Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'm assuming you mean internal links?

If it's internal links, they aren't going to be valued as highly by Google as external links. Just because they show up in OSE doesn't mean they carry a lot of value, it just means they exist.

These links will show up for any site. When using OSE, I like to look at only external links to see where their real backlinks are coming from.

No, Googlebot does not accept cookies.

Target keywords that people would search for and find their brand or that the brand already optimizes themselves for.

For example, if you can't use "SEOmoz" you can target "SEO tools" or "SEO software" for your backlinking strategy instead.

In case you haven't seen, most private blog networks like Build My Rank are conceding defeat themselves: http://www.buildmyrank.com/news/its-been-a-great-run

There are several others that have since bit the dust, and I'm sure Google will keep deindexing anything along those lines.

If you're talking about posting to any kind of a network that's used on a mass scale, I wouldn't waste your money.

It really depends on how competitive the keyword is and how strong your competitor is aside from just the exact match aspect. Of course it's possible to beat an exact match domain, and these will probably hold less and less value by Google in the future.

Overall, I would say that fact that it's an exact match domain doesn't change much of anything for me in terms of if it can be outranked. Looking at all the factors holistically is much more important.

It's a bad sign if your site is nowhere to be found in the Google rankings. Are you sites still able to be found in Google? Or did the rankings just drop below the 3rd page?

Did you engage in any backlinking or other tactics that Google does not approve of? Are you registered with Google Webmaster tools? If yes, have you checked for any messages there?

In terms of the Yoast SEO plugin, it's really not that complicated no matter what you're level.

There's a brief description of how to use it here: http://yoast.com/wordpress/seo/

This post is very handy, too: http://www.wpbeginner.com/plugins/how-to-install-and-setup-wordpress-seo-plugin-by-yoast/

Good point, Matt. I'm not using the social tracking plugin as of yet. From what I understand, Google+ is automatically integrated without further code needed?

If that's the case, I would assume you'd be able to see the Social tab with G+ data integrated?

In the 4th paragraph of the article you link to, it says "Some may see them today, and they should roll out to all users in the coming weeks."

The tab does not yet show up in my Analytics page either, so I'd hang tight for a few more weeks.

Having artificial or unnatural links isn't strictly limited to purchasing links. Are you doing anything else that might not be considered above board by Google? I'd start there and examine your clients' backlink profiles and make adjustments if needed.

Is the detailed report showing check marks that "corporate catering" is in the meta description and other areas that it's not in? For what it's worth, corporate catering does appear in the URL, Title, and H1. It also is displayed in the nav bar.

I don't try to reinvent the wheel but instead go with tools already out there as frequently as possible. The SEOmoz Keyword Difficulty tool is one of them if I want a simple number: http://pro.seomoz.org/tools/keyword-difficulty/

If you want to try to assess it yourself, I'd still look at things like page linking root domains, root domain linking root domains, authority, etc.

I'm still using both strategies. I use this tool to find new leads for both: http://linkprospector.citationlabs.com

Obviously these are among the harder links to build, but they're certainly more sustainable than the quick and easy methods that are out there. We've seen several of those (cough cough...blog networks) go by the wayside lately.

For another tip, this is usually where I start when I need ideas: http://pointblankseo.com/link-building-strategies

If you're going for an exact match domain but you misspelled the keyword, I don't really see the point of continuing to use it.

Are there people still searching for your misspelling? Does Google autocorrect the misspelling? (chances are it does) These are factors to consider. It also might deter people from visiting your site if the fact that it's a misspelling makes it look like spam.

Of course you can still rank for the keyword your targeting. Exact match domains are no sure bet anyway, plus any domain can theoretically rank for any term.

Yes, these things can still work and produce results, but they are not the preferred or best strategies by any means.

I really like this post for link-building ideas: http://pointblankseo.com/link-building-strategies

He includes your strategies (although with varying levels of support) and he recommends Ezinearticles as one site to use.

Have you been penalized yet? If not, you're probably not in as bad a situation as Richard is describing. Unfortunately there aren't easy ways to get rid of these links, as Richard also states.

You can submit a spam report using Google Webmaster Tools. It might not really help, but it's one of the only options.

Here's a great post from Rand about this spam situation: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-if-my-competitors-point-spammy-links-to-my-site

I don't think it matters much which order if you're talking about the SEO benefit of where the keyword is.

