Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This is a good "problem" to have.

My client is a consortium of web companies. It has just produced a terrific info-graphic on the the latest European data policies. The author is a leading lawyer in the field and the content is outstanding, authoritative, and current.

The issue is how to best use the info-graphic for both SEO and general marketing purposes.

We will publish the info-grahic on our own site. But what else should we do?

(1) The info-graphic already contains the website name. Should we make this a hyperlink on our own site, with or without keyword rich text?

(2) We can certainly do handcrafted outreach to likely sites, who might republish. Should we just ask them for backlinks and hope for the best? Or should we embed?

(3) We can also send the info graphic as an Eblast to a wider list. Same questio:n Should we just ask them for backlinks and hope for the best? Or should we embed?

The site already high DA and a diversified link portfolio. There is no need for risky tactics or "Hail Mary" passes. OTOH, it seems a pity not to make the most of this.

Ideas on the above? Other thoughts?

Forgot to mention, I have had very good experiences with Whitespark.

The work is carefully and diligently done.

On completion, you get a spreadsheet with logins and passwords.

So you "own" your own listings.

Another problem with Yext is that you are locked in to a very high annual fee.

If you don't renew, Yext threatens to "release" your listing and says you have to manually "reclaim" each one.

Not a good solution and not the most noble of business practices, IMHO.

Now that there are better alternatives, I would use Yext only for big businesses with deep pockets. Its only advantage is its speed. If I had a reputation management client who need to push negative stuff down quickly...I might consider Yext. But that's it.

Re: $5 backlinks from a personal blogger.

The only worse than a whore is a cheap whore.

If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas.

(Make up your own filthy variation. And keep it you yourself.)

My work here is done.

Maybe I'm missing something -- but I've never seen the benefit of tags to the end-user (at least as most site authors use them.)

Tags are often displayed and authors often over tag. Many authors confuse tags with SEO page titles and come up with really bad ones. They also confuse tags with categories.

I've tried and failed in the past to educate multi-author sites on the distinction between all these.

Again, maybe I'm missing something -- but I just don't see tags as that important in the grand scheme of things.

I focus my attention on ensuring posts are done in accordance with a regular schedule on agreed-upon topics in agreed-upon categories. We display by category, recency, and popularity. So who needs tags?

I agree.

Run for the hills.

SEO for $5? It's a bit like the guy offering a genuine Bulova watch in Times Square for $5.

Thanks for the thanks, Patrick G.

An amusing sidelight: one company that refused my request for company email had previously  entrusted me with use of their corporate credit card -- and continued to do so after refusing my request.

Go figure.

(sigh)

I agree is always better to use a company address when representing the company (for link removal requests to third parties... or anything else. e.g.. creating Linkedin profiles or acting as Privacy Officer.)

I have had many "lively" discussions with clients about getting company email addresses.

Bottom line: hopeless with Fortune 500 or large companies with rigid policies. They are not going to make an exception for you, however compelling your case. They are hung up on (often phoney and imagined) compliance issues. Even if you clear that hurdle, they can always fall back on the old "we have to treat all vendors equally" claim.

But I have had some success with medium sized companies. In one case, I offered to let the IT manager monitor my email to ensure I was using it only for agreed upon purposes....on pain of contract termination.

Not sure I understand the question...

...but here is a case study I worked on.

The goal was to convince people my client  could handle pretty much everything.

You can read other case studies on the home page at www.lingualinx.com

No, no, no....

A thousand times No....

......to Google Translate.

See my YouMoz Blog post here.

Hey, there are unhappy people in the world.

You got a problem with that? Deal with it.

<<just kidding="">>

Since I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world, I've managed to rack up 59 thumbs down...often for posts that  berate others for black hat or grey hat tactics.

This makes my detractors both wrong and evil.</just>

And I'm sometimes blinded by the light from my halo.

<<just kidding="">>

Seriously, I think there is something to the contention that some people want to express disapproval anonymously.

Two suggestions:</just>

• private response to sender

• private response to Moz staff, who can then summarize and post

Yup!

Agree completely with the above.

Every situation is different and your mileage may vary.

That said, as a general rule and in most circumstances:

It is probably best to let sleeping dogs lie re: old reviews. Much better to focus your attention on new, positive reviews...and general link-building.

