings carry equal reconciliation weight. Fix the highest-authority sources first.

Priority Source Why
1 Your website (schema + visible text) Canonical entity home
2 Google Business Profile Direct Knowledge Graph feed
3 Wikidata Open knowledge base used by AI
4 Major social profiles LinkedIn, Facebook company pages
5 Industry directories Sector-specific authority
6 General directories Broad corroboration

Common Traps

Several common situations create persistent NAP inconsistency:

NAP consistency is not a one-time fix. Listings drift over time through auto-updates, user edits, and platform reformatting. It requires ongoing monitoring.

Further Reading

Assignment

Create your master NAP document with the exact canonical version of your company name, address, and phone number. Then manually check it against every listing you identified in Session 7.1. Use exact character matching: copy-paste your master NAP and visually compare it against each listing. Fix every discrepancy, starting with the highest-priority sources (website, GBP, then major directories).