Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the tip!

A quote I enjoy...."Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true". You earned the #1 spot which is great. It sounds like your plan is to wait for someone else to step up and take your spot and then react. I prefer to be proactive but the choice is yours.

If keywords are reversed or switched, the "bonus" effect is vanished to most extent but its still better off than a domain with no keyword at all. Having keyword in a domain does give you an advantage in terms of ranking at least in the short run. Its worth noting that Google has been reducing the weight of exact match keywords and also 'keywords' usage in domains in general.

EGOL, I agree we have been having some server issues, and were considering switching hosts. we also could do a bit of javascript and css optimization to get load times down, we aren't as optimized as we could be in that department. As for homepage v.s. subpage, we were doing it that we because we heard that was the best way to approach multiple locations in local SEO.  See here: David Mihm at SMX: http://www.aimclearblog.com/2011/06/08/so-where-are-you-actionable-local-seo-tactics-from-smx-advanced/ Muti-Location Tips Implement flat site architecture, give each site own page, make it unique, indexable The title tags with full adresses was a mistake, i admit, it was a test, because i read somewhere to do it, it didn't work out, infact it backfired in our faces and in some cases our rankings droped. not in this particular case, but in others it did.  We have changed it back, but we are still waiting for google to pickup on the change.

google directories don't exist anymore. this question was asked before google killed their directory.

Hah! first they take the "more about this place" out of the places pages, and now this. I feel like I've wasted so much time chasing after citations and directory links!! Lesson learned the hard way i guess.

then why do other SEOers do it so much? Just sayin my philosophy... You don't have to agree... and I hope that most people don't agree.  You will not defeat a competitor by mimicing his strategies.  You defeat them by doing something more effective.  Keep in mind, there are only ten positions on the first page of Google for any given keyword and EVERYONE ELSE ranks lower.

299$ for initial consideration by Yahoo (doesn't mean your website will be accepted for sure).

Straight from the horses mouth, checkout this video from Google's Matt Cutts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAWFv43qubI Importantly: "Now if you are still on the fence, let me just give you a bit of color. that we have looked at the rankings and the weights that we give to keyword domains, & some people have complained that we are giving a little too much weight for keywords in domains. So we have been thinking about at adjusting that mix a bit and sort of turning the knob down within the algorithm, so that given 2 different domains it wouldn't necessarily help you as much to have a domain name with a bunch of keywords in it."

I made a test and it seems that yes, the links from pdf count for ranking. The test is on my Romanian blog http://seogan.ro/link-building-pdf-urile-o-sursa-de-linkuri-test You can find an English translation here: http://www.seogan.com/pdf-link-building Hope it helps.

HI Mike... I'd love to discuss with you a couple of my findings, any chance you're on Skype?

Google don't give exact numbers and don't get specific about what the numbers do represent, but it is very handy to compare phrases - which is more popular, etc. - in deciding which to use on your site. The main reason why I didn't Wordtracker a few years ago was that I needed to know usage based on location and, as far as I know, Google is the only one that can give that kind of detail.

When gaining links I find it affective generating various link anchor text, not all defined for the specific term I am looking to be found for. This is so the links to a given page look more natural and so not to hit the Google fuse for over optimisation. We are all individuals, so we all link in different ways and thus it is far better to have a variation in anchor links. This rule can be used for follow and no-follow links too. All the links that come into one page should be of various types.

I have an account on Yelp with 19 real reviews.  The only one that displays is a one star bad review.  All the rest of the 18 are five stars and they hide them as "filtered".  This is a sham company.  There has to be a solution to this.........

Hello, In fact there are several types of URL Standard URLs:     domain.php?p=12 Basic Friendly URLs:     domain.php?product-12 Advanced Friendly URLs:     domain.php/product-12 Mod Rewrite Friendly URLs:     domain/product-12 The difference is in how they are written or rewritten in .htaccess file, if RewriteEngine on and rewrite rules are defined for your server. Enabling friendly URLs can increase your site's ranking in search engines and can be useful and friendly for users to understand the URL's that they follow. Radu

A couple years ago I had about a hundred pages that described closely related substances.  Their title tags consisted of the name of the substance and a few other words.  I launched those pages and saw where they ranked and decided to change the words in hopes of better rankings.  It worked good but not great as I was hoping.  So I changed them again, and then again... BAM... my rankings droped big time.  Like from bottom of first page to third page.  They stayed there for a few months then moved up.  Now almost all of those pages rank near the top of the first page. Based upon this I think that Google is tolerant of a little bit of experimentation.  But when you really go at it you might get demoted for a while.  Now I don't monkey with title tags.  I research first and then launch.

I have been enjoying your comments more and more. It is very clear you are reading great articles and expanding your knowledge every day. I had not read the article you shared before now. I enjoyed it very much. Matt Cutt's video is from Aug 2009. He shared that originally links were treated equally but Google's link analysis was growing and becoming more sophisticated. The article you referenced was written Mar 27, 2010. This type of article is exactly why I am a member here at SEOmoz. That article represents the thorough work and analysis of SEO experts on the valuation of links. It's a great article. I am not 100% confident in their findings, but they are very logical and I will accept them and incorporate them in my future efforts. So it appears you answered your own question, and thank you for taking the time to share the results.