To me, it just makes more logical sense to choose www.companynamejobs.com from an English language standpoint. If my choice was between "SEOmozjobs.com" and "jobsSEOmoz.com" I would choose the first one (although they both look a little like spam to me, which is why I still think using a subfolder is better)

I agree with others. It's not dead (I know there's been recent updates), but it's not necessarily an important factor. It's simply an indicator that Google releases.

I don't think that I completely understand the question. Are there multiple existing websites? Can you give me a more specific example or description of what the question here is?

I just sent you a Private Message, Utah Tiger (I don't see your email listed).

I refuse to believe this comment in the BMR blog post: "In our wildest dreams, there’s no way we could have imagined this happening."

Please.

They had a great run, and I bet they made some serious $$ during the lifetime of this product (which they had to know wouldn't last forever).

Aweber offers this with their email service. I'm guessing that Mail Chimp does, too, although I'm not sure it has all the customization you're looking for.

If you're looking for something that works with WordPress, there's also Optinskin http://optinskin.com/. I haven't used it, but I suspect it's a lot like Popup domination.

Jen,

Not be be a jerk here, but the entire SEOmoz site is devoted to SEO and building links that are more powerful and sustainable than sites like Build My Rank. There's tons of information and ideas!

I highly encourage you to take a look at the SEOmoz blog. You can even just start looking at the Link Building category for posts to get going: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/category/4

I'm curious to know more about what the purpose of this domain is before making too many recommendations.

But are you trying to create a separate site for job listings for your brand? If that's the case, keep it on the same domain and use brandname.com/jobs or jobs.brandname.com

This will make the most sense if you already have a site for your domain name : i.e. brandname.com

This post I found on the web may offer a solution for you. At the very least, it seems like you wouldn't have to go into Google Reader. But it looks like you still need to input the name of the Feedburner feed somehow.

http://hellboundbloggers.com/2010/12/17/find-rss-subscribers-of-any-blog/

I think Google will eventually crack down on sites like Build My Rank, and it could be soon. Perhaps it's not so easy since these sites have hundreds or thousands of blog sites in their blog network, but I'm willing to bet that Google will do something about them.

I can't imagine anyone serious thinks relying entirely on these sites for their backlinks is a good long-term strategy (or even a short-term one). It's just a matter of time until Google cracks down.

It seems the real emphasis is on quality content, though. Perhaps that's not completely new as that's always Google's mantra of sorts, but the comments from Matt Cutts seem to indicate that having thin content but great SEO isn't something Google wants to reward

Sounds like they want to reward the best quality content even if it's not he most optimized content.. It sounds like this will supposedly target sites that don't have great content but do a lot of SEO.

Agreed. It would be nice to get a thumbs up or marked as a "Good answer" when someone is actually helped.

Perhaps SEOmoz could do a little more to prod people towards using these features, as I'm sure most new Mozzers either just forget or aren't aware of how or when to use them.

Has it just been one day? I'd give it at least a day or two more before panicking. Things tend to move around in Google like that.

Meta keywords and description have zero direct impact on SEO rankings.

Don't bother filling in meta keywords at all. It's a waste of time.

Meta descriptions can be important for getting clicks, but they won't help for where you rank in Google if you're trying to optimize the descriptions with keywords.

I don't think that Creative Commons license applies unless they explcitly state that on the news site.

For example, CNN.com says "All Right Reserved" at the bottom of their page. If you check out the terms and conditions, it says "You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part. You may download copyrighted material for your personal use only."

MSNBC.com is even more clear on their Terms and Conditions: "You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, or distribute in any way any material from this site including code and software without express permission from MSNBC or as permitted inReprint Requests ."

I'm not an expert, but taking 30% of their content does not seem to meet their rules for reproducing their content no matter if you're attributing the source or not. Perhaps a quote or two from an article is fine, but 30% sounds like a lot.

Perhaps the sites that Shahzad is using do follow Creative Commons, but many of the major news sites do not seem to do that.

Oops, I misread. Sorry. See my response to your comment.

Edited: see my response to Robert

In my experience, it does a good job of picking up the canonical tags. In fact, if you go into your campaign, go into the Crawl Diagnostics section, then click the blue "Notices" button, it will show you how many "Rel canonical" URLs were picked up.

If you're not getting many pages shown here, perhaps you should recheck to be sure your tags are implemented properly.