There are some common sense exemptions, of course. If there is a persistent  pattern in the negative reviews..it is best to address the root cause head on -- to show you have improved.

As I have written elsewhere, short and snappy " zinger" responses that avoid tit-for-tat re-hash are best.

Examples from my own practice:

In response to a 1,000 word complaint re: recurring credit card charges: "We issued a full refund as soon as we were notified of theproblem." In response to a complaint about a trade school:
**"The author of this review is a former employee, and not a student. We're sorry things didn't work out for her, but wish her well. " **

You wrote:

The site has suffered a drop in ranking since May and we feel it prudent to keep Google from indexing useless URLs. Before May 650 pages showed on the Webmaster Tools Index status, and suddenly in early June when we upgraded the site the index grew by about 175 pages. I suspect the 120 blog archives URLs may have something to do with it. How can we get them removed?

But is it possible this is an unwarranted conclusion? Perhaps you are heading down the wrong path in attempting removal.

Have you exhausted all other possibilities?

That would be bad.

You should follow the rough 10-80-10 rule, whether you are building 10 links or 10,000 links. And you should always do it slowly.

I agree there are no specific percentages. You have to look at the big picture over a long period of time.

Big picture: What a good "problem" to have!

Without taking a close look at your specific URL...

...my first instinct is that the answer to your question is almost certainly a giant...

**No.

DO THE HARD THING: NOTHING!!!!** There is a real danger of overthinking this stuff and neglecting the fundamentals.

I faced the same issue with a DA72 site for a leading SME In his field who had 450,000+ backlinks....some from major media outlets and universities, but most from "nobodies" in the field. This is good!

What you want in a classic Inverted U-shaped curve in terms of DA.

• 10 % crappy links

• 80 % middling links

• 10% super high quality links

You mess with this at your peril!!!! Beware. "Bad" links are not necessarily bad in the grand scheme of universe. Every credible and authoritative site should have some. They are part of a natural link profile.

Getting rid of the <20 DA authority links could hurt...badly.

Focusing excessively on tweaking or sculpting the middling 80% of your links is probably a mistake. You could shoot yourself in the foot.

Less is more.

It might be better to just keep doing what you're doing.

This is hard...and requires great discipline!

Some valid points re: Wordpress security. Some of these risks can be mitigated by a good developer taking reasonable precautions.

I have sometimes used a custom e-commerce solution -- together with a WP/Yoast combo framework.

I have also seen small clients drop a bundle on incredibly robust security for a site with little or no sales. So they are left with little money to spend on promotion or marketing. It's a bit like hiring armed guards and a supe-duper alarm system for an empty bank vault. You also need to think about getting some money on vault to start with.

Like everything else in life, it's a risk tolerance trade off.

Agree completely with the above responses.

Bottom line: Google has some of the smartest people in the world working on these issues. In the end, they will prevail.

The idea that can can fool Google or game the system is...well, foolish.

At best, you might be able to score some temporary gains by disregarding the guidelines.

And then the hammer will fall.

So...this a great discussion. Yay!  Many thanks.

And I appreciate everyone's perspectives.

On the supposed security vulnerabilities of WordPress:

**I think it is much exaggerated. **

WordPress (and its plug ins) are certainly vulnerable...in the sense that they are ubiquitous.

But so what?  In the real world...lots of people also break into Yale door locks...because there are so many of them. Does this mean Yale locks are inherently insecure? No. You just need to take reasonable precautions..given the ubiquity.

Some of my clients with Wordpress sites have been hacked. In all cases, the problem was rectified within 3-9 hours (including night and weekends) due to robust back up plans.

Like everything in life, all this is a tradeoff: sites that are seldom hacked due to obscuity...,vs. sites that are often hacked due to ubiquity.

I have been at this a long time.

My mega/meta/uber conclusions are:

• go with a platform that will be here to stay

• unbiquity is a virtue

• beware of grandiose claims from obscure start-ups...or failing platforms

Prestashop....thanks for the heads up.

As they say on Teletubbies..."Uh-Oh!"

What is the  scuttlebutt on what the paid model would look like? What would be included?

Artfx....looks more and more like Magento might not be the right choice for you.

Never a good idea to swim towards a sinking ship! Even rats know better.

