Welcome to the Q&A Forum

No, I have never used Linkmarket. That being said, have you been monitoring the traffic / conversion data associated with the keywords Linkmarket is targeting? That should give you a really good sense of whether you are getting what you are paying for. Also, have you been auditing where these new links are coming from? I would want to be certain any link building partner wasn't linking in from dubious sites.

Rather than asking people to link to your site, have you considered focusing on the content you are offering on your site(s)? Are you offering content people would want to link to in the first place? There are many approaches to generating this type of content. Consider the following...

• Publish editorial content to a blog
• Create forums for your visitors to create discussions
• Q&A for visitors to ask questions (like this)
• Potentially viral content such as videos, infographics, published research, etc.

I also strongly recommend you watch Tom Critchlow's whiteboard Friday video that focused on Outreach for Linkbuilding - very informative.

I really wonder about this assumption that Google will ding a blog for duplicate content based on category and tag pages. As Jared pointed out typically those pages only show snippets. I don't know one way or the other, but I'm inclined to think Google is smart enough not to respond with a penalty. TKIG and Dan, I'm not disagreeing with you because I have no data to support one opinion or the other, but I'm very curious what you are basing your opinions on. FYI, this approach is nearly identical to the strategy Compendium uses to generate long tail search landing pages and they claim to have no duplicate content issues.

Consider the following:

1. How well is the linking site aligned with the content you are looking to link to? In an ideal situation the linking site would be in th same 'neighbordhood' as the content on the linked-to site. (a carpeting site wants links from sites that have to do with flooring, for example).
2. Have you taken the time to review the link profile of the linking site. I would take the time to review the linking sites link profile to see if any of its linking sites look questionable.
3. How much time/effort/resources/$ are you going to have to give up to secure this link? It sounds like you have it in the bag, but there is always some effort behind closing such deals.

In the end, if you can get this link (especially with anchor text you get to specify) and it meets criteria #1 and #2 and won't consume a lot of time, I say get it.

There are two things I would look closely at in such a situation...

Traffic: First, you want to know if these pages are generating any traffic. If they are, you should keep them. If they aren't (which it sounds like they aren't), move on to checking links...

Links: Before you scrap pages generating little inbound traffic, you should check to see if said pages have any inbound links. If they do, you would want to evaluate the quality of those links and determine if that is greater or lessor than the cost of keeping the pages and setting up redirects. If you determine these pages have valuable links, definitely 301 redirect them to a good substitute page.

When I speak of the cost associted with setting up the redirects I'm talking about the time taken to set up the redirects (likely your time or ITs time).

We use Open Site Explorer to help us audit inbound links to pages.

One thing to keep in mind here is the amount of work required to manage a Twitter channel well. To keep a single channel fresh takes a lot of time. Trying to keep seven channels fresh (the six characters + the channel for the series) is going to be a ton of work. The last thing you want is for your social media channels to reflect poorly on the series. Social media channels that go dormant due to lack of resources never reflect well on a brand.

That being said, would it make more sense to roll all the characters under the nakedinfishbowl account?

If you choose to move forward with Twitter accounts for every character, I think I would opt for [CHARACTER NAME]_Fishbowl or [CHARACTER NAME]Fishbowl (Bonnie_Fishbowl or BonnieFishbowl, for example). Here is my reasoning:

1. NIAF is already owned and somewhat branded. You probably don't want people appending @NIAF to posts about your series.
2. [CHARACTER NAME]_Fishbowl or [CHARACTER NAME]Fishbowl is easy to remember.

Good luck! This is a tricky one...

Often brands are seperated from the title message via one of the following characters:   |   -   >

It should be noted that the maximum number of characters that will be displayed on search results pages is capped at 70 (and in some cases resolves to less than that) so pay attention to how much info you are stuffing in those title tags. This doesn't mean you cannot go past 70 characters, but the title tag will be truncated in the search results. This can be unavoidable once in a while, but we always try to stay below 70 characters.

From a marketing / branding perspective, I'm also a big fan of title tags that 'read' properly. The example you provided doesn't really 'read' well. Of course, there is a trade off here. Are you writing your title tags for users or for search engines? Ideally, you want to walk the line between the two. For example, have you considered the following alternatives?

Alternative 1

Use the | to seperate the title tag into two short statements followed by your branding.

Wyoming Guest Ranch & Dude Ranch | Jackson Hole Activities | RANCH NAME

Alternative 2

Rather than attempt to target 'Guest Ranch, Dude Ranch, and Jackson Hole Activities' all on the same page, why not create a second page as follows?

Guest Ranch & Dude Ranch in Wyoming | RANCH NAME (or Wyoming Guest Ranch & Dude Ranch | RANCH NAME)

Jackson Hole Activities | RANCH NAME

One final note, be sure you are targeting the correct keywords here. For example, do you have data that shows which of the following is the best choice (there are probably even more options, but this gets the point across)?

Wyoming Guest Ranch

Wyoming Dude Ranch

Guest Ranch in Wyoming

Dude Ranch in Wyoming

Jackson Hole Dude Ranch

Jackson Hole Guest Ranch

Guest Ranch in Jackson Hole

Dude Ranch in Jackson Hole

There may or may not be a lot of data available for these searches, but I would at least take a moment to check Google Trends and Google Keyword Tool. Furthermore, as you have a Pro account, you can use SEOmoz's Keyword Difficulty Tool.

