A page per service area is likely to be better from a pure SEO perspective, particularly if these relate to phrases that potential customers are likely to serve.  A page per service is going to give you the opportunity to really expand on the information on offer and probably rank for more related terms further down the tail as well. It also makes is easier to focus your one page optimisation more at the theme for each page.

From a user experience / conversion perspective it could help too.  That additional information, some focus and the chance to sell the benefits more should funnel more people towards conversion if it is done well.

One potential pitfall is if you are in an area where potential customers might not know exactly which product areas are right for them.  The "everything on one page" approach can work well when people want to scan their eye down what is on offer and find what is relevant to them.   Many sites now take a best-of-both approach: Have one page per service, but still have a services page that gives a shorter overview of each aimed at directing people towards the right choice for them, as you suggest in your last paragraph.

Both are quite different, so it really depends on what you are after.  I'm actually a big fan of majestiseo (just to confuse things further).  OSE is good for understanding the big picture. However I find that its crawl isn't anywhere deep enough for the stuff I work on - particularly in terms of deep pages on large authority sites.  Example:  links from the bbc are almost the holy grail for some of the projects that I work on, but OSE often misses them.

Ahrefs is better, and majestic goes deeper still. The down-side of that is that you get a lot more low quality stuff to sort through.

In terms of majestic v ahrefs, ahrefs definitely wins in terms of interface / tools.  I'm an excel guy though, so it is all about the data for me - hence majestic being my "weapon of choice".

Why not check for yourself?  Same logic.  Put image URL in to image search, but this time add site:pinterest.com to the end.

http://goo.gl/OGgeb8

Not thousands, but there are some.  You can now check the source of those page to see whether there are followed links or not.

No problem.  This isn't the clearest example of what I am talking about, but it was the one that I had open in a tab when I got the email notification of your question!

http://www.backcountry.com/3-season-tents

The top of that page has three guides.  There are three more at the bottom.  Those guides are in a place where customers are more likely to see/use them. That makes sense as they are also great sales tools. Those that open in a modal window for that page also mean that the category page becomes the page that attracts links rather than the blog page.

If you put the URL of that image in to Google's search by image you get this list of results of where else that has been us3ed http://goo.gl/mkAdJW

If you go down that list you will find that the majority of those sites then link back to the originating site by way of a credit.  Voila - links!

So the process there was most likely to produce a list of sites that might use the infographic and contact them all to offer it (requesting a link by way of credit).  It's an effective method in terms of the number of links that can be generated from it, but it doesn't create the best overall link profile.  A lot of the links can be from pages that drop off quickly or from sites that link out to almost anything.  It also creates a very definite pattern.  Not to be overdone, but it does still seem to work.

Your structure is probably the most common.  As you say though, you do risk cannibalising your own results.  You could no-index the blog categories.

My preferred approach is to have blog and store more closely integrated.  This can allow you to do away with blog category pages entirely, and have those as part of the e-commerce category. Bringing the content closer to the products brings a number of benefits in terms of both SEO and Conversions.  It also results in much richer category pages which can be another big win.

If you have a full list of URLs you could check for cache date on each at Google.  Unless you were doing that manually it would be technically against google TOS, but so is SERP checking.  More to the point I don't think it would be foolproof as indexed pages will sometimes return no cache date.

It's a bit of a convoluted method, but I think that might be your only option.

The answer to this depends on what you are trying to achieve with the video.  Video can serve numerous purposes in online marketing and the best methods to employ differ a bit depending on what you are trying to achieve.

If the aim is for as many people as possible to see the video then you want to include it (or a version of it) on YouTube. YouTube is in itself the second biggest search engine on the internet, so a properly optimised video there has the potential to be seen by a huge audience.  This is perfect for video that, for instance, introduce your product or service as a solution to a common problem.

One use of video that we employ is to obtain rich snippets.  A video rich snippet can leapfrog your page above others in the SERPs and also bring an improved click through rate. Win!  If your video is hosted on YouTube and embedded on your site then this is not going to help you.  The reason for that is that the rich snippet will lead to a youtube page, not yours so you want to host it privately.

Privately doesn't have to mean on your own server. In fact, in most cases we avoid that.  Services like Wistia and Vimeo have paid options that allow you to upload your video with all the ease of youtube, but control which sites the video cam be embedded on. This protects your video and helps you keep that rich snippet result to yourself.

We often now look at using Wistia/Vimeo for the main video, but doing a second edit for YouTube if the content suits their audience.

As Dana says, Phil Nottingham has put out some very good posts about this, and also how to get the most out of whichever path you go down.  There is an outfit called reelseo who have also done some good posts on this.

I'd largely agree with Ron, although there could be a small secondary factor. Many believe that having traffic from a broad range of sources sends a strong quality signal to Google. Links from your emails would count in that respect.

Really though the question is whether adding those links would be useful for the people reading the email.  If they would then add them. Whether or not there is any "SEO benefit" you'll still have happier recipients. Good thing.

If not, then don't bother. If it isn't helpful for them then they won't click the links so no benefit anyway.

It's also worth remembering that most email spam filters look at links in email. Each links will add a little to the likelihood that your email doesn't reach it's intended recipient - so only include them if they're doing a job.

You're welcome.  Let me know if they come back with any questions.

It isn't hard to fake this at all I am afraid. Spotting it will depend on how sophisticated the person doing it is.

