Welcome to the Q&A Forum

One obvious answer is to google seo and the town you are in e.g SEO Seattle and see which companies have managed to get themselves optimised for that. If any companies look promising try searches like company name scam, company name problems, company name reviews to see if there are any known issues with the company.

Thank you all for the swift and informative responses. This put this issue to rest, going to stick with the full URL, http://www.smallbusinessdoer.com. I already have the smallbizdoer.com and smallbizdoer.ca URL's 301 forwarding to http://www.smallbusinessdoer.com.

Hi Dmitriy, I'm following up on older questions that are still marked unanswered. Can you let us know what you ended up doing and how it worked out, and any helpful advise you have for anyone that's subscribed to this thread? Thanks!

It depends on the purpose of your blog. I recommend on a separate domain if you want to gain shelf space or for reputation management purposes.if you have a site that already has great domain authority and high PageRank, you could use the blog separately to have value on two different domains. However, if your site is fairly new, i recommend to host it within your company's website as Lewis and Barry say, to use those links and help your main domain.

Do you know if Google is counting the reviews based on their IP address? Most of my competitor have fake reviews and I suspect they use their own computers to do that.

thanks for the tip.  I'll get that done.  Will SEOMoz crawler handle the 301 ok?  Its currently one of my flagged issues from the crawl.

I'm going through some of the older questions, and wondering if you found a solution to your problem, or if you're still looking for some advice. Thanks!

Have you read this YouMoz about white-hat link building in the gambling industry? http://moz.com/blog/case-study-whitehat-link-building-in-the-gambling-industry Edit: Just realized the original question is from 2011, so I don't imagine the OP had a time machine to see that post.

I'm sure you're well versed in how Page Rank works, but some times it's good to have someone else explain it with a metaphor. And what comes to mind is Ian's old post on this here: http://www.conversationmarketing.com/2010/09/pagerank-without-math.htm Following his line of thought on the subject, I'd say yes overall restricting the amount of links in the menu will be beneficial. Some of your sub-sub pages may lose some PR value, but it will also likely increase the PR value of your main pages, and give you a good chance of ranking higher for more competitive keyword terms.

Just because a page is shown as a sitelink under the main listing on the SERPs doesn't mean it can't also appear as a seperate result. A site I look after has the number one ranking for its main keyphrase, has site links and also one of the site links pages is displayed in second place. If the page is not ranking for the desired keyphrase currently then removing it from showing as a sitelink will not mean it will automatically appear as a result in the listing. If this was the case then the strategy for any site with sitelinks would be to minimise the number of sitelinks to maximise the number of other pagespushed into the top 10.

Hi! I'm following up on older questions, and wondering if you got this straightened out or still need a hand. Thanks!

Hello Zeal Digital, I use a CDN (Content Delivery Network) for images, CSS and javascript. Doing that adds only about $10 to cost per month for a site that had around 800,000 pageviews per month. You have complete control over the images. If there is a problem, you can force the CDN to flush a file and reload it from the source. You add code to your .htaccess file that tells the CDN how long to store images before fluching them and getting a new copy. It is all automated, there is generally no work for you to do. I host with softlayer.com and this is part of their service. The change from self-sourced images, css and scripts had a massive improvement on the server. it is a 16-processor linux box with twin 15,000rpm SCSI drives and 12Gb RAM - it is quite fast! Page delivery times improved by 1-2 seconds. The server now is so lightly loaded that it could be downgraded to save more money. It has zero effect on SEO. The CDN is accessed using a CNAME. -   static.domain.com  - so don't worry about it looking like components are from other places. The CDN has servers all over the world, so no matter where the visitors are, it is only a few hops for them to get most of the content, making it much faster for someone in Australia who would normally pull images from a server in the USA. Your only problem with Amazon S3 is that they have crashed it a few times, but other than that, it is a good thing to do. I wouldn't advise them to self-host, unless you want to increase their costs, server loading and page delivery times.

I'm following up on old threads in Q&A that are still marked unanswered.. Did this continue to happen, or did it ever settle out? Did you figure out why it happened at all?

I have few concerns about mobile seo. Pls have a look at here - http://www.seomoz.org/q/want-to-target-mobile-site-for-google-mobile-version-and-desktop-site-for-google-desktop-version Can I have any response here?