Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If it's the category that the items on the page fall into, probably not.  If the inserted keyword leads back to a page outside of the category, it may be a little spammy.  From what I understand, breadcrumb produces codes based on where the viewers was on the site, so if the inserted code looks like all the other dynamically produced html, I don't know how G could distinguish that, other than it doesn't fit the content on the page.

The example you stated would prevent context and character tabs from being indexed in search engines.  If these are unique content, you should reconsider because canonical was originally created for multiple urls with identical information.  Place the tag anywhere in the header.

Databases organize the records, which in your case is a "listing", in particular way which define what they are.  These are usually categories and sub-categories which are assigned discreet codes.  Viewers click on a category, which leads subsequent subcategory, all linking back to the category and your homepage.  You want to use these codes to create the navigation menu and subsequent sub-menus which in effect become the internal linking scheme.  You want to make sure this is done logically and intelligently because this is probably all you'll have to do.

Internal linking can be fairly straight forward depending on how your database is structured.  Records should be broken down by categories and sub-categories, so if your data is stored in tables like this, if should be fairly quick and easy.  However, if the SEO has to break everything down for you, and do it manually if will be very time consuming because every page will have to be edited individually.  You should ask questions regarding how they plan to proceed, then see if there's anything you can do in preparation to cut down the billable hours.

Most shopping carts are set up this, so even though it may not be the most optimized, it looks natural and organic to G, and shouldn't hurt you.  You may have to add additional text and pics on these cat. pages to work up/down your density.

Option 1 is a very good idea if you think these links will hurt you, Google wise.  Since you says these are all duplicate content, this is probably what you want to do, but first be sure you don't want the link or authority juice from the old blog.  If the blog gets more traffic, has more authority, etc...the decision gets tougher to make.

Matt-Antonio suggested I send the 301's to a different site, which I thought was very provocative, though a bit risky.  Your suggestion of re-writing the 301 so it points to a non-existent page on the new site creating a 404, should work as well.  Now if I combine both of your suggestions,...why not just send the 301's on the old site, to a non-existing page on the old site, letting the old site produce the 404?

Thanks for the 404 advise, but I do think the drop is ranking is due to an automatic algorithm penalty that's the result of too many external links the have exact keyword matches to areas this site is competing in.  For example the ratio "Free White Widgets" on external links, to the actual url and in site links is tripping this automatic penalty.  By breaking these links, I how hope G will un-index, thus lowering the ratio.

Very provocative idea, Matt-Antonino, and that's certainly a creative option.  What about if I just pinged all the old 301 links to the old url?

They're not identical, and I notice many directories are set-up like this.  Two individual users with different interests would find unique information from both of these samples.  The only issue is how your competition has setup their page.  For instance, if someone is just targeting Phoenix, and really goes to town with unique information and links, that may rank better because they may be views as more of an authority on the subject.

You should try to mirror the 301's to the duplicates on the main site.  So in answer to your first question, the duplicate blog index page should go to main/blog, and everything else should go to the new location on the main site.  Anything without landing pages on the new site, should redirect to main/blog.

Thanks William.  My concern is that too many of the links from the old domain were over optimized and contained too many keywords associated to the field I'm in, and are doing more harm than good.  I have mixed filling about the disavow tool at this point because it sound too good to be true.  I'm kind of suspicious G would let me choose the link I want to loose, but at the same time allow me to keep the ones I want.

Safest bet is to do internal linking from as many pages as possible, that are related to the keyword.  Depending on the keyword, external linking may actually hurt your SEO if you over do it.

A relatively new site I'm working on has been hit really hard by Panda, due to over optimization of 301 external links which include exact keyword phrases, from an old site.  Prior to the Panda update, all of these 301 redirects worked like a charm, but now all of these 301's from the old url are killing the new site, because all the hyper-text links include exact keyword matches.  A couple weeks ago, I took the old site completely down, and removed the htaccess file, removing the 301's and in effect breaking all of these bad links.  Consequently, if one were to type this old url, you'd be directed to the domain registrar, and not redirected to the new site.  My hope is to eliminate most of the bad links, that are mostly on spammy sites, that aren't worth linking to.  My thought is these links would eventually disappear from G.

My concern is that this might not work, because G won't re-index these links, because once they're indexed by G, they'll be there forever.  My fear is causing me to conclude I should hedge my bets, and just disavow these sites using the disavow tool in WMT.  IMO, the disavow tool is an action of last resort, because I don't want to call attention to myself, since this site doesn't have a manual penalty inflected on it.  Any opinions or advise would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, 301...Thank You!  I'm trying to address bad 301 links being sent from the old url, to the new url.

A relatively new site I'm working on has been hit really hard by Panda, due to over optimization of 301 external links which include exact keyword phrases, from an old site.  Prior to the Panda update, all of these 301 redirects worked like a charm, but now all of these 301's from the old url are killing the new site, because all the hyper-text links include exact keyword matches.  A couple weeks ago, I took the old site completely down, and removed the htaccess file, removing the 301's and in effect breaking all of these bad links.  Consequently, if one were to type this old url, you'd be directed to the domain registrar, and not redirected to the new site.  My hope is to eliminate most of the bad links, that are mostly on spammy sites, that aren't worth linking to.  My thought is these links would eventually disappear from G.

My concern is that this might not work, because G won't re-index these links, because once they're indexed by G, they'll be there forever.  My fear is causing me to conclude I should hedge my bets, and just disavow these sites using the disavow tool in WMT.  IMO, the disavow tool is an action of last resort, because I don't want to call attention to myself, since this site doesn't have a manual penalty inflected on it.  Any opinions or advise would be greatly appreciated.