Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Probable because Google does not like it.

Ice Cream Maker | Ice Cream Machine | Ice Cream Makers

It looks like you are trying to span serps

Having mutiple keywords in a title does not give each keyword the full value, each keyword gets a a fraction of the full value. If you image the title has a value of 100, you can give one keyword 100, or 3 keywords 33 each.

I noticed that most of your other pages have titles that ae too long, they are being truncated. and are also diluted.

Keep it to 100, some say 150 for a home page, if its a growing infinate problem, i would address it.

I dont use WP, but surly it gives you some sort of post per page limit?

Get both.

PR is not everything, what is more important is page and linktext relevancy

It would only be the default file name that is the problem as its the only one can be accesed by /folderonly/

Yes you can, i build my sites in MVC now days where you have SEO freindly URL's with no file names, but what I used to do was change the default file name to somthing no one will ever guess, say seo.aspx or seo.php. so no one will know the file name and not create a link to the filename. Probably a bit overkill, but I like to future proof things

I agree, if the old pages are worth it. If not just 404 them.

I would not, get a link to your site and all search engines will find it.

all these services are just value adding, makeing money out of peoples fears and lack of knoladge,

A or C, but not B

You shouyld not daisy chane 301's. I think going will find it but leaks juice each hop, bing says only 1 hop

http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-unnecessary-redirects

If you new site has litle relevance to the old pages, you might choose C, i dont know what the pages are worth, so you need to make the chose of juice V's maintainence

Check your pages for links that access both. you musthave a link to http://www.mydomain.com/football-teams/index.php in the site somewhere

I just had a read, about the noarchive, I found where http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017128.html

Where it is claimed that Matt Cutts has said there is no penalty, BUT, if you have spammy signals it will be another signal.

so there is some truth in it, but only if you ae already a bit spammy.

I also found this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhrZKejdmEE

Matt mentioned it here. if you have been hacked, they may show he hacked page only to googlebot, so this can not be checked they also add noarchive.
so if they suspect a hack, and you have noarchive, you may have a problem, but he also stated in anouther videio that they will tell you you hhave a problem.

Yes I am. I think you are talking of

where the syntax steve posted is for caching in the browser and proxy servers.

Why would you take it as less trustworthy.

simply having dynamic content is reason enouth to have no cache. no-caching is widly used, you can no cache all or part of a page if anything i would say the oppersite, if you are cached you may get indexed less often.

for example you should not cache a page with sensitive data, and allow someone to click the back button at a later time and get the data.

Search results is anouther example, I am sure that google and Bing do not cache their search results.

News papers is another.

no it would not have any affect, no-cache is a requirement for many sites that have dynamic content. Why would SE's want to penalize you for having dynamic content.

Caching does give you faster loading times, but as someone posted from google, you have to be very slow to get flaged for slow load times and less then 1% of pages do, even then it is a small signal.

You can use a canonical tag on page A, to point to A, telling that this is the original, teh reason for this is when people scrape your site they will point back home.

i belive thats is what they were getting at

you would only point it at B if B was a duplicate.

I have a lot of sites on only a few ip numbers, i have them all on the same Bing and
Google accounts as i host and build websites. I also have a lot of linking
between them. I have recently had a site drop in ranking, but i doubt it is
because of this, as others that have not dropped have more same ip links.
DiscountASP one of the biggest hosters has almost all sites on one IP number. I
think the concern is overblown.

I would just make sure that same ip links do not make up the majority of your links.

Bing or Google understand that people are in my and your position, where you are a
webmaster for many sites and host them on a few ip numbers, it is natural.

what is not natural is to a link farm

Good to sees johns answer, as i always thought its overblown.
But having said that, i would be more worried about converion due to load time, if your page takes too long to load you will lose users.

Arent they the Infomercial people?

i would say a big NO

I have never used either, but from a developer point of view Telerik (makers of Sitefinity) are excellent, telerik are from Bulgaria (Bulgarians are big on programming). I cant speak highly enough of them. I have done plenty of work on Telerik MVC Controls and have been very impressed,

Sitefinityis ASP.NET, where Word press is PHP, I do know that they are looking to move sitinfinity to ASP.NET MVC, MVC is superior to ASP.NET Webforms, and far superior to php. MVC is also very SEO friendly, it has a clean separation of concerns giving very clean html, no post backs or viewstate, Already they are using the MVC Routing engine that gives full control over urls, no messy file names or parameters, you can make your URL say whatever you want, it does not have to match your folders.

If you intend to further develop your site in the future, I would go with Telerik

go for it, I agree with Stores, it will help rather then hinder.

I set up a test to see just how well bold helped keywords, the test were inconculsive, I suggest it has only mild benefit. i believe SEOMoz has shown the same.

What you suggest is quite natural, iwould tr5y to get the guts of the subject into that paragraph

not sure what you mean here, I have a canonical on every page, I program my sites to dynamicly to do, the reason i do so, is if someone scraps a page, it will have my address in the canonical tag.

I dont know what you mean by not relative to the tag. it just a href, are we talking about the same thing?

rel="canonical" href=http://mydomain.com/>