I'd leave it as "follow" since there's no reason to make it "nofollow" in this case. I believe that's what Yoast recommends via the plugin as well.

I would add a "noindex" tags to the archive pages and leave the article page alone. If it's the same archive setup I'm thinking of, there's little value to leaving this in the Google index so that's it's searchable.

Are you using WordPress? This can be easily done with the Yoast SEO plugin.

Hmm, I can't say I'm sure why that is, Alex. It might have something to do with the SEOmoz crawl that I'm not aware of. It sounds like my blog site is set up much the same way as yours, but I do not have duplicate content errors showing up for this reason in either SEOmoz or GMT.

It seems what's happening here is that the error is related to posts that are no longer on the front page of your site. When you click to go to see "Previous posts" or something like that, that's when you're going to mysite.com/page/2, mysite.com/page/3, etc.

I have the Yoast SEO plugin set to "noindex, follow" these pages, and I do not get the problem showing up in my campaigns. I believe this is one of the options on the "Indexing" tab. I think it may be the "Subpages of archives and taxonomies" option that should be checked.

The easiest way to figure out is to check this option and then immediate check the page source code of "mysite.com/page/2" to see if it's being indexed or not. If the "nonindex, follow" tag exists, you should be set and this warning will probably disappear on your next crawl.

Is the place where you submit a txt sitemap in Webmaster tools different from where you'd submit an XML version?

Are you utilizing an XML sitemap? In my opinion it's much easier to do it this way than manage text files.

I have XML sitemaps autogenerate (there are websites like http://www.xml-sitemaps.com/ that work, too), and then point Google Webmaster to those XML files.

They should appear on the day that your weekly ranking reports post. If that's Thursday of every week, you won't see them until next week if the new keywords were added today.

Mine show a little calendar graphic with the day the rankings will be posted for the first time for new keywords.

uav21.png

Sure, I searched for "Spanish restaurants New Haven" (personalized search off) and there are 2 locations that have both a places listing and their organic listing and organic listing on page 1.

https://www.google.com/search?q=spanish restaurants%2Bnew%2Bhaven&gl=us&pws=0

What you're describing to me is basically page authority and domain authority.

When you create a new page on a website (like a blog post) there won't be any links to it or any other metric for establishing authority, so it probably won't have much page authority at all.

However, if it's a PR5 site (which has a good amount of domain authority), it will still be a valuable link. Typically it's stated that the deeper in the site the link is, the less valuable.

So, based on how I'm understanding you're question, the answer is more or less "yes."

I know it's possible to have an organic search result and a places page both on the first page of search results (I'm looking at an example of that right now).

As far as your cannibalization issue, I'm not so sure that's true. I haven't heard of that happening before.

Sure, I highly recommend it if it's something you're able to do!

I'd say 2 links in the byline is typical. Some allow links to your site in the text if it provides useful information.

Targeted anchor text is great if you can get it.

Don't forget that you want to link to pages that provide useful content for the readers, too. The blog owner will appreciate that more than just seeing that you're trying to pump the post with convenient links back to your site. Instead, make the guest post and the resources it links to valuable for them and not just valuable for you.

I'm not aware of any sites that use a rel="nofollow" for guest post links. After all, one of the principal reasons to write guest posts is to get followed links!

I agree with eyepaq. Your friend is mostly likely suggesting this in an attempt to rank for both of the phrases - "Bars in New York" and "Bars New York"

If that's the case,  there are better ways to target different keyword phrases than trying get it all into the title tag.

I second @SEOConsult. Here's a SEOmoz post about Xenu that you might find helpful (although it's mostly about building links on other sites)  http://www.seomoz.org/blog/xenu-link-sleuth-more-than-just-a-broken-links-finder

Domain hunter is also a great tool and it's nice that it's a browser extension: http://domainhunterplus.com/

I would 301 redirect the index.html page to the http://www.domain.com/keyword-is-here. There's no reason to have both pages if they're the exact same content.

This is sorta covered under the "SEO Best Practice" section from page I sent you to: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/canonicalization (although I know it can be a little unclear)

This page also gives a good yet slightly different explanation that might be easier to follow. Scroll down to the "Canonical and Duplicate Versions of Content" section with the pink diamonds: http://www.seomoz.org/beginners-guide-to-seo/basics-of-search-engine-friendly-design-and-development