Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for your responses, I'll try to clarify my question. This is a graph I stumbled across looking at Google Russia, http://www.russiansearchtips.com/2011/09/. Is anyone aware of similar data for the US, or Google in general? Or is there data that shows the split between clicks on PAID vs clicks on organic links, ie is it 50/50?

Hey Brian, Thanks for the comment. This link was inside the html and not the css. The browser interprets that as a regular link. Very strange..

Thank You Sir... It worked.

Assuming these are all on the same domain (not separate subdomains), simply permanently redirect the URLs to an existing or new upper-level category page, which most closely matches the removed content. There's no perfect solution, but that's better than all 404 errors, especially if there are good links to those old pages. Good luck.

I've seen this sort of thing happen before when a site changes structure and design. However, we also went through a EMD / PMD exact match and partial match update from Google, and just a quick look at your site points out there are some questionable back links in your profile. Did you receive any warnings from Google and are there any warnings or notices in Google Webmasters or here at SEOmoz?

Great! Thanks for pointing me to that other thread as well, tons of great info. Thanks again Matt!

Yes, after a while you'll see the PR of the old page transfered to the new Page

We have a help hub at http://www.seomoz.org/help which has a lot of information, plus links to our weekly welcome webinar that walks you through our software. That should be a good start!

Thanks

OK Thanks for confirming this. Yup, it's the exact same text that would be at the bottom of all pages within that section. The text, as Google would see it (expanded)  is very long and coming from a database of text, so images aren't an option in our case. AJAX would work though.

Thanks. Seems Google will change the title tag to increase CTR, so that's why Google is switching generic tag for brand only tag when a brand name search is performed. Makes sense.

Hi In your question you said that it was to make the url simpler for offline vanity. If that is your only requirement then a 302 would suffice, leaving the page to continue it's life in the 'health' directory If you are wanting to moving the page anyway then a 301 would be the way to go. If you are just producing a vanity URL (that does not exists online) for Offline & tracking use then a 302 would be better (I my opinion)

Why don't you private message me your URL and I will take a look for you

Corwin - that's awesome info - thanks for posting the results of your tests!

Hi Robert, Good point. From a time cost to search benefit point of view, the initial set up is the big cost... getting the template right. After that, if you're creating 3000 or 30,000 pages is really no extra time... just flowing in the data. So, with that in mind, wouldn't the site be better off search wise-with 10x the pages (30k vs 3k) to monetize the set-up cost over? Also, having cut the list down already based on non-search criteria, I have no reliable way of knowing which of the 30,000 is better than the next search-wise. They're all kinda medium nichey with low volume and about the same estimated difficulty.  So, no idea which page would do better than the next in search. Also, I can't look at 30,000 pages or even 3000 of search data to make that cut. Know what I mean? So, the cut, if there were one, would be random. Thanks... Darcy