Ah Volusion. Yes, we've run into this issue.  Unfortunately, you can't add an

around the logical spot for the product name (at the top of the page below the crumb trail)  So what we've done, and had very good results from in long tail / product-based search results, is to repeat the product name (sometimes with a bit of a keyword tweak) as the leading data in the product description area - where you do have control over the HTML.

Here's an example:  https://www.diigo.com/item/image/3y63p/5pnd?size=o

The CSS which styles the H1's was edited to match the product name display at the top of the page, for consistency.

In order to quickly implement this run of site for all products, we used the CONCAT function in Excel to append the tags, and generally used the "productname" value to populate the heading text, then appended the closing tag + the actual description, and then just inserted back into the db.

CAVEAT:  If you're pulling a product feed back out of Volusion, you'll want to strip the HTML out of that description, in order to not get wonky behavior in the CSE's (comparison shopping engines).

Hope that helps - if not, and there's anything else I can add - please let me know.

Cheers!

BMT

5pnd?size=o

I would leverage local optimization the same way I would if the business were in an adjacent, larger metro area.  Meaning - list in and enhance / optimize the company's listings in the usual local listings channels - maps, local directories, services / products directories, etc.  Many if not almost all "local" directories will also provide nearby community search results, or give users the options of extending a search to say, a certain no. of miles / km's beyond a certain zip or postal code.  These extended searches will generally pick up a business listing from a nearby community if it's relevant to the search.  We have one client whose business address is in a very small, non-searched for locale, yet they consistently show up (via various local listings) in searches based in a nearby large metro area.  As optimize your listings and content, you might also want to refer to the company's location as in the "South Londery area" vs. or in addition to simply being in "Londery."

If you're supplementing organic search with paid, you can always use both town names where applicable in paid keyphrases, and expand your geo-targeting to include the larger community area.

Ditto what Karen said - please tell us it's not going away?  It's one of the Moz tools I use the most, especially since it does such a comprehensive CSV export.

Thanks!

-tm

In addition to the value of the relevancy of the domain name to the business, which - I agree - is a value that the individual business owner must evaluate and decide, there are two other tremendous key points in having a domain name which either matches or is highly-relevant to the primary business function.

First is the SEO value. All other factors being even (domain age, quality of landing page content, backlinks, etc. etc.) - a highly relevant domain name will almost always achieve better organic ranking vs. a similar competitor site with a less or non-relevant domain name.

Second - and this can make a tremendous difference economically over time - is the SEM / PPC value of a relevant domain name including your top keyword / key phrase will, all other factors being even, cost you less to advertise on a PPC-basis than a non-relevant domain name.  So if you're in a market where your price per click is several dollars or higher - a non-relevant domain name can cost dollars (pounds) per click more than a relevant one.  This can make a difference of tens to hundreds of thousands of increased ad budget cost over time, depending upon overall ad spend.

So while several thousand dollars / pounds for a domain name seems expensive, it's a cost that can likely be quickly amortized if it's for a commerce-based website which has a decent annual revenue, especially when you factor in paid search as well as organic.

Hi Andrew -

I've found in extensive paid / organic keyword optimization synchronization, that well-written supporting content tends to take care of the long tail pretty effectively, so for synching paid/non-paid optimization, I use the following approach:

In selecting specific paid keywords to target for improved SEO, trying to optimize for too many keywords can end up diluting your overall organic results, depending partly on site structure and site focus.  I generally look at the top-ten best performing keywords for each ad group over time - which should correspond to fairly granular / specific categories, subcategories or landing pages of a website.  Then, based upon user behavior, conversions, and average CPC, I generally most specifically optimize for the top five, then include more depending upon overall search interest, etc.  Solid SEO and high-quality, relevant supporting content for your most expensive paid keywords, should not only help support your organic results, but it should also help to keep your CPC costs down as much as possible by contributing to solid landing page Quality Scores (since QS is a factor affecting CPC).

The optimal end result is to have your website show up above the fold on search results pages for both paid and organic searches for key terms.  This is relatively easy to do for more obscure terms / long tail terms, but can be pretty challenging for extremely competitive terms / when competing with older, more established sites. This is why I'll devote more time to optimizing for the keywords / key phrases which more difficult to rank well for.

So, bottom line, I work to keep SEM costs in check and keep a site in front of customer / reader eyeballs by optimizing for the most popular, most expensive, best performing keywords / key phrases.  If 90% of traffic comes from <10% of keywords, and I can have a site rank well w/ minimal effort for the other 90% of key words / key phrases capturing traffic, then I'm going to spend the most effort on the 10% or less that bring the most traffic.  (And yes, I realize this goes against quite a bit of "optimize for the long tail" discussion - but I do a lot of SEO+SEM in synch, and targeting the long tail can become counterproductive to down right detrimental in paid search.  I find that good content will nail the long tail consistently - so it takes care of itself.)

Here's the challenge. I am doing some SEO triage work for a site which offers a legitimate business for sale listing service, which has a number of  FOLLOWED link placements on news / newspaper sites - like this:  http://www.spencercountyjournal.com/business-for-sale.

(The "Business Broker" links & business search box are theirs.)

The site has already been penalized heavily by Google, and just got pushed down again on May 8th, significantly (from what we see so far).

Here's the question - is this the type of link that Google would perceive of as paid / passing page rank since it's followed vs. nofollowed? What would you advise if it were your site / client?

From everything I've read, these backlinks, although perfectly legit, would likely be classified as paid / passing pagerank. But please tell me if I'm missing something.  My advice has been to request that these links be nofollowed, but I am getting pretty strong resistance / lack of belief that these links in their current state (followed) could be harming them in any way.

Would appreciate the input of the Moz community - if they won't believe me, and the majority here agrees about nofollowing, maybe they'll believe you.

Thanks!

BMT