Generally speaking, having a flatter URL structure is typically a better play for SEO.

To better understand why your network admin may have an issue.. can you provide a few examples of "old url" and "new url"..  You can use anonymous fillers, but I'm just looking to get a better understanding of what you have done.

Cheers,

Jake

Thanks Ipegiro...  My point exactly on saying "unless they are creating value within the url"...  as obviously "bunny-on-stool" has a completely different meaning than "bunny-stool"..

Cheers

-Jake

Consider this:  "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location

B would not be an acceptable approach as http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml could only contain a sitemap of content located in http://example.com/sitemap.   For this same reason, you couldn't create sitemaps in subfolder directories...

This is the best approach from those options you mentioned...

(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xml 
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml 
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml

It is worth noting that you can have a sitemap of sitemaps.. so for example.

http://example.com/sitemap.xml could contain links to http://example.com/sitemap-cakes,  http://example.com/sitemap-articles, etc..
http://example.com/sitemap-cakes.xml could contain links to http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml, http://example.com/sitemap-vanilla-cakes.xml, etc..

Try not to over-complicate things by trying to create sub-category sitemaps, etc.. Unless you have an exorbitant amount of sub-category pages, or have directories/sections managed by different cms, etc.

You generally see large sites will have a separate sitemap based on content type (company pages, category pages, product pages, blog pages)

Typically you want to minimize url length by removing stop words, prepositions, etc. unless they are creating value within the URL.      e.g.  bunny-on-stool  vs. bunny-stool

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is bad for SEO, but there are some schools of thought that minimizing the number of words in a URL "concentrates" relevance around those terms remaining.   That being said, I'm confident Google already ignores common stop words and phrases, and this isn't something I would go about changing in an existing URL structure.

You'll notice some sites, such as wordpress, by default remove the prepositions, etc. from the URLs.

Do you know what the redirect type is (301 or 302)? If it is a 301, I wouldn't worry about it. If it is a 302, I'd try and get that changed. Either way, it is unlikely to make a big impact on your site.

First, let me begin with full disclosure. I am Russ Jones, CTO of Angular (formerly Virante) and creator of Remove'em. I will do my best not to make this an advertisement in any way and answer the question more generally about link removal services.

"My question is, has anyone used them, and did you see any results?"

The answer here is a definite yes. We should probably distinguish between link removal tools and link removal services. There are some tools out there that assist with the link removal process (Remove'em, LinkRisk, LinkDetox, and Remove'em etc.) and other tool/service blends that perform a degree of the link removal process (Remove'em Full Service, RMoov, etc.) and finally some service-only models (LinkDelete, etc.). I will say that I am personally unfamiliar with the service-only models so I will refrain from comment on them out of ignorance, not because they couldn't very well be useful and effective.

The blended services, by and large, appear to be effective. We have researched our competitors and I assure you if they were a sham, we would have made that clear in our marketing material by now

These services tend to provide the following improvements upon DIY...

1. Existing relationships with link purveyors to accelerate link removal.
2. Outreach technology that allows them to better find contact info.
3. Existing databases of contact information tailored to this industry.
4. Knowledge of Google expectations for successful reconsideration

However, you don't need any of this to run a successful recovery, the question is just a balance of your time and money. If your lost revenue from lack of rankings, cost of time/services (ie: employees or existing SEO firm running removal campaign) are greater than the costs of these services, they are well worth your consideration.

If you have an specific questions about these services beyond their efficacy, feel free to respond here - I would be more than willing to help.

What she said.

Hey, thanks for the positive remarks. Marie Haynes is a rockstar in her own regard though in terms of link removals, and one of the few people I would put up against my own team

Did want to give you a heads up though, we have some pretty big / awesome updates rolling out in Remove'em in the next 2-3 weeks so stay tuned.

Copyscape might help (http://www.copyscape.com)

Why don't you run SEOMoz's keyword competitiveness tools to get an idea of what makes them better. Also, take a look at some competitor data sets like Majestic and AHrefs - I always start with SEOMoz, but there is no reason to limit yourself to 1 data set. Chances are they have a bunch more spammy links that you aren't yet seeing, and those are giving them the lift.

