Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I think a key thing to remember is that you should optimize for users and then search engines, not engines and then users. Using the same 4 keywords in every title is not going to add much benefit to ranking well in Google and it is going to look really funny to users. Also to remember is that that title is what will (hopefully) appear in search results pages. You want to write something that users will click on. For example, take a look at SEOmoz's homepage "SEO software. Simplified. | SEOmoz" That covers all the bases, includes the main keyword, but in a natural sort of way. I would definitely use a " | company name" at the end of the title, but I would rethink your use of keywords.

I would be very hesitant to do something like this. If you want to link to something, use a followed link. If you don't trust it, don't link to it. Worrying about "reciprocity" of links in this fashion shouldn't be a concern for users or for search engines. Websites and pages link back and forth to each other all the time - it's a natural activity. It only gets troublesome when you intentionally try to manipulate rankings using "reciprocal link lists" (and I think that's why the word "reciprocal" in linking/SEO has become so maligned and misunderstood). This WB Friday might help - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-sitewide-reciprocal-and-directory-links

This has always been my way of looking at it.  But it's easy enough for Google to tone this down too.  A lot of mass keyword domain strategies do result in low quality or outright spammy sites.

I'm finding very conflicting results with my clients thinking that they are ranked higher or in some cases lower than what a non-related fresh computer network shows. The social results really are changing the landscape of seo!

SEO = Gaming the search engines

#3 or #4. Think of about.com - getting a link or two from an article on there is great, and makes sense to google. Getting a link from the front page (content area) is a great endorsement too. #1 and #2 are easily discounted by bots and users alike as being lower quality.

The SEO industry in general likes to "move along" whenever they catch wind that Google has cracked down on something. This is a mistake, though. Google may use X algorithm to find sites that are employing Y strategy. IE, for reciprocal links Google targeted large sprawling partner pages, not just whether or not two domains linked to one another. You could still succeed with merely a different method of placing the reciprocal links... That being said, I would never tell you that blog roll links don't work, I would merely tell you to use those strategies on sites that are less important in the long roll. But, of course, I would probably tell you to use just about any and every strategy, as long as you divide those strategies across sites so as to minimize risk.

thanks.

Hi Steven, As this is a year-old thread, it's not going to get too much attention. Can you please send an email to our help team at help@seomoz.org and let them know about this? Thanks!

James, Thank you for your recommendation. Appreciate it.

Hi James, It sounds like when you consolidated widgets, you gave Google more of a focused page for persons to search for vs a larger number of pages on the same product.  This is interesting as it is the inverse of the long tail effect.  You would think that more pages around a given product would be better.  I guess this would be a search case where too many pages was a bad thing.  Makes me think of how we setup pagination to make sure Google does not focus on p 2,3,4,5 etc but work the noindexes to have focus on page 1 of the pagination. Thanks for the post!

One advantage of using the first type of URL (the absolute URL) is that if people scrape (copy) your content, the links within the content will go back to your site.

The basic steps outlined below should work. CAVEAT: I'm a linux/apache person I don't know the specific implementation details for a windows/.net environment (but I believe it IS do-able - hopefully someone else can verify or expand on that) 1)  Copy the default index (default.aspx) to a new name (example: mydefault.aspx) Make mydefault.aspx the directory index for the root directory Modify the original default.aspx so that all it contains is a redirect to _http://www.outsolve-hr.com/_ 4)  NOW default.aspx can be 301'd safely 5)  Don't ever build any links to "mydefault.aspx" or you'll just re-create the problem! Existing links to default.aspx would then be resolved safely and it's highly unlikely new ones to  mydefault.aspx will appear. Probably worth looking into, since a 301 is more powerful - rel=canonical is viewed by some search engines as more of a "suggestion."

I once used no-follow tags extensively. And at one time there was some encouragement from Google on the use of these tags. Recently I removed all no-follows from the main sections of my sites. The exception is our blog which runs on a WordPress platform. Use of no-follows on purely redundant content is very sensible. Generally, they should not be used to manipulate page rank. You might want to read Matt Cutts commentary on the subject: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/

I recommend you review the following page: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#ranking-factors as it pretty much contains everything you need to get started. Title remains the strongest element, internal linking is something people often forget to utilise - and even tiny little things like alt tags on images... PS: There is a new one coming up for 2011 so keep an eye out for that one.