My personal preference would be not to use analytics as the means of counting it. Doing that you are going to be slightly limited in the metrics you have available and will always be "correcting" data and looking for problems rather than measuring more correctly and having problems spotted.

I'd have a script on page that logs that checks for a referrer and it if matches the pattern for website B creates a log record instead.

You then have the ability to set your rules. For instance if you get 2 referrals from the same IP a second apart would you count them? What about 10 per hour 24 hours a day? You can also log the exact timestamp with whatever variables you want to collect, so each click from the referring site might be recorded as:

• Time stamp
• Exact referring URL
• User agent
• IP
• Last visit (based on cookie)
• Total visits (based on cookie)
• #pages viewed (updating cookie on subsequent page views )
• and so on

Analytics doesn't give you access to the data in quite the same way. I'd definitely want to be logging it myself if the money involved is reasonable.

Both are quite different, so it really depends on what you are after.  I'm actually a big fan of majestiseo (just to confuse things further).  OSE is good for understanding the big picture. However I find that its crawl isn't anywhere deep enough for the stuff I work on - particularly in terms of deep pages on large authority sites.  Example:  links from the bbc are almost the holy grail for some of the projects that I work on, but OSE often misses them.

Ahrefs is better, and majestic goes deeper still. The down-side of that is that you get a lot more low quality stuff to sort through.

In terms of majestic v ahrefs, ahrefs definitely wins in terms of interface / tools.  I'm an excel guy though, so it is all about the data for me - hence majestic being my "weapon of choice".

You have both in the page title there anyway, so it must literally be the product name you are considering changing.

I really, REALLY wouldn't do that. You already have a product image showing multiple items. If your product name was also the plural I think you'd risk upsetting quite a few customers - you don't exactly make it clear looking at the page.

Customers first. Always. What's the point otherwise? Higher rankings, but less sales.  In fact if I were optimising that page my first step would probably be to use that default overiew tab to ensure that everyone knew exactly what they were buying.

I think that your product pages are also a bit heavy on the keyword stuffing. I'm all for making things clear, but there are a lot of uses of the key terms going on.  Maybe run some key pages through the onpage optimisation tool as well: http://pro.seomoz.org/tools/on-page-keyword-optimization/new

You can do these with forwarding etc.  However that isn't the most efficient way.

What you want to do is to "park" the old domain on the new one.  In technical terms this means pointing the nameservers at the new hosting account and ensuring that there is MX record for them.  Most hosting companies do this for you or have a built in tool. It's very easy and is usually called "domain parking", "domain mapping" or "add on domains".

Doing that will ensure that visitors (and bots) visiting olddomain.com will be served newdomain.com

With that working you can just add an .htaccess rule on newdomain.com to ensure that it 301s correctly to newdomain.com . The same directive can tidy up all your subdomain woes at the same time!

This method has the least points of failiure and creates the fewest redirects. It's also generally the cheapest and easiest to manage. Win!

If you ensure that those pages return a 404 (Not found) response then Google will remove them from it's index in time.

If you want to speed the process up then you can also do this from webmaster tools. There is a guide to removing URLs here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663419

It has been said that using the URL removal tools on a lot (read hundreds) of individual URLs might be seen as negative. However if you just have a handful then that would be the way to do it.

It looks like these are given to those who speak as part of the Barclays Entrepeneur Speakers campaign.  See here: http://www.barclaysandme.com/Seminars/Entrepreneurspeakers/P1242587029441

Very interesting Seems a little... err, uhmm... Naa.. they wouldn't

Hi SpadaMan,

Submitting articles usually means finding sites that only existing to host other people's articles, giving them a link in exchange for the article content.  That approach has always been flawed and Google has been cracking down on it as deliberate manipulation of the results.  Definitely steer clear.

If your articles are original and useful then your best bet is likely to be to use them on your own website.  Start adding them on a regular basis, and push them out through social media at the same time.  You could contact sites in your niche and see if they would take a and credit you as the author (with a link) as well.

If they aren't original and interesting/useful then your options are going to be limited.  However I'd rather opt for "do nothing" than submitting them to article directories.

If people are posting questions about glazing there is definitely an opportunity here.  You could start blogging great answers to common questions so and then set up alerts for when those questions appear.  When they do you can post a short answer to the question but provide a link to the indepth version.

This also means you start improving the quality / depth of content on your site at the same time, which has to be a good thing.

I've only looked at a handful of pages / categories, but I am not sure that you are doing yourself too many favours.

In SEO terms I think that you are undermining your unique content pages.  By repeating the unique content from the product pages on to the category pages you are effectively introducing duplicates.  Yes, it is your own content, but spreading it across those pages is unlikely to do you many favours.

More importantly it's also pretty confusing in places.  Some of those categories are quite off putting.

What would I do?

1. Remove those descriptions from the cat pages
2. Add category descriptions
3. Try to flesh out the product descriptions with more unique content and keep an eye out for those that duplicate each other.

I hope that helps.

If you have a picture of the link profile you are trying to build (usually based on competitor analysis) then that helps guide you.

However my one guiding principal has always been to try not to be overly reliant on too few tactics.  That probably means I've missed out on some easy wins over the years. However it also means that I have sites that have been sitting at the top of their industry results for over a decade, never leaving page 1.

Mix it up. Find something that works - then find something else. No reason why articles can't be part of that, but if you are producing that content anyway then why not put some aside for guest posting? If you are researching guest posting opportunities why not see what else those sites are looking for?