Consider this:  "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location

B would not be an acceptable approach as http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml could only contain a sitemap of content located in http://example.com/sitemap.   For this same reason, you couldn't create sitemaps in subfolder directories...

This is the best approach from those options you mentioned...

(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xml 
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml 
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml

It is worth noting that you can have a sitemap of sitemaps.. so for example.

http://example.com/sitemap.xml could contain links to http://example.com/sitemap-cakes,  http://example.com/sitemap-articles, etc..
http://example.com/sitemap-cakes.xml could contain links to http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml, http://example.com/sitemap-vanilla-cakes.xml, etc..

Try not to over-complicate things by trying to create sub-category sitemaps, etc.. Unless you have an exorbitant amount of sub-category pages, or have directories/sections managed by different cms, etc.

You generally see large sites will have a separate sitemap based on content type (company pages, category pages, product pages, blog pages)

If you are using any paid search services other than Google or Bing, I would strongly look into click fraud detection. The easiest way to do this is on your own end...

First, you want to make sure that it is a real user, not a bot. You can check the following...

1. Does the user carry a referrer?
2. Does the user accept cookies?
3. Does the user allow javascript?
4. Does the user allow flash?

The above are some simple tests - neither of them individually conclusive - that can test if it is a bot.

Secondly, you want to make sure it is not the same user over and over again, by tracking IP addresses.

Third, you should make sure that your clicks aren't being generated in small iframes or popunders - the easiest way to do this is with javascript and capturing the window size and/or whether self.window = top.window.

Fourth, you should track what users are doing once they reach your site. If your conversion rate is less than 1/10th of Google AdWords or Bing, you should be concerned.

You can always use a third party software like AdWatcher, which is pretty good. It can get buggy in large volumes though.

Good Luck.

I have never seen any evidence that commas are negative, however usability can often drive the social factors that may play more and more a role in the future. I wouldn't make it a priority to change those URLs now, but when the time comes (perhaps with a redesign of the website), it would be worth your while to go ahead and remove them.

Why don't you run SEOMoz's keyword competitiveness tools to get an idea of what makes them better. Also, take a look at some competitor data sets like Majestic and AHrefs - I always start with SEOMoz, but there is no reason to limit yourself to 1 data set. Chances are they have a bunch more spammy links that you aren't yet seeing, and those are giving them the lift.

I am fairly certain Google does not penalize sites for watermarking images. However, losing shares of those images could potentially lose rankings.

One opportunity would be to include a section of your images free of charge with a link attribution policy. This would get you a nice link (don't manipulate the alt text, just the name of the image or your service)

Also, have you checked to see how often your images are being stolen? You can use a service like tineye.com to do this.

Hey, thanks for the positive remarks. Marie Haynes is a rockstar in her own regard though in terms of link removals, and one of the few people I would put up against my own team

Did want to give you a heads up though, we have some pretty big / awesome updates rolling out in Remove'em in the next 2-3 weeks so stay tuned.

I would consider them generally helpful - not necessarily for improving rankings, but allowing you to get more choice words into the text of a title or description that will then be read by a user in the SERP. Remember, the title tag not only helps you rank, but it is your opportunity to advertise directly to the client on Google's search results page. That savings of 2 characters can mean a lot.

What she said.

Typically you want to minimize url length by removing stop words, prepositions, etc. unless they are creating value within the URL.      e.g.  bunny-on-stool  vs. bunny-stool

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is bad for SEO, but there are some schools of thought that minimizing the number of words in a URL "concentrates" relevance around those terms remaining.   That being said, I'm confident Google already ignores common stop words and phrases, and this isn't something I would go about changing in an existing URL structure.

You'll notice some sites, such as wordpress, by default remove the prepositions, etc. from the URLs.

Do you know what the redirect type is (301 or 302)? If it is a 301, I wouldn't worry about it. If it is a 302, I'd try and get that changed. Either way, it is unlikely to make a big impact on your site.