Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I definitely will. Thanks again!

I think I found out culprit. Our Google Places address format isn't in sync with Google Maps' format. Does that sound about right? I imagine when I go to update the Google Places address formats, I will have to do the citation process all over again?

This infographic is really nice. Ty for it. And i try not losing hope.

Those images aren't from image search just so you know.  Those are are from Google+ Local pages http://blog.autorevo.com/2013/06/new-local-search-layout/ Part of you question hinted to alt tags for images.  I remember a post from tier10 that showed how to use metadata in photoshop to help too. http://tier10lab.com/2012/07/20/how-to-optimize-images-google-plus/ Hope this helps. Darin. @vzpro

Smart strategy to employ the use of a newsworthy press release. Online press releases are read by bloggers and journalists.  Developing a press release can make all the difference in attracting a variety of viewers and content promoters to start talking. For the inforgraphics, you should try finding a niche media sharing website.Most types of media have a specific platform or network built up around them. Take advantage of the systems already in place by placing your content there! Examples: ●         Video: youtube.com, vimeo.com ●         Infographic: visual.ly ●         Slide Show: slideshare.net ●         White Paper: scribd.com Good Luck!

Actually the current blended local algo - where the 7 pack shows up is primarily weighted toward regular organic ranking factors. Some still think it's based on citations and reviews but that's the old algo not this one. I have a big post coming out tomorrow (partly due to discussions with Miriam on her newest 2 blog posts) that explains the local algo and proves that at least the top 3 in the pack are controlled by the organic algo. Then of course the "Venice" local results are based on the traditional organic algo. So links 'can' play a part, however in local it's often not even needed because it's often not super competitive. If you do the Place page right and know how to do good "LOCAL" on-site SEO (which is slightly different than regular SEO) then it can make all the difference. I used to take clients on average from #16 to #2 just doing on-site SEO and local hooks. Never did citations or backlinks and many clients rank #1 even though they had no reviews and are furthest from city center. So I say good on-site and Places optimization are most important. BUT if in uber competitive market like Atlanta Personal Injury Attorney, then you'll need links too.

If the new pages are fantastic content, this will only help. They will likely attract more inbound links if done well. I would focus on ensuring that the link real estate (taxonomy, navigation) doesn't change in this case if you want to retain the rankings you have. If the new pages are sub categories / children of the current pages, then link down to them from those pages, and back up to the current pages in breadcrumb (which will further reinforce those rankings) Hope this helps!

One possibility is that the level of competition in the us insofar as domain authority and inbound links for competitors is much greater than in the UK. Another possibility is that you picked up a good UK based link, which drove up those rankings. Has the site always been targeted in GWT to US?

Ah ok now I understand, misread it a bit. Well, 2 ways to do it then: 1. Rel canonical to a 'view all products page', in this case the rel canonical is a valid option. 2. Implement pagination with rel next/prev - this will work also. The preferred option would usually be the first, but this does mean that search visitors would normally be landing on the all products view. Depends on how many products each brand has to a degree, how user friendly seeing all the products together is, page load times etc. Check out this page for a good rundown on the options and implementation.

Hear what Matt says in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K2mv1KSktLo Could be a data refresh

Hi Chris, Thanks - BTW - I don't have 200 links in my footer - I have 200 pages on my site, with about 20 navigational links in the footer.

If I understand correctly you want to have a top result for those keyword within your area as opposed to one of the indented "local" results right? Assuming that is what you mean, doing a quick local search for "locksmith" and "locksmiths" what I notice for the companies that rank above the local indented results are either larger companies that are not local (but have a local service) with high DA and PA.  Also the other results are skewed toward EMD and place so "placelocksmith" or "locksmith-place" or "locksmithsinplace".  The local results have stronger DA and PA, but without EMD/PMD so for example"tonyslockbusters.com" etc.  So, look at the google results and see what differentiates those top listings from the non top listings If I am misunderstanding...let me know and I can try and help

If you are directly checking in Google.com then browser history, cache, IP, all play a role in generating results. If you want to get the real picture, try stealth setting in your browser. It does not consider cache or IP and gives almost accurate results. I say almost, coz when it comes to Google, nothing is transparent.

Re-branding is great and 301ing from existing domain to the new one is also a good idea for this but always remember whenever you do a 301 from one domain to another domain there is always a small loss of link juice which might cause a fluctuation for few or many of your ranking position in Google. In my opinion the idea is not bad but tries to plan a strategy that aloe you to gain some quick and high quality link in that case so that it can minimize the ranking loss due to 301redirection. **do not go for subdomain **As far as not using a keyword in the new domain..I would always recommend you to do some competitor analysis for this and do not remove the keyword from the domain if most of the competitors are sung it as I still have an observation that Google give less (but still a value) to domain that contain keyword in it! Hope this helps!

Would you mind sharing the solution - if not related to domain intricacies Curious to know - only for knowledge purpose Many thanks

Thanks Chris Menke & Robert Fisher replying to my question. Wow Robert, it will be pleasure to see your experiment you doing on this important aspect. Teginder

Had the same issue my own. I actually wrote a couple pieces on that. After working on hard writing good, shareable content, creating a better user experience, removing those links that might look toxic and then disavowing those that weren't remove, you can go ahead and fill a reconsideration request. Although those are intended to Websites with a manual action (you received a message in your Webmaster tools), you can still fill that request explaining what happened, what steps you took to solve any possible issue (if any) and ask for some guidance on what is actually going on. They might not respond, but Google claims ALL requests are read, so if your site has some sort of penalty they will look into it, it could just be a google glitch that they can actually fix. Take a look at those sites outranking you, are those black hats? if yes, REPORT THEM in that reconsideration request too, or you can use the report feedback form (which is linked to in the same page you post the reconsideration request). As I said at the beginning, I had the same issue. After fixing everything, sent a reconsideration request pointing all my issues, showing them our efforts, etc, and I don't know if they actually read it, but 2 black hats that were outranking us in page 1, spots #1 and #2 disappeared to page 6 or something like that, so until now (2 days later) it is already paying off! Hope that helps!

Thanks Peter, I will check this out further

Just to add a bit to the discussion if you did not see this already: http://moz.com/blog/early-look-at-googles-june-25-algo-update

It is tricky. As Michael said it is important to get your content indexed first, which can help identify you as the source. Google doesn't always do a great job of that. Generally, I don't worry too much about Case 1, but in your case, it can be tougher. The problem is that many download sites can have very high authority and could start outranking you for these product descriptions. If that happens, it's unlikely you'd be penalized, but you could be filtered out or knocked down the rankings, which might feel like a penalty. Here's the thing, with Case 1, though. If these download sites are simply outranking you, but you're distributing product, is it so awful? I think you have to look at the trade-off through the lens of your broader business goals. Case 2 is tougher, since there's not a lot you can do about it, short of DMCA takedowns. You've got to hope Google sorts it out. Again, getting in front of it and getting your content in the index quickly is critical. If you were hit by Panda, I'd take a hard look at anything on your own site that could be harming you. Are you spinning out variations of your own content? Are you creating potentially duplicate URLs? Are you indexing a ton of paginated content (internal searches, for example). You may find that the external duplicates are only part of your Panda problem - if you can clean up what you control, you'll be much better off. I have an extensive duplicate content write-up here: http://moz.com/blog/duplicate-content-in-a-post-panda-world