I’m a great fan of the Yoast/WordPress combo.But you would need an e-commerce solution on top of that. It could range from Shopify to one of the WordPress plug-ins. It all depends on how complicated your e-commerce is. The developer I worked with on my Magento site (three years old) says he wouldn’t make that choice today. Updates and day-to-day management are just too exasperating.

Agree with the answers, but not the idea that Magento is especially SEO friendly. Input of image tags on products is a royal pain!

Ummm, this isn't what you asked....

...but is it out of the question to re-consider this:

"However, we're going to keep the site on the current domain while we ease customers into the new **name."**This is a mistake, IMHO,  and you should do everything possible to persuade the client to re-think the plan.

Best practice, as I'm sure you know, is to do page-level redirects from each page on the old site to its closest corresponding page on the new site.

Is the company name changing...or just the domain name?

In any event, I can't see an elegant way of doing what you propose...only of mitigating the damage and confusion that will inevitably result.

I'm sure others, more technically knowledgable than I, can weigh in on damage control. But why damage yourself at all?

I don't think this is really a technical  SEO issue at all.

It's a fundamental marketing and branding issue, IMHO. So much better to zoom up to 30,000 feet and address the larger issue.

**Bottom line: the way to make the change is, well, to make the change! All at once. **

The most common mistakes:

• Too many links
• Too many items -- overall length is too long

Therefore:

• **Lack of focus **

In most cases there should be a single, clear call to action....but it can be included two or three times.

I've seen all too many newsletters that bury the call to action as the 18th of 24 links!

If there is great and useful content, it might be wiser to send shorter but more frequent newsletters. Some should have no specific product plugs...just great info. Counter-intuitive, I know!

If the audience is college students, you might want to consider embedding 60-seond videos videos.

I have quite a bit of experience in travel and education and would be happy to talk to you offline.

Agreed.

Also: PPC is often used as a substitute for an overall SEO/Marketing strategy...instead of a component of an overall strategy.

It's best to turn down potential clients who think PPC can do it all, IMHO and experience.

I work with a developer who is doing this for a site.

He is using a WP plugin and then slicing.

I agree that around $200 is a reasonable cost under such circumstances.

PM me for details.

Yes, to all the above.

Like most things in life:

(1) The answer is "it all depends."

(2) Context is everything.

I have used a targeted and focused "directory" strategy  with great success in certain niches....

...but only in conjunction with other techniques: guest blogging, social media, frequent updates, etc...

Also: Whaddaya mean by directory? Different people have different ideas.

So blanket statements like "avoid directories' are off base. It would be better to say" "avoid crappy directories/"

You should also avoid crappy guest blogging and crappy content on your own site.

I agree the strategy is ill-conceived. Either it was executed by an incompetent company, or one that is into "churn and burn" tactics. By the time Google catches on,  it will have moved on to the next client.

You could do a whois lookup for clues that the sites are run by the same SEO company (or at least people trying to cover their tracks.) But what's the point?

As a former editor, I can tell just be reading the articles that they were likely written by the same semi-literate person. I'd even speculate the author is not a native English speaker. That said, it's clear the articles were written by a human in some semblance of English.

So it may take Google longer to spot that articles that it would for spun or computer-generated articles.  That said, there are big problems with articles. These include low word counts on  very thin sites. The Google algo is good at catching this -- eventually.

I'm guessing you're in the same situation I was. A competitor hired a sleazy SEO company. The SEO company used three techniques:

• links from article directories
• links from once-legit sites it had acquired and corrupted
• links from sites it had created itself

In all, there were more than 100 links from crappy articles. Eventually all but 3 were devalued. But it took almost a year.

As I said below, there is not  much you can do beyond focussing on what you can control: your own SEO efforts.

You could submit a spam report to Google. But short of criminal misconduct (my rival hacked my site and here is the police report) Google will almost certainly not take individual, manual action against your competitor. It generally looks for abusive patterns and rolls the information into algo updates.

I understand your frustration. But my tough lough advice is:

Stop fretting about what your rival is doing and get down to work on your site.

I agree with the above: it's almost certainly just a matter of time before the smackdown comes.

The wait can be frustrating, though.

Been there, done that, waited it out -- and it took almost a year.

In the meantime, just focus on the nuts and bolts of on-page, while building quality content and backlinks.

What else can you do?

If it's any consultation, the smackdown can be huge and sudden. When it finally comes.

Agree with most of the above.

