Welcome to the Q&A Forum

In short, yes that will work. To be clear, you can have multiple links which all lead to the same target page. The target of that link could still be indexed if there are other unblocked links which point to it.

I don't think there is any hard evidence on them, Rand talks about the footers and manipulation here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/6-changes-every-seo-should-make-before-the-over-optimization-penalty-hits-whiteboard-friday There is evidence on the fact that if they are linking to a page that has already been linked to higher in the code, they count for nothing. Only the first anchor text links count in google's eyes. So unless you're linking to pages that are not within the nav, it's fairly pointless from an SEO point of view. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/results-of-google-experimentation-only-the-first-anchor-text-counts I think using the Footer for linking to pages already linked to is a waste of time. People use the navigation to find the page they're looking for. Footer anchors should be used for the stuff people expect to see there, i.e. T&Cs, policies, trust signals, awards, contact us, address, Company No. etc.

thank you andy very much for your answwer

I'm not good with writing htaccess code, but just thought I would mention that if you don't get an answer, another solution would be to use a rel-canonical tag in the header, pointing to the domain you want indexed.  This would tell the search engines that the non-parked domain is the proper one to index.  The other one should drop out of the index after you do this.

You've not got that much in terms of link diversity, or from much that's relevant. Directories, blogs and forums, links pages, etc... that don't pass a lot of value. 11 Linking Root Domains, including directories, some are nofollow. Not a lot in terms of quality links. And then your anchor text needs a little more diversity too: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/www.nintendowiifitconsole.co.uk%252F/a!anchors Google will often let a new site rank well for a bit before knocking it back down again. Also, my personal belief is that Google's not all that keen on affiliate sites anyway... I lost rankings on mine from Panda. I reckon all in all, if you get some more, higher quality links... and as it appears now some social signals too, then you'll start ranking much better

Well a light box actually has the code in the site, but just does not show all the images at once. a) should make the page lighter b) still has all the image links, ALT, and image description (usually included with light boxes) So from an SEO standpoint, as well as a user standpoint, this is all great! Your light box should just show/hide images that is already within the code, so yes, ALT and Title tags are good practice. If this is not the case with your light box, will you please provide a link or code snippet?

Link from within the text of the lens. Place the text link as high as possible, ideally in the first text box.

HARO's great when a journalist posts a request to it, but the limitation is that only a very small portion of journalists post for sources before writing their story. But almost all journalists are tweeting about and writing about what they're interested in, which is why we built Muck Rack (I'm the founder, so a little bias obviously). We index all the tweet and articles of journalists, let you search them to build a media list, and then enable you to pitch them through our messaging system or by email. We also have an email alert tool that will notify you whenever a journalist tweets about or shares a story with your keyword.

Here's Google's official blog post about flight search. Hope this helps

Given the raw data, I would go with FB also, however, that is not the case. I don't think the backlinks are suspicious as they are competitors in the same market and that is the #1 keyword for that market.

And make sure you've submitted an up-to-date sitemap

Thanks guys, I hoped that if some of the info was out of date on the 'subdomain reach', there may have now been a way to add a prefered subdomain to my campaign The reason for the request is currently Roger reports lots of duplicate tags on the blog which Google does not reports because they are restricted in robots.txt or with NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW, NOARCHIVE in the meta tag.. Since I do want to keep the historic data, I will just sift through the errors reported by the blog.

Ah ok I get it...sorry I am a little slow! Thanks for your help and I will appy that method to remove  the cat. links.

Diane I think this post by rand is exactly what you're looking for. -Dan