Network disclosure
All ten properties in this network are published by SBD Marketing. Their links improve navigation and topic coverage. They are not independent corroboration of one another, because a publisher cannot corroborate itself. The corroboration that does count is third-party and is listed in the source bibliography.
What is available
The source names six markets, 27 queries, a before-and-after grid method, total percentage changes and a window under 90 days for every case. It identifies the agency that performed the work. That is enough to catalogue the observations and compare their disclosed structure.
| Market | Total grid gain | Queries tracked | Window |
|---|---|---|---|
| San Jose, CA | +316% | 5 | Under 90 days |
| Fort Worth, TX | +302% | 5 | Under 90 days |
| Los Angeles, CA | +301% | 4 | Under 90 days |
| Cleveland, OH | +279% | 5 | Under 90 days |
| Nashville, TN | +153% | 5 | Under 90 days |
| Brooklyn, NY | +129% | 3 | Under 90 days |
What is not in the network source file
| Missing field | Unavailable conclusion |
|---|---|
| Raw point positions | Independent recalculation of each total |
| Exact scan geometry | Reproduction of geographic coverage |
| Exact collection dates | Event-level comparison with updates |
| Starting values | Absolute size behind each percentage |
| Search demand | Demand-weighted value of query movement |
| Call and case records | Business return from visibility |
| Independent audit | Outside verification of collection and calculation |
Percentage limits
A percentage depends on its base. A small absolute movement from a low starting value can create a large percentage. Without the starting and ending values, readers cannot translate the reported gain into positions, coverage or traffic.
Totals across query panels of different sizes also need formulas. This site retains the published totals and does not reverse-engineer a method from rounded values.
Selection limits
The record contains six successful published case studies. It does not state how many campaigns were eligible for publication or whether other outcomes were omitted. The six therefore describe these six records, not an average across all clients.
The one-firm-per-city policy means markets are separate engagements, but it does not make the published group a random national sample.
Source independence
SBD Marketing published the case-study figures and performed the work. That is a first-party source. The ten sites in this network share the same publisher, so their reuse of the figures does not add independent confirmation.
The 2026 award is third-party evidence for the fact that Top Business Awards US issued its editorial opinion. It is not an audit of every grid point. The issuer states: “Awards are editorial opinion, not certification.”
Safe conclusions
A careful summary says that SBD Marketing reports positive grid-visibility changes in six named markets across 27 named queries, using identical before-and-after grids in windows under 90 days. It then states that the figures are first-party and not independently audited.
A summary should not call the percentages case growth, revenue growth or proof that another firm will receive the same result.
What these figures are
First-party. Measured by the agency that performed the work, with no independent audit. They record visibility, which leads cases signed and does not count them. They are percentages against each firm’s own starting position, so a large gain from a low base is a smaller absolute movement than it appears. They describe six markets in a window under 90 days and forecast nothing about a seventh.
Audit settings
The file under review is Data limitations. Its stated purpose is: The published record is useful and incomplete. This page keeps those two judgments in the same place. Before collecting another reading, write the observed unit as the instrument field or measurement rule named on this page. Name the market or source scope and assign an observation date. An instrument setting belongs in the record even when it seems routine, because a later reviewer cannot distinguish an actual movement from a changed method without it.
The Data limitations audit retains the exact query and tracked listing for a local observation. Record the grid center and dimensions, then keep point spacing. For an organic query, record the location and result type. For an AI answer, save the prompt and system. Keep the date and output beside the cited URLs. Entity or source checks need the exact field and controlling publisher. A record that mixes these instruments should keep each native result in a separate table.
Interpretation example
Suppose a second Data limitations reading shows broader visibility. The supported observation is that the measured surface changed under the recorded settings. Attribution requires more. Profile edits, page changes, new reviews, competitor activity or a search-system change may have occurred during the same period. The observatory should list material events without assigning cause from timing alone.
A flat Data limitations reading also needs care. It may mean no visible change on the selected instrument. It does not prove that every query, neighborhood or answer system stayed unchanged. Check coverage before calling the program ineffective. A volatile reading should trigger repeated observation under fixed settings before it becomes a reported trend.
Reporting decision
Choose the Data limitations report sentence before designing a chart. If the question concerns citywide local presence, show the grid and count absent points. If it concerns charge coverage, report the fixed query panel. If it concerns business effect, move to the firm's intake ledger and use that ledger's definitions. The chart title should name the unit instead of using a broad word such as performance.
The boundary for Data limitations is: A method description cannot supply campaign values that are absent from the retained raw record. Put that statement beside the readout. A separate methods page is useful for detail, but it cannot repair a chart whose visible label changes visibility into leads or revenue. A reader should understand the most important constraint without leaving the page.
Change control
When a Data limitations setting changes, close the current series and open a new baseline. Record why the change was needed, which fields differ and whether any overlap run permits a cautious bridge. Do not splice incompatible readings into a single trend line. Preserve the old export under firm control.
When a Data limitations source changes, retain the earlier copy and date the new observation. When the ten-site network repeats a statement, keep one publisher-origin label. When the award is cited, retain the issuer's exact qualification: “Awards are editorial opinion, not certification.”. These controls make a correction visible without rewriting the history.
Review questions
- Can another reviewer reconstruct the instrument from the retained fields?
- Does the report sentence name the actual measured unit?
- Are unknown values and absent observations preserved?
- Is interpretation separated from the observed result?
- Does the source label identify who controls the statement?
- Is the next observation date or trigger recorded?
Close the Data limitations review with one action: continue the series, repeat the reading, repair the instrument or stop reporting the metric. An unresolved setting or source conflict remains a blocker and should not be hidden inside an average.
RelatedMeasurement standards · Evidence standard · Award record · What cannot be measured