And I'd add a more basic critique. I read the page twice, but am still unclear what I get for 3 months @ $350. Is it just analysis and no implementation? Few clients will wait that long for an analysis. Many expect to see analysis AND  implementation AND and results....um...yesterday.

There are also a few unhelpful typos.

Keri:

You are such an instigator! Sounds like you are angling for a joint blog post from me and EGOL.

In your evll and nefarious way.

NYAH-HAH-HAH.

<<evil grin="">></evil>

I agree with EGOL. I would decline a "pay for performance" model because too much is out of my control: client cooperation, algo updates, new competitors.

Performance and accountability are important. Who could argue with that?

But just because previous providers  haven't delivered, it doesn't necessarily follow that shifting to a pay for performance model is the way to go. This often degenerates into the futile pursuit of phoney metrics, eg. ranking for non-competitive terms, social media shares, etc...

You need to find a provider you trust with a track record of delivering results. Limiting yourself to those who will accept pay for performance compensation may limit your search -- and your bottom line results.

Yes, many thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for.

I need someone with a KeyWord Spy subscription and experience (or a similar tool that has Canadian data)  to do a one time CPC report that answers these questions:

(1) Who are my client's main competitors in paid search?

(2) What is the estimated  ad spend by the the five top competitors?

(3) What keywords and ads are working best for the competitors?

(4)) What is the CPC for the top 20 keywords in the niche.

(5)) Any topline suggestions for my client re: next steps.

That's it! I don't want to be overwhelmed with masses of extraneous detail. This should be an easy assignment for someone with required expertise. Possibility of more work to implement and/or optimize CPC campaign.

Reply via PM with experience. Ideally, send a sample past report (okay to black out client names)

Thanks for the courtesy.

Not to belabour the point (so this will be my last response):

But I never said cold calling was ineffective.

I just said that it was wrong.

In the grand scheme of the universe, it annoys people, gives business a black eye, and invites government regulation that over reaches.

Thanks for the response, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

I maintain my position: cold calling is wrong. I would never try it.

Most sensible people already hang up. More people should.

And then fewer people would cold call.

And the world would be a better place.

Of course,  it's reasonable to expect a skilled professional who is actively seeking work to spend some time on the company website learning about company culture.

But most of your top prospects won't be in that category. They already have good  jobs. If they hear about you opening at all, it will be from a seeing the posting elsewhere. As written, the description will discourage them from even clicking through to your site.

Please see this Moz job posting for an example of a well written developer posting. It stands on its own, but also includes links to specific places on the site. So it works equally well on site and offsite,

Thanks for the even-tempered and genuinely curious response!

Oddly enough, I think we are all saying the same thing...but in different ways: excellence is paramount and everyone needs team players with a broad general understanding of the big picture.

So this kinda reminds me of a B movie scene where the bad guy says to the tied up hero: "We are not so different -- you and I. NYAH-HA-HA"

Like you, I am not a developer. I started off as a TV writer, producer, and director before moving online in the late 90's. Along the way, I have held executive and editorial posts at places like PBS and The Environmental Defence Fund where I managed teams of developers, among others.

So I think I know how developers think. Some of my best...(oh, never mind.)

A developer would look at your job post and leap to the  conclusion that your company would be a bad place to work. He would think "the bosses" are clueless about development, his skills wouldn't  be respected, and he should take his talent elsewhere.

Think of it as "reverse hiring." You have to sell your company if you want really top notch talent.

Instead, your job post just throws in a whole bunch of stuff. It's almost comical....at least to a developer. They would conclude the company is run by idiots.

A better approach would be to:

• focus on just a few skills

• talk a lot about your company and its culture

-show how the devloper's skills would be respected and how they would fit into the bigger picture

After all, most top notch developers can master new skills quickly. But too many companies still screen by ticking things off checklists. It's the wrong approach. Making sure there is a good cultural fit is much more important.

Okay, so this is a kinda ridiculous, long shot whim du jour. But it's so intriguing I can't resist.

Last week, GA reveals that my client had 6 queries (vs. 0 since the beginning of time) in the format:

Large Red Widgets #3 in Obscure Suburb (of my client's head office)

Large Red Widgets #3 just happen to be expensive and profitable.

My question: is there a snowball's chance in hell of tracking this query any further? I'll take what I can get --  since not many people are interested in red widgets #3 in said obscure suburb. I'd like enough info so a sales rep can follow up. These folks are not shy.

