Yeah, should be fine.

Yes.

In your permalink settings just add .html (or whatever) to the end of your permalink settings so %postname%.html and that will work... for posts.

To add it to pages you can either use this plugin - http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/html-on-pages/ - bearing in mind it's rarely updated, hack wp_rewrite in wp-includes/rewrite.php

add_action('init', 'change_page_permalink', -1); function change_page_permalink() { global $wp_rewrite; if ( strstr($wp_rewrite->get_page_permastruct(), '.html') != '.html' ) $wp_rewrite->page_structure = $wp_rewrite->page_structure . '.html'; }

bearing in mind you'll have to do this every time you update

or add it in your .htaccess

RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !.[a-zA-Z0-9]{2,3,4} RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/$ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ $1.html

I'm not taking any responsibility for messing up that last one

Agree with Wayne, but for reference I'll have a large, good quality image at around 70kb and a standard image at around 20 - 30kb. If I can get it in for less without it looking terrible I will.

If you have photoshop it shouldn't be much of a problem playing with the save for web setting and seeing how much you can trim off. 60% is a good standard for jpg files.

So you use robots.txt to disallow indexing of anything under the /bet/ folder, you link to 'bet/XYZ' using nofollow and 'bet/XYZ' has a redirect on it?

I'm going to go with safe. It's a fairly common practice.

You want to track individual pdfs?

Off the top of my head adding ="javascript: pageTracker._trackPageview('/spoofpage')>anchor text will spoof a page view to your spoofpage in analytics.

That will require individually tagging each pdf though.

Let me have a think if there's anyway to change the 'spoofpage' to the href 'url' to allow you to add the same code to each.

1. Doesn't matter too much.

2. Yes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIn5qJKU8VM

3. Yes.

Things to maybe think about though is HTML 5 and the

<header>tag for sections. Read - http://html5doctor.com/the-header-element/ - and - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5

At the moment there will be some accessibility issues with screen readers when using multiple

s but that should get better.

Headers aren't a big ranking factor - http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/the-five-least-important-ranking-factors - http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics-6

A vast majority of the web isn't coded correctly and the above points to it not really mattering, however, it's worth thinking about your structure and still only really using one

if you can.

</header>

robots.txt isn't a requirement, indeed it's only voluntarily followed by spiders (as in they can choose to ignore it), so I think you'll be fine without it. The default is to 'allow all' and 'follow, index', so they should still be crawling the site correctly.

Check in Webmaster tools by fetching as Googlebot or alternative find a page and put cache:pageurl.html into google and see if it's cached it correctly.

That said returning a 500 instead of a 404 may be causing an issue that isn't obviously apparent and 500 is a bit too generic a message to say specifically what, but I would try and solve it as quick as possible. The benefits will depends on what you put in your robots.txt file

Tildes are okay these days, but 'unsafe'.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/rfc/2396/full.html#2.3

Tilde was (begrudgingly) added to the unreserved character list a while ago, so Google should treat them fine without encoding.

However, if you can avoid using them I would, so leave the old addresses but from now on I'd use a hyphen (in preference to an underscore, still) instead of a tilde if you can.

Technically attribution (CC BY) requires the url to be linked, though I've seen it argued it just needs to be displayed.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

http://creativecommons.org/choose/

How are you doing your 302 redirect?

If it's htaccess, either just change 302 to 301

So if it looks like this - redirect 302 /oldpage http://example.com/page - just change the number

If it's applied by a rule add R=301

RewriteRule ^oldpage(.*)$ /page [L,R=301]

If it's php

header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
header("Location: http://example.com/page");
exit();
?>

if it's asp

<%
response.Status = "301 Moved Permanently"
response.addheader "location", "http://example.com/page"
response.end
%>

Double check those though, end of the day here, getting tired

Probably the simplest way to redirect the non-www to the www is to put this in your .htaccess file

RewriteEngine On Options +FollowSymLinks

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^example.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.html
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html$ http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

For reference the .htaccess file goes in the root of your domain via whatever file transfer program you use and of course replace example.com with your domain

If you get stuck, let me know

A few things to think about.

If done right I don't think this will effect your rankings much, if at all. You're certainly not the only site that does this and although I've never done something similar with a php header redirect, georouting of visitors based on IP is something I do all the time (and could be something you might want to look into? - http://www.maxmind.com/)

Your concerns here should be how is Google getting around your site? Is your homepage just a location select screen which it then has to crawl individually (a la paradisepoker[dot]com) or is there a default site they'll see and only later find a link to the location versions? If I (or specifically Google) don't accept cookies what can I see?

