Welcome to the Q&A Forum

http://moz.com/learn/seo/url says: http://www.example.com/category-keyword/subcategory-keyword/primary-keyword.html However I am wondering about structuring things this a little backwards from that: http://www.example.com/primary-keyword/ (this would be an introduction and overview of the topic described by the primary keyword)
http://www.example.com/primary-keyword/secondary/ (this would be a category landing page with snippets from articles within the niche described by the secondary keyword, which is itself a niche of the primary keyword)
http://www.example.com/primary-keyword/secondary/article-title/ (in-depth article on a topic within the scope of the secondary, which is within the scope of the primary) Where http://www.example.com/primary-keyword/ is the most important page targeting the most important URL. Thoughts?

The full URL of a particular site's homepage is something like http://www.example.com/directory/.
The canonical and og URLs match.
The root domain 301 redirects to it using the absolute path. And yet the SERP (and the cached version of the page) lists it simply as http://www.example.com/. What gives? Could the problem be found at some deeper technical level (.htaccess or DirectoryIndex or something?) We fiddled with things a bit this week, and while our most recent changes appear to have been crawled (and cached), I am wondering whether I should give it some more time before I proceed as if the SERP won't ever reflect the correct URL. If so, how long? [EDIT: From the comments, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8QKIweOzH4#t=2838]

We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?

My plan: 3 sites with identical content, yet--wait for it--for every article whose topic is A, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site A. For every article whose topic is B, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site B. So Site A will have some articles about topics A, B, and C. And for pages with articles about A, the rel=canonical will point to the page it's on. Yet for pages with articles about B, the rel=canonical will point to the version of that article on site B. Etc. I have my reasons for planning this, but you can see more or less that I want each site to rank for its niche, yet I want the users at each site to have access to the full spectrum of articles in the shared articles database without having to leave a given site. These would be distinct brands with distinct Whois, directory listings, etc. etc. The content is quality and unique to our company.

Is this a real thing?

Somehow certain newspapers' webpages show up in the index but require login. My client has a whole section of the site that requires a login (registration is free), and we'd love to get that content indexed. The developer offered to remove the login requirement for specific user agents (eg Googlebot, et al.). I am afraid this might get us penalized. Any insight?

Anybody know of one?

...besides the MS AdLab tool (which seems to always be down)?

This page says "...'partial match' means that at least one word from the query matches the anchor text.". Does this mean that at least one word from the query matches at least one word from the anchor text, or that at least one word from the query matches the entire anchor text?

Here is what Google says about the InAnchor operator. I am curious to know if this will show results with exact match or partial match anchor text. Does anybody know?

So one of my client's wants to know why he shouldn't just hire GoDaddy to "do SEO" for him! He found this page: http://www.godaddy.com/search-engine/seo-services.aspx Without actually trying it, It looks like a bunch of stuff I already do (rank tracking, PR tracking, traffic tracking, ROI projections), stuff I shouldn't do (site submissions to search engines), and stuff I probably don't need ("keyword wizard"). That said, I am intrigued by: the dedicated phone number with track and monitor (is it better than Hosted Numbers?), the business listing (is it a link worth the $6/mo?), site analysis and optimization, and ROI dashboard. Does anyone have any experience with this? Does any piece of it have any value?

So I have this client who's got a killer blogger blog—tons of inbound links, great content, etc. He wants to move it onto his new website. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a single way to 301 the darn thing. I can do meta refresh and/or JavaScript redirects, but those won't transfer link juice, right? Is there a best practice here? I've considered truncating each post and adding a followed "continue reading…" link, which would of course link to the full post on the client's new site. It would take a while and I'm wondering if it would be worth it, and/or if there are any better ideas out there. Sock it to me.

There's a ton of directories. Has anyone had success with a program that will take your info for a site and submit it to all of them at once? Bonus points if you can vary the anchor text and description. Paid or free. And whether there is anything like that, which actually works, I am wondering if there is some relatively authoritative, relatively comprehensive list of non-spammy directories. Any other directory advice would be awesome! Thanks!

When you perform a search in Chrome, click through to a result, then hit "back", you get a nice little option to "Block all example.com results" listed next to the result from which you backed out. I am assuming Google collects this information from Chrome users whose settings allow them to? I am assuming this is a spam signal (in aggregate)? Anyone know? Thanks!

I read a lot on SEO, but I read way more on another unrelated subject matter (and have way more to say). Should I split my Twitter account into two distinct accounts (one for each subject matter)? Do you keep a private, personal Twitter for screwing around with your friends and/or getting the word out on social issues pertaining only to your social circle? Or do you just use your professional account for this? Or do you somehow manage to not "waste time" on purely personal social networking? [UPDATE: To abstract my question a bit: should I cultivate distinctly branded personal nicknames for different spaces that I am interested in? I have gone by "Loudogg" all my life but I am now afraid that as I grow professionally in different unrelated sectors that I will dilute my personal brand by Tweeting (and doing other activities) along too many different subjects as "Loudogg". To complicate matters, I am actually involved in more than 2 fields, and would like to grow in at least 3. Should I develop multiple personalities entirely? It just feels wrong.]

On one hand it seems like having my cake and eating it too: blogging about SEO using my clients as case studies in order to give them a couple backlinks. On the other hand it seems like asking for it from Google or from competitors. Got any advice? And what of mentioning actual domains and brand names when asking questions here in the forum? One one hand it seems like I'd get more specific advice, on the other hand, once again, it seems like it comes with some amount of risk. Any advice? Thanks!