exactly.  "Tags" and "materials" are not exactly top level category stuff

I'm known for my verbose writing, and even I try to keep my articles under 1,000 words.  My best series though, on SEO audits, was four articles that averaged 1500 words each. It was a very focused technical series though - something that people were willing to take the time to read as each new part was published.

The problem with very long articles is keeping people's attention in today's multitasking world.

Gianluca

Thanks for jumping in on this one.  So if I'm reading your answer correctly, the bottom line here that there really should be one site per country, regardless of language spoken, correct?

yeah it's annoying that Yelp specifically states it's against their TOS to actively solicit reviews this way, yet they are perfectly happy if you display their "We Yelp" stickers all over the place.

And oddly, places like the BBB's stand-alone "Trust-Link" reviews site is the exact opposite. They encourage business owners to seek reviews.

Google is less clear most likely because they're still mostly stuck in the belief that they shouldn't reveal clarity and expect site owners to figure it out.  Which inevitably leads, every year, to more and more "what used to be acceptable isn't" complaints.

Except some tactics never were acceptable and Google's just now getting around to addressing some that they previously never considered or never got a chance to.

My latest effort is all about "does this look natural".  That of course, is then filtered through "does this look natural as Google views things in their algorithmic attempt to emulate a human's perspective.

While Shane is correct in general (less effort to drive links, value and trust to a single entity), deciding whether to go with separate entities or one unified entity under a broader reach focus is always a challenge.  When you've had split properties for an extended period, and have invested tremendous effort over time in driving the value, relevance and importance of each separately, consideration becomes even more important.

How much time, effort resources have been invested in the split properties?  a few weeks or months?  Or years of time and cost?  How much would it cost to rebrand each of the individual entities when melded into one?  Factor in the need to implement flawless 301 redirects for every single product and page on every single site pointing to the new location.  (301 redirects carry "most" of the existing SEO value,weight and strength, yet multiplied over hundreds or thousands of pages, the "slight" hit on each may cause at least a temporary overall down-side to rankings).

Having said that, by bringing it all together, when executed properly, you can still drive the marketing for individual "brands" - if you have truly well designed individual "category" landing pages set up (each one replacing the previous individual entity home pages) and by pointing social media and link building efforts at those individually.  Yet you then also open your company up to the opportunity to drive the new umbrella brand.  But only if there is truly enough of a broader appeal in regard to what people in your target market(s) actually search for online.

If there is a big enough market at that broader level, not only do you get the ability to reach people who might otherwise have not known about your offerings, you get the ability to cross-sell as well.

If you have serious concerns about the broader market opportunity, or the logistics (especially given the 301 redirect issue, for example), maintaining individual brand properties and implementing an easy to use cross-site navigation feature (that doesn't confuse prospective customers) could be an interim solution that risks less.  While it might offer the potential for less long-term reward (that comes from reaching that new audience in a massive push way), it offers less risk, less logistic effort, and could very well prove out whether there's cross-selling value.

Then, after a couple years in the hybrid, if enough cross-selling occurs, that could be the vote of confidence you need to then take the next plunge, melding it all into one.

Be aware however, that you should give at least a couple years in between changes though - having too many hops in a site-wide 301 redirect model will cause more harm than good usually.

while pages with such file names can be indexed, the long-term view dictates avoiding pages with filenames in the URL due to future potential conversion to other frameworks.  It makes a site less than ideal for portability.

For example, if every page has index.php or whatever.asp and you change platform, you'll end up with every page needing a 301 redirect.  So it's better to avoid that whenever possible.

It's about users for sure.  The last set you show communicates "lawyer name" is more important/valuable.  Which is the valid perspective, since all of those elements relate to that lawyer. If some users still want to find lawyers based on reviews, you can offer a filter for that in your database sorting.  Same with locations.

On the other side of the coin, instead of "locations", if you had town names, you could group by those so it would be /town-name/lawyer-name/   where all lawyers in the same town fall within that town-name grouping. If it's just /locations/ that's an invalid sort hierarchy.

Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Fortunoff, Gap... All have their Brand in page Titles.

Interestingly, Gap uses the combination of Category | Gap | Sales Hook (a hybrid of my suggestion and EGOL's) on many of their pages.