Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree I went too far. I was trying to edit the comment myself after posting it, but the edit link was broken. Sorry for my lack of control there... I think my reaction was because based on this "go google it yourself" style of answer, and since he has a high forum authority, it looked like he was trolling for Mozpoints by answering questions without really answering them. (Think Ehow.com). Again, sorry for the rudeness.

Hi! Sorry for the delay in response. We do appreciate the great feedback! Did you know we have a feature request forum? It's a great place to share your ideas. Other people can vote on them and it will help us determine priorities. You should check it out: http://seomoz.zendesk.com/forums

Thanks for the responses. I know I could have gotten the link by now. It's not a question of time but of money, but let's not get too sidetracked by that. I've paid for Yahoo, etc., directory listings and have seen some benefit, especially for new sites that I am trying to get on the map in terms of SEO. We're getting hung up on a diversion (the fact that I'm paying for the directory listing). People pay to join BBB, Chamber of Commerce, Yahoo, Business.com, etc., because the sites are authoritative directory listings. Most of them wouldn't do it without the link because they know the link carries SEO value. I would submit this isn't the same thing as paying an Indian SEO for a link from his buddy's spammy site. If you disagree, fine.  But maybe we could hold of the "don't by links" refrain for a little while. I know that some folks have been drinking the Google Kool-aid for so long that they can't think about this sort of thing logically. I'm not doing anything black hat here.  So let's forget about the paid part.  What I want to know is this: What is a worthwhile link? Assume it takes me 4 hours to get every single link and I don't pay a dime for any of them. What links are worth targeting and which aren't? Thanks again for your thoughts. Any additional comments would be appreciated.  I am new to the SEOmoz tools (still in the evaluation period) and am trying to find out if they will help me with link-building.

Thanks for your prompt reply David. It's unfortunate to read that there wasn't any noticeable impact. I'm getting ready to launch my social commerce site in a month or so and I was leaning more towards FB like as they are the easiest from a user standpoint. But from what I read in SEOmoz FB shares carry a higher weight for SEO. Thus my interest in your test. Congratulations though on getting 2200 FB shares!

Theo, did you ever find any more information on this? Would love to see anything you did find, as it is a topic others have asked about. Thanks!

You can test it by searching for the keyword "Personalized childrens books".  If you get the same message, then maybe you need to look further. I think that you're most likely right and that it IS the apostrophe, but you can probably safely ignore it.

lol...  Alan, you really surprised me with this answer! Maybe CRS should be added to all of the SEO glossaries?

It's definitely a judgment call.  There is legitimate reasoning to have a link to the widget author/creator if it's a single link.  And providing the option to not have the link be there helps.  Yet it's not 100% clear that Google does or does not penalize for this.

I also dont think that same ip or same c-block is suuchh a worry. i have my own servers with only one IP, and links from the same ip seem to work as well as any other. Obviously if 90% of your links came from the same ip that would ring alarm bells. Take discountasp for example, a very large hosting organization all on the same ip number.

If your image link is FOLLOW, the alt tag may pass link value. But it seems that text links have a value slightly higher. That at least is what I have observed. But put the alt on your images you are linking to your site is essential.

That would make it the TAGFEEC criteria. Or if you add the C, then my favorite would be GETFACE! criteria.

Hey Jorgediaz, first off I think it would be wise to add the canonical tags specifying the primary URL for all of your pages, additionally it wouldn't hurt to add the parameter in question to your Google webmasters tool letting Google know to ignore your affiliate parameters.  You can find that in the Site Configuration settings under the 'parameter handling' tab. I personally woudln't worry too much about the 'loss of link juice' since I think what Matt Cutts is talking about is more duplicate content that results from shopping carts that might serve up a very similar page based on a filter (such as re-ordering products by price).  In my experience affiliate links aren't the greatest in the first place, many are probably even using your publisher ID sending the link to an intermediary source for tracking purposes, so to recap, if it were me I'd add the canonical, add the parameter in your webmaster tools and leave it at that. Hope this helps.

I can say with almost absolute certainty that using trademark or restricted symbols isn't going to harm your rankings.

I'd check out Bill Slawski's SEO By The Sea generally, and this post in particular: http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=5168 I wouldn't get "too manipulative" with CSS. I know this advice is going to sound generic, but I'd think about what links are most likely to get clicked by your visitors. Those are the ones that Google wants to give more credit.