Although in the realm of search engine optimization (SEO), I found this very interesting in terms of data presentation optimization, in terms of what to present people. And plus, this individual did a lot of data collection on their part, testing and querying different places.

**Note**: this is quite a long read to get through it. Here’s a shorter article I ran into first.

A quick recap of this, when you search Google, it’ll give you results. Specifically for geographical results on Google Maps, it’ll try to give you a list of good places. This list is called a pack. In Google’s case, they typically give you three results back, or a 3-pack. So this blog notices the 3-pack comes in a 2:1 ratio, where two of the places are close to each other than the lone one.

As I began going through more and more Local Packs a clear and self-evident patterned emerged, and for the sake of simplicity I’m calling it the “2:1 pattern.”

Example, I’m in Portland and found this 2:1 ratio as well.

A second interesting question they had was to push their hypothesis a bit to see what happens when things **aren’t** close to each other. For example, looking at the state level for places shown below.

In the end, they found that the distance ratio between longest and shortest distance in a search **doubled** at the state level. So in the end, they question why is there this simple algorithm used to show results; why is there not a more dynamic algorithm to determine which results are given?