People linking into your site will be splitting the value a bit, even if you use the canonical tag. What version of the site do you get links to and is that ranking better than the location variations? Would you be better not using the canonical tag but targeting links into each with location qualifiers to keywords?

As I say, if it's done right I don't think you'll be hurting yourself, but would need to look into it a bit more to say for definite.

How are you doing your 302 redirect?

If it's htaccess, either just change 302 to 301

So if it looks like this - redirect 302 /oldpage http://example.com/page - just change the number

If it's applied by a rule add R=301

RewriteRule ^oldpage(.*)$ /page [L,R=301]

If it's php

header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
header("Location: http://example.com/page");
exit();
?>

if it's asp

<%
response.Status = "301 Moved Permanently"
response.addheader "location", "http://example.com/page"
response.end
%>

Double check those though, end of the day here, getting tired

1. Doesn't matter too much.

2. Yes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIn5qJKU8VM

3. Yes.

Things to maybe think about though is HTML 5 and the

<header>tag for sections. Read - http://html5doctor.com/the-header-element/ - and - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5

At the moment there will be some accessibility issues with screen readers when using multiple

s but that should get better.

Headers aren't a big ranking factor - http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/the-five-least-important-ranking-factors - http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics-6

A vast majority of the web isn't coded correctly and the above points to it not really mattering, however, it's worth thinking about your structure and still only really using one

if you can.

</header>

Technically attribution (CC BY) requires the url to be linked, though I've seen it argued it just needs to be displayed.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

http://creativecommons.org/choose/

With Google traffic estimator / keyword Tool you get the data from the SE itself.

Which is all the more reason not to trust it!

if you don't have data for long tail keywords that is probably because the search for those terms is very low as far as volume.

Because Google only now reports on keywords that make them money

There can't / won't be another better source for this kind of data.

Your own analytics are the only thing that will give you a truly accurate data set, however I appreciate that it's not predictive for the most part For future reference as well, once you have top rankings for something always compare it against what you thought you would get and judge for yourself how accurate the tool is.

Anyway, yes, use the tool it's still one of the best resources you have access to.

It depends. What's written into the agreement?

If they've built links on other people's sites then it will probably be too much of a hassle to contact all of them and ask them to remove it, so it will either naturally run out (if it's paid and you're not given the contact details) or remain there for the rest of it's natural life.

Alternatively if they run the sites they've been building links on (and it is the easiest way to guarantee clients will get links on sites) then they may remove them to make way for new clients links. I've certainly seen this happen.

It's important to note that Google doesn't overly care how quickly you get links, but it will certainly notice if you lose a lot quickly! Aa it means you've either bought them and they've expired or something has happened to make people lose trust in your site, either way it's going to raise some flags and possibly have someone look a little bit closer into your link profile.

Double check what's been agreed, find out who owns the sites the links have been built on and speak with the agency before you do it. If they're reputable I doubt they'll try and screw you over.

link farm - I do not think this means what you think this means

The 100 link thing is a bit out of date - here and here - but it's good that it makes you stop and think about what you're doing.

As dignan99 said you need to think about your internal link structure. There are a few pages on SEOmoz that should help - 1 2 3 - indeed you should be very able to work out what to do from those.

Basically having a whole bunch of links isn't a huge problem, but there may be a better way if you sit down and think about it

Yes.

In your permalink settings just add .html (or whatever) to the end of your permalink settings so %postname%.html and that will work... for posts.

To add it to pages you can either use this plugin - http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/html-on-pages/ - bearing in mind it's rarely updated, hack wp_rewrite in wp-includes/rewrite.php

add_action('init', 'change_page_permalink', -1); function change_page_permalink() { global $wp_rewrite; if ( strstr($wp_rewrite->get_page_permastruct(), '.html') != '.html' ) $wp_rewrite->page_structure = $wp_rewrite->page_structure . '.html'; }

bearing in mind you'll have to do this every time you update

or add it in your .htaccess

RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !.[a-zA-Z0-9]{2,3,4} RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/$ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ $1.html

I'm not taking any responsibility for messing up that last one

The last part redirects index.html to /

There would only be a loop if you redirected / to index.html

99.9% sure this'll work for you I'm using the exact code on a small site right now and it's working fine