In my opinion...

1. I would use the most descriptive URL for the product at hand. That being said, if you want to rank for all three keyword variations, I would go with /big-shiny-blue-widgets.

2. No, inbound anchor text of "shiny blue widgets" will not help the page rank equally for "blue widgets" and "shiny blue widgets". It will help both, but lean toward the latter. That being said, you want to vary the anchor text so this is almost a non-issue (see #3).

3. Vary the anchor text and include all three variations (and possibly others).

Here are some other things to consider...

1. The title of the page is a very important indicator for the search engines. If you want to rank for all three variations, you should use "big shiny blue widgets" in your title tag.

2. The content on the page (text) should include all three variations of the text you want to rank for - without stuffing it in. This is a tough one to call out a rule for. If you read the text and it sounds too keyword heavy, it probably is.

3. Another place to inject the keywords you want to rank for is in relation to images of said products. You could include specific product descriptions as captions and in the image alt tag.

4. The page description is another place to possible put all three variations. However, this could be considered overkill. Also, don't forget people will be looking at this text in the SERPs. You want the description to be compelling to a human as well as a searchbot or else your clickthrough rate may suffer.

5. The competitive landscape of the product at hand is important to consider. If you are trying to rank for multiple variations of an obscure keyword set, you may find it easy to rank well for all three keyword variations without a lot of link building. If, on the other hand, you are attempting to rank for highly competitive keywords, you may find yourself needing to pick one to focus on or build lots of links.

Hope this helps! If anyone else feels differently, I would love to hear what you have to say.

From the way you've described your situation, yes, there is good value in the links you are getting.

What you want to be concerned about isn't one particular site linking to you and whether they are or are not related to your product / service. What you want to be concerned about is low quality sites that are highly associated with dubious content such as spamming, link buying and selling, cloaking, keyword stuffing, porn, gambling, etc. It is highly unlikely your clients are involved in any of these activities.

All that being said, Google understands site owners have limited control over who links to them. If you have an opportunity to get a link from a high quality site, count yourself lucky. Even more so if the link is truly authentic and is placed within copy that is related to what you do. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend you start asking your clients for a link to your site if they are happy with your service.

Wondering who else will be attending the Link Building Seminar March 25th in New Orleans.

One 'trap' to consider is the site structure and publishing process. If your client's site has a CMS backend that lets you easily categorize pages, then no problem. If, however, publication is done manually, creating new folders for every new keyword can quickly become a maintenance hassle.

Another positive effect of adding the new level is the option to create a new category page at that level that is 100% optimized for said keywords. Moreover, your topic pages can now benefit from keyword focused breadcrumbs that include the category level.

The pages that need links are the pages that drive (or should drive) value for your business.

Take a look at the keywords your are building content for. Hopefully you can rank those keywords based on the revenue potential. Next, look at where the best pages for each keyword are currently ranking. Finally, ascertain the overall competitive landscape for those keywords.

What you are looking for is high revenue potential + low rankings + reasonable competitive landscape. Build links into those pages.

Furthermore, is it possible your other pages aren't ranking well because they are not properly optimized for the keywords you want them to rank for? Have you surveyed the content on the page, the URL structure, the title tag, etc.?

Here is a thought...

Rather than using a form, have you considered using a dedicated purchase link with parameters that define the chosen product? These parameters could then be updated dynamically via JavaScript as a user selects the version of the product they want. So you would end up with something like this...

Purchase Now

Now, write a function that gets this element by id and then updates the href attribute with the appropriate option number. For example...

function update(prodnum){

var temp = document.getElementById('product');

temp.setAttribute("href","NEW URL?"+prodnum);

}

Finally, you'll have to set up a UI that lets people select the product they want. I'll leave that up to you, but it should call the 'update' function you've written.

Think of it like this: user clicks on chosen product link > update function is called via JavaScript > 'Buy Now' link is updated with appropriate product number > user clicks on 'Buy Now' link and parameters are passed to checkout

FYI, you could also write a function that asks the user to select a product if they click the 'Buy Now' button without choosing a specific product. Something like, "Please select a product from the options below" or whatever.

Hope this is helpful. Good luck.

The only difference is from the user perspective. Search engines treat both versions the same.

What you want to be careful about is maintaining consistency within your site. This is especially true at larger organizations with multiple publishing points. If everyone isn't made aware (and reminded from time to time) of this branding decision, inconsistencies will begin to pop up.

Furthermore, you should be sure to redirect all versions of pages to the option you choose. This is true for both the home page and all other pages. For example, if you choose http://example123.com...

• http://www.example123.com should be 301 redirected to http://example123.com
• http://www.example123.com/whatever should also be 301 redirected to http://example123.com/example123

Finally, be sure to share your choice with all parties that communicate externally. This includes PR, Social Media, Marketing, etc. for inclusion in their posts, your company boilerplate, emails, etc.

