Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Pretty much if you follow advice from this page you can't go wrong. As far as I know there isn't a "content comprehensiveness tool" out there (yet).

It's safe to include rel="canonical" on all canonical versions of your site and will not cause any problems. I have done this and tested many times. If you run a template based website such as WordPress it would be much easier if all pages referred to their own canonical version (even if it be itself).

On a branded term you typically get quadruplets.

I hear you... have been through the same and this feels like an oasis.

The effect will be minimal and other factors will outrank these subtle variations by far. I recommend that you do what makes sense for yourself and your users. Go easy on bolding terms on the page, excessive amounts are not a good thing.

There are website crawlers you can employ to scan the site and hunt for specific parameters such as: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html

Recently we had the same situation which was resolved nicely with rel canonical alone.

I have used PowerMapper and am relatively happy with it. It fails miserably on large scale websites. I've spent days researching website structure visualistion and found that there are no rubust industry strength solutions out there available to general community. We're in the process of writing our own software for that reason.

I've developed a WP plugin which works like Tynt except it doesn't add the annoying # tag at the end: http://dejanseo.com.au/copylink/ - it's great for getting automated attribution and link when people copy your content.

OK, I was going to discuss some techniques which can be employed with Flash but this site hardly has any content and it's all very visual. User experience / navigation could be improved as well.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Awww.ziba.com.au shows a few URLs in index. What confuses me is why go from index to main - what does that achieve?

Options you have are:

Focus on TITLE & Meta description in combination with inbound links.

If you can add some descriptive text under flash which would explain to search engines (and users who do not support flash) what the site is about including basic contact information.

If this was a problem then all Word Press websites in the world would be penalised. What you're trying to do is common business sense and it imposes no risk given that your statement about content being unique is true.

I say go ahead and make awesome sites now that you have the right technology.

I deal with this problem often. Couple of questions:

1. Do you use faceted navigation in your sidebar?
2. Do you have a superfooter with lost of links?
3. What percentage of your links are in the main nav?
4. How many links are in the content area in average or per page type?

I found that you can safely exceed "100" quoted by Google if your site is strong enough. It was just a number that they made up, obviously the value is not absolute, but I would probably not push it past 150.

I always go for centralised option and manage all listings via one account, usually set up in batch if it's hundreds of locations. Having it all in one place provides a single point of control and performance monitoring. Alternative would be to provide guidelines for your agents on how to set up quality listings that maximise their presence through content and completeness.

Best practice in your case would be to implement URL canonicalisation (rel="canonical").

Watch this: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394 (contains explanation and examples)

In addition to this try to prevent page duplication form happening in the first place, though this may need to be done on a programming level.

It seems that string such as "6_129_130" appears based on the category and navigational path. For example if user browses