Welcome to the Q&A Forum

That's a good indication that they're not worth buying. If you're going to be buying links then you might as well pay for a guest posting service to get some good links. I don't use one myself but I know people who do and it seems to work.

I would imagine that algorithmically there is no ideal number of links to build in a day. Really your daily number of links is only limited by your own resources although depending on your site and the tactics you're using it might not be appropriate to build so many links in one day. So for example

I wouldn't worry about the umber of links built in a day and instead focus on getting decent quality links.

It takes some time for Google to crawl and index pages so sometimes they won't find your links very quickly and sometimes they might not find them at all.

Is 20 links per day the ideal link building amount? I doubt it - but I don't have any evidence to back this up.

There's so much that's dependent on context.

For example if you're a design agency and you want to get guest post links from other design sites then it's pretty easy to put together a roundup of "Top 35 Most Beautiful Examples of X" that will get published by a lot of medium weight sites and be worth the two hours you spend putting it together.

On the other hand if you want to be featured on powerful sites that are going to drive referring visitors and boost your brand reputation then you're going to have to put more effort in.

I would say that guest posts are good for monthly reports - they give you guaranteed links. If in doubt you could always dip your toe in the water and outsource. There are plenty of people who will gladly do guest posting for you and it's pretty cheap (sub $100 per link if memory serves).

I don't use GA very often (I use a paid analytics package i my day job) but I think this page from google on multichannel attribution might help.

http:// is automatically added to any address you put into OSE.

If there is a redirect from one page to another then OSE will automatically show the data for the page that is redirected to (the main page).

However there is a yellow box that appears above the link data that will give you the option of exploring the data for the redirected page.

Make sense?

Hi Dana,

I wrote the following after assuming , for no reason at all, that you didn't know much about SEO. However having looked at your profile I realized that I was wrong and that my tone is probably a little patronizing. That being said it's 1am over here and I really don't want to rewrite it so please accept my apologies.

If I had to guess (and it is a guess as I'm not technical) I would say it was some badly formed links.

You know how some of your error pages have an Origin parameter (like this one) that say where the page was generated? Well these URLs follow the same format as the error pages that you're finding. It looks like rather than using an absolute link (like http://www.ccisolutions.com/page) the onclick action is actually generating a relative link (so just /page).

When you use a relative link your site adds the partial URL (/page) onto the end of your domain to give you a full URL (http://www.ccisolutions.com + /page = http://www.ccisolutions.com/page). It looks like you're using relative links as if they were static ones. Which is why you have "www.ccisolutions" in each URL twice.

If I had to blame anything it would be whatever is powering your IAFDispatcher however as I haven't been able to replicate your problem I couldn't be certain. If you can track how these URLs were generated by looking at the preceding pages that are sending traffic/bots to them then you should be able to narrow it down to which links are broken.

Structured data (microdata etc.) is markup that specifies what a section of a web page is about. So for example you can markup a review so that Google can identify the star ratings and knows that the product got a 4/5.

This type of data is part of the semantic web - which is a WWW where bots like Google stop seeing Sites and start seeing entities. So for example in the current web a search engine might see links to a site with the anchor text "shoes" and interpret that to mean that the site is relevant for "shoe" based queries but if those links went to that brand's Facebook page the connection with shoes would be a lot weaker. In a semantic web the search engine would be able to tell very easily that a brand's Facebook and Twitter pages are part of the same organisation and that links to either count the same as to the main site.

That's a pretty crude example (and to some extent search engines are already doing this) but you can see how it can affect SEO. That's not to mention the benefits that you can be getting right now from having rich snippets (Google them, they're cool).

It depends on the purpose of the video. I'd put informational videos onto Youtube just because of the traffic floating about on the Youtube platform.

I'm not an expert on video SEO but if you read this then you will be.

They're two different URLs.

If the URL changes but the content stays the same then it's classed as duplicate content.

I feel your pain though - the amount of duplicate pages I've ended up with just because copywriters like to capitalize their words...

What type of meta data were you thinking about? Were you thinking about structured data (like microdata, RDFa, microformats), just alt and title tags, or something else?

To answer your second question you can't add anything into the iFrame but don't worry because Google won't read the contents of the iFrame anyway.However you can always affect the markup around the iFrame if you want to.

As part of a balanced campaign I don't see a problem with getting links from dog blogs.

In your shoes I'd make sure I had other more relevant links as well but if the dog blogs are easy enough to get and you just want a few links then go for it.

One of my sites is installing Strange Loop, a front end content optimisation platform.

Does anyone have any advice when dealing with this type of implementation or pitfalls that I need to look out for.

Even just a headsup on some reading material would be good.

Thanks

And the sitemap for good measure. And preferably hardcode any internal links that you can to point to the new default.

So long as you're staying on the same domain then the 301 should be enough.

Images from the GDN don't count as "real" links whether you can see them in Open Site Explorer or not.

You don't want to implement a canonical tag to names.php.

For all of the categories that generate URLs like this

http://www.afternic.com/names.php?c=1

You probably want to implement a URL rewrite to give them more user friendly URLs (like afternic.com/business or some such).

It would also help to throw some unique content onto those pages if you've got the budget for it but that's on the assumption that you want those pages to generate search traffic.

Hope that helps a little

I don't have answers to all of your questions but I might be able to shed a little light on them.

I've not seen any major studies that show the benefit of microdata specifically on rankings. However when you look at the area of rich snippets for eCommerce as a whole then I have it on good authority (but haven't seen the data myself) that you can expect an increased CTR from having some forms of rich snippet. Whether you implement that change using microdata, microformats or RDFa is irrelevant. Here's one study I found.

I would hazard a guess that many eCommerce providers appear to be a little slow to implement microdata into their product because although Schema.org has been live for over a year microdata has only provided any tangible benefit in Google since April 2012 when Google updated rich snippets for products.

If you want to find out if a specific retail is using semantic data (again not just microdata in this case) then just take their product page URLs and paste them into the rich snippets testing tool.

Hope that helps a little.

Do you really want to match for the individual search keywords?

When using the current version of Facebook search aren't most people searching for an entity that they already knows exists (your  page) rather than for information on a generic term?

This is just a guess and maybe I'm totally off the mark.

From what I've seen of Facebook search you're going to need to exact match the terms that you want to rank for - so it would be  "First Second Third"

Open Site Explorer crawls a lot of the web but some pages do get missed - normally because they're very minor in the grand scheme of things.

Unfortunately this also happens at Google at it looks like the page that links to you isn't in Google's index. Were I you I would try and build some links to that supplier's page so that Google can index your link.

Hope that helps.

Your site is a subdomain of blogspot.com so Open Site Explorer and other tools will return Blogspot's domain level metrics.

If you look into the link data you should be able to see subdomain data - however in this example I think the site is too new for Linkscape/Open Site Explorer to have picked it up yet. Give it till the end of the month and if you've built some links you should see some change.