When it comes to people, '3' is easier for them to process than 'three'. You may even get a minor speed boost when the CMS queries the DB, but I haven't tested that. It may only apply to example.com/2014/08/28/sample-post and example.com/?p=123. Basically, the numeric version is easier for machines to process as well.

However, Michael Gray at Gray Wolf SEO has one good reason why you might want to avoid using the numeric equivalent. He definitely has a point. So keep the number in the title and avoid using it in the URL, unless the information in the post - or the post itself - will never change.

There are plenty of other effective ways to increase page load speed, and that wasn't your concern anyway.

As The Chris Menke has stated, there's no problem with including the city and state in your meta data or on-page markup. It's actually an advantage of sorts.

There are nearly one dozen cities named Dallas in the US. Say you were located in Dallas, TX. What would separate you from Dallas, OR? There would be citations, if you're doing what you need to do for a local business. But I've found that on-page is getting a bit more weight, and it's increasing.

Not sure yet? You can verify a Google My Business listing via Google Webmaster Tools for an indeterminate amount of business categories. If that's not a sign that on-page is gaining weight in the local search scene - I don't know what is.

In fact, the Google Local team has stated that the business's domain is the strongest factor. Would you not like to possibly give them a few more signals, easily? They are the donkey, you have the carrot.

But I would suppose your question arises from an objection to writing; "Profession/Service City, State". There are ways you can do that, and it will still look alright. In fact, wouldn't you want someone to know that they came to the right place immediately, even though it sounds generic?

People don't have time. You have to show them they came to the right place immediately. Title and header markup are excellent ways to do so.

You're welcome. But there is a lot that was left out. It's just the nature of the beast.

Link building/acquisition/earning is a broad and deep topic. There are millions of ways to go about it. Some tactics will get you in trouble. Some tactics may result in public ridicule. So be careful and read up.

If a link looks shady, it probably is. The best links drive real traffic. Search operators are your friends.

I can expand a little bit upon what Silkstream has said.

If there are trade associations relevant to your site, make those a first priority. They tend to be easier if you're in with the crowd. Plus, your competitors are likely to link there. It's a way of getting an indirect link from your competitor. Though you can apply this to other situations. Use your imagination, brochacho.

A lot of webmasters make the mistake of thinking that no one is interested in them. That is untrue. There's an audience for belly button lint.

Find your audience. Learn everything about your audience. Work it.

That approach is far better than worrying about PR. Worrying about the PR of a site gets you into bad territory. That's when you start considering links from easylinkseodirectory4ulol.com. That would be a bad place to be in general, and much more a bad place to start.

Use the following search operator:
related:google.com

Replace google.com with your site, a competitor, or a site that didn't respond to your outreach. Plenty of fish in the sea. Just don't suck at outreach. Be real, be authentic - don't mention a link upfront, at all. 
That shouldn't be your goal anyway.  Your goal should be exposure through good things that you give others.

I updated my response while you were writing yours.

I don't doubt your insight. But The Googles doesn't sleep.

When you're doing a local campaign, with strictly above the board links, you should move as fast as possible.

Let's say someone reads this and decides to get their first 10% in the crappy category. That would not be good for them. Further, there aren't any specific percentages that I'm aware of.

Yes, The Googles does have to pick the best of the worst. I'm not in doubt of that.

Yes, sometimes you inherit a mess but it seems to work. Manual reviews happen.

Happy to be contrary. Another good thing about Link Detox is that the service has been trained - mostly for the good - by users manually reviewing the quality of their links. If easylinkseodirectory4u.com has been flagged enough, it's more likely to get caught by the machine.

Once you have uploaded your list and reviewed the links, you will get a pretty accurate risk rating. It scales from shades of low to high. I don't think Link Detox has ever given me a false Toxic rating on individual links either.

I'm not a client scalper, so if you would like to PM the domain name, I can take a look.

Setting a DA cut-off from the outset is a bit too arbitrary. What if it's a link from a site with low DA and a low PA now, but later the site becomes the next New York Times? You don't want to disavow the next New York Times, but that's what an arbitrary number would have you do.

Further, DA and PA can be gamed to a certain extent. I'm sure Rap Genius has a pretty solid DA, but they were penalized all the same. So it would appear that using DA as a cut-off would be less than ideal.

There's no real easy way to do a disavow. You have to think about characteristics, context and intent. If you have links that pass juice, but were obviously paid - that may be a candidate. If there's a vast preponderance of links from seemingly low quality directories with exact match anchor text - those would be candidates for closer scrutiny as well. Dead giveaways are usually 'sponsored' links that pass juice.

Low quality directories usually let everyone in. You will know them by their viagra and casino anchor text. They're usually a pretty safe disavow candidate.

Does the site have a lot of links from spam blog comments from sites that are obviously unrelated? Has there been some guest blogging on free for all blogs? Those links would require some review as well.

Definitely prioritize your exact match anchor text links for review.

I would suggest you start with gathering link data from numerous sources:

• Google Webmaster Tools
• Bing Webmaster Tools
• Ahrefs
• Majestic SEO
• Etc.

Then filter the duplicates via spreadsheet voodoo. After that, drop it into a service like Link Detox. But be careful, it still throws false positives and false negatives. So again, there's no real way of getting out of a manual review. But Link Detox will speed up the process.

Are there plenty of disavow services out there? Sure, but I've never used them. I'm far too paranoid. A disavow is a delicate and lengthy process.

Are there some great disavow pros/individuals out there? Definitely. I would be far more likely to trust them. In fact, a couple will likely chime in here. Though they may be a little bit outside the budget. I don't know.

One final, important, point: A disavow is not a panacea. They take as long as they take. Though it is good that you appear to be proactive. You never know when the next Penguin filter will land. The site may be right with The Googles now, but it might not be later.