Thoughts? Next steps? Idiot proof instructions on where specifically to look in GA?

I agree that this job posting is unlikely to attract top applicants.

They will likely conclude it's a screwed up company they wouldn't want to work for.

You are asking for too much.

I agree with the suggestion of more focus.

I still find the new version extremely difficult to read.

Size matters. The font is still much too small. And there is too much wasted space in the design.

The whole trend in design seems to be to super big fonts.

See these examples from Precision Nutrition and Distlilled.

It's now happened three times in three days: I get unsolicited email (apparently harvested from my Moz profile) that invites me to try a new product or contribute to a new site.

The senders are completely unknown to me. The emails are full of hype,  sketchy on details and poorly written. They have all the hallmarks of phishing scams.

But on further inquiry the emails seem to be legit.

I nonetheless feel entitled to confess my extreme exasperation. When did sending unsolicited mass email of the "Dear Colleague" variety to perfect strangers become acceptable business practice? It's always struck me as being beyond the pale and beneath contempt. Why would anyone try to launch a business which such dubious and unsavoury  tactics?

Am I missing something here? Or becoming a fuddy duddy?

I suppose I could remove my contact info from my MOZ profile, but I have found it useful in the past.

What surprises me is that people would contact me "out of the blue" to ask for free help without making the slightest attempt to cultivate a relationship first.

Am I wrong?

I agree with the above and would add my own experience.

I've had good results with the format www.widgetservices.com/location 1, www.widgetservices.com/location 2 etc.... all accessible from a drop down menu entitled "Locations and Clients". Each location page talks about the people who work at the location and has some mini-case studies and testimonials. The actual product descriptions, the same in each location,  are elsewhere.

I also build links to the individual location pages. Each location page, in text and tags, is also optimized for the not only the main location but a few of the closest cities.

Note that this is a regional business with only 7 locations. YMMV.

I agree.

Giving money to blackmailers is never a good idea.

It only encourages more blackmail.

I would explore every other option.

I've had the same experience as James.

The conventional wisdom is "Anchor text links from press release sites don't count, and Matt Cutts said so."

This suffers from the defect of being doubly untrue.

1. Such links do sometimes count

2. Matt Cutts never, ever said: "Anchor text links from press release sites never count." It's pretty much an urban legend that ought to be featured in Snopes. Matt made two off-the cuff remarks years apart to the effect that he wouldn't expect certain types of links to count in certain situations. These have now been taken completely out-of-context  and repeated ad nauseum to attribute to Matt  a statement he never made.

It's mind boggling.

Whether a press release strategy is the wisest use and best use  of marketing dollars is another question entirely. There are both SEO and branding considerations.

My take: it's another tool in the toolbox, and is right for some situations -- but not others.

Don't forget to make sure the translation is well done.

See my blog post.

Are you any good at what you?

How wil the prospective customer benefit form hiring you?

Do you have satisfied customers ?

Who is your target audience?

You need to hit as many of these crucial points as possible. It's hard! Writing meta descriptions is a bit like writing haiku.

Mentioning both the free assessment and free trial may be a mistake. It's a mixed message that is overly complicated.

Maybe something like:

Thousands of satisfied customers love our over- the- top IT support. Find out why during your free trial. May we delight you?

or:

With over 30 years experience, we delight customers with our over-the-top 24/7 IT support. Ask for a free trial today.

Great answer, missing only SOJCA.

You can remove the links from PR Web press releases, even after publication. No need to disavow unless they have been picked up by other sites and do-followed.

That said, I seriously doubt they can get you into trouble...unless they are part of a sustained pattern of misconduct, say dozens or hundreds of press releases from spammy press release sites (not PR Web, which is reputable.)  Your backlinks from PR  Web may even be helping.

There is much confusion on this subject. Two general and casual remarks Matt Cutts made years apart have been taken out of context and widely misinterpreted. The conventional wisdom seems to be that all backlinks from all press releases are always and everywhere useless or harmful.

This suffers from the defect of being untrue.

And it's s just as silly as saying:

"All directory listings are useless -- or harmful."

or

"All guest blogging is useless -- or harmful."

or

"All infogrpahics are useless -- or harmful."

Life is complicated. Context is everything.

And much depends on your overall link portfolio.