Your question touches on a constant challenge in the SEO world that has been around as long as Marketing. In all business environments we must acknowledge the need for the following:

Communication

First, when working with an organization to assist with SEO, it is critical that all parties are aware of the the need to run any changes to site content through the SEO team. Otherwise, trying to implement a well thought out plan is like herding cats.

Prioritization

Typically, engineering resources and low when compared to engineering requests which leads to a backlog of tasks. This, in turn, leads to prioritization. Engineers have to look at requests and decide what is most impactful for the business. Those requests get done first.

In order for us to get our SEO requests to the top of the queue (or to have them supercede other competing requests) we have to make strong business cases. In the case of changes being made to a site that conflict with our recommendation, we have to first be aware the change is taking place (see Communication). Secondly, we have to make a stronger case for keeping the terms aligned with SEO best practices. However, if changing the terms will increase customer conversions by 10% and only result in a small loss of organic traffic then changing the terms wins.

Give and Take

In the 'real world' my experience has been that maintaining SEO best practices all the time is nearly impossible. Our job is to help companies add as much SEO love as possible through education, encouragement, and maybe a little donut buying. Seriously, Marketing is a give-and-take world. Don't feel like anything below 100% SEO best practices isn't good enough.

My experience has taught me a few things about linkbaiting...

The link bait world is a competitive one. Rolling something out that is so-so just won't cut it. Link bait has to be stunning in some way. Maybe I'm telling you something that is obvious, but in my experience, it really isn't to a lot of people. Figure out what is going to make people want to link to your linkbait (design, content, proprietary research, humor, etc.) and do everything you can to make that aspect of it outstanding.

I think a lot of linkbait campaigns try to do too much and in the end deliver a broad, but mediocre campaign. Rather than try to hit a grand slam (especially when you are new to this), depending on your experience and skill level, I recommend you do several campaigns each of which focuses on one thing and tries to do an outstanding job with that one thing. Yes, there are some marketers that can do more, but they typically have a lot of experience and knowledge gained through trial and error. Over time you'll be able to expand into bigger and more complex linkbait projects.

Share your linkbait with as many parties as you can prior to rolling it out to see if what you think is amazing really is. If you know any skilled designers or UX specialists, get them to take a look at your linkbait and give you feedback on the presentation and usability.

If you have any connections at major blogs / news portals, call in a favor to get your linkbait campaign off the ground.

What kind of following do you have on Twitter / Facebook? Do everything you can to build that following leading up to the launch of your linkbait so you can leverage your social network to help get the work out.

Finally, read Justin Briggs' post on How to Build Links with Infographics. It offers a lot of good advice around how to roll out linkbait campaigns - regardless of whether they are infographics or not.

I'm anxious to hear what others have to say...

For our site, default font for body copy = Arial and default font for headlines = Ed Gothic

Adding to what Barry said, another option for font replacement is cufon. With this tool you can leverage Javascript to allow you to use any font you own the rights to. From an SEO perspective the text is still on the page and crawlable by the bots.

To be fair, I'm not aware of any testing regarding SEO impact, but I don't see how it would be a problem. The text is still present in the markup so no crawling issues are created. Moreover, given that Google offers a similar service (as Barry pointed out), I can't come up with any reason why font replacement would cause any issues.

No, I don't know any sites you can use to get your infographic 'noticed'.

However, in situations such as this, you shouldn't feel confined to this single tactic. Justin Briggs made it a point to call out at least four other options in his post on How to Build Links with Infographics.

I highly recommend you read the post and pay close attention to the 'Getting Links' section toward the end of the post.

Best of luck!

I think you'll find this post on the Official Google Webmaster Central Blog valuable.

To add to what Wissam has said, it is always a good idea to think about the following regarding URLs.

Be consistent everywhere. This includes both inbound links (which you only have so much control over) and internal links. Be sure to communicate this throughout the company as there are likely others who will be rolling out links (engineers, PR, SEM, etc.). We had a situation once where blog post links were being published both with and without the '/'. It made our reporting messy (until we 'fixed the glitch').

Decide whether to include or exclude the 'www' and permanently redirect the version you don't want to use to the version you do want to use. In making this decision, consider your current backlink profile. What do most of your links currently point to?

Good luck!

For the benefit of others, I'm going to walk through how I would investigate this situation...

1. Head over to OSE and pull a backlink report to see if the link shows up (it doesn't)
2. Check links on Google Webmaster Tools and Bing Webmaster Tools

If the BBB link cannot be identified through those steps, move on to the following:

1. Verify the BBB page is indexed by searching the URL (it is indexed)
2. Verify the redirect is truly a 301 by visiting a header checking tool and entering URL. (yes, it is a 301 redirect)
3. Visit BBB and verify the following: a) the page is not being blocked from bots (it isn't) b) the link is followed (it is) c) the link can be crawled by bots (it can)
4. Visit the BBB robots.txt file to verify the page isn't blocked from bots (it isn't)

At this point, it's tough to determine exactly what is going on. I suppose I would consider building some links into said BBB page to 'assist' the bots in finding the page and capturing the link. Might be a good time to apply the ideas Pavel blogged about regarding SEO value from Q&A sites.

Best of luck!