Last year the videos from MozCon were given to all attendees as a "consolation" for the Wi-Fi being so bad. I don't anticipate Wi-fi will be an issue this year, so the videos are probably going to cost some pretty serious bucks...My advice?  Buy them. I have referred back to presentations multiple times over the year because they were so packed with information that it sometimes takes (me at least) a couple times through to fully absorb what's there. Buy the videos. They are worth every penny.

I've heard the Seattle Underground tour is awesome. I might have to do it this time around!

Fun idea Jesse...although to be perfectly modern SEOs shouldn't we call it #possem ?

I understand why blog comments might be "nofollow" - because it preserves the page authority of the post. However, I don't understand why one would want to "noindex" blog comments. It seems to me that all that UGC, if indexed, would just make the page it resides on far more valuable.

Is my view of that skewed? Am I missing something? Thanks! (and sorry to answer your question with a question)

If it were me I would nofollow the comments but index the content of the comments.

If you are posting, verbatim, your content might very well be attributed to Facebook instead of your site because Facebook has so much more authority than your site. If your ultimate goal is to rank for your content, then posting your content on your site and linking to it from Facebook is the way to go. If your goal is attention to your content, then perhaps posting it on your Facebook page and linking to your site is the way to go.

Is it duplicate content if posted in both places? Yes. You could put a canonical tag on your site, but if the content gets posted on a site of higher authority, chances are that site will get credit for the content, canonical tag or no canonical tag.

If you are starting every page title with "Photographers Miami" then I think that's probably not the best because you'll be trying to target the same keywords with every page. If, on the other hand your page titles look more like this:

Photopgrahers Miami | Cameras & Accessories

Photopgrahers Orlando | Cameras & Accessories

I think these are perfectly fine. You might notice that exchanged the word "equipment" with "cameras.: Equipment could mean anything. I assume you are selling cameras, so why not say so? Also I removed the word "Find." Save your call to action for your Meta description. That word "Find" is not helping your title at all. However, it's perfect for a meta description.

Those are my thoughts. I hope they help!

SEMRush.com can do this for you, but you need to upgrade to the Guru level to get access to historical data. It will give you the info for you and any competitor you want. The Guru level is about $149 a month. It doesn't require an annual or minimum commitment so you could join at that level for a month and drop back to free once you felt like you'd gotten the data you needed.

Does that help?

Yes Doug, you totally get my confusion. Your scenarios describe more clearly exactly what I am wondering. In the case of your third example, Matt even stated pretty clearly in the video (perhaps even both videos) that chains of redirects can be a problem.

I totally agree with you that avoiding redirects altogether and updating the links is the way to go. Even Google's own Pagespeed Insight's tool often makes this recommendation when evaluating pagespeed of a site. If 301's are exactly the same as links, why would the tool recommend avoiding them?

Yes, I think perhaps Matt said what he did because he was looking at 301s and links in complete isolation. If so, then what he says is believable in theory, but I can't think of how it would actually happen in practice.

I've been trying to wrap my head around this for the last hour or so and thought it might make a good discussion. There's been a ton about this in the Q & A here, Eric Enge's interview with Matt Cutts from 2010 (http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts-012510.shtml) said one thing and Barry Schwartz seemed to say another: http://searchengineland.com/google-pagerank-dilution-through-a-301-redirect-is-a-myth-149656

Is this all just semantics? Are all of these people really saying the same thing and have they been saying the same thing ever since 2010? Cyrus Shepherd shed a little light on things in this post when he said that it seemed people were confusing links and 301-redirects and viewing them as being the same things, when they really aren't. He wrote "here's a huge difference between redirecting a page and linking to a page." I think he is the only writer who is getting down to the heart of the matter. But I'm still in a fog.

In this video from April, 2011, Matt Cutts states very clearly that "There is a little bit of pagerank that doesn't pass through a 301-redirect." continuing on to say that if this wasn't the case, then there would be a temptation to 301-redirect from one page to another instead of just linking.

VIDEO - http://youtu.be/zW5UL3lzBOA

So it seems to me, it is not a myth that 301-redirects result in loss of pagerank.

In this video from February 2013, Matt Cutts states that "The amount of pagerank that dissipates through a 301 is currently identical to the amount of pagerank that dissipates through a link."

VIDEO - http://youtu.be/Filv4pP-1nw

Again, Matt Cutts is clearly stating that yes, a 301-redirect dissipates pagerank.

Now for the "myth" part. Apparently the "myth" was about how much pagerank dissipates via a 301-redirect versus a link.

Here's where my head starts to hurt:

Does this mean that when Page A links to Page B it looks like this:

A -----> ( reduces pagerank by about 15%)-------> B (inherits about 85% of Page A's pagerank if no other links are on the page

But say the "link" that exists on Page A is no longer good, but it's still the original URL, which, when clicked,  now redirects to Page B via a URL rewrite (301 redirect)....based on what Matt Cutts said, does the pagerank scenario now look like this:

A (with an old URL to Page B)  ----- ( reduces pagerank by about 15%) -------> URL rewrite (301 redirect) - Reduces pagerank by another 15% --------> B (inherits about 72% of Page A's pagerank if no other links are on the page)

Forgive me, I'm not a mathematician, so not sure if that 72% is right?

It seems to me, from what Matt is saying, the only way to avoid this scenario would be to make sure that Page A was updated with the new URL, thereby avoiding the 301 rewrite?

I recently had to re-write 18 product page URLs on a site and do 301 redirects. This was brought about by our hosting company initiating rules in the back end that broke all of our custom URLs. The redirects were to exactly the same product pages (so, highly relevant). PageRank tanked on all 18 of them, hard. Perhaps this is why I am diving into this question more deeply.

I am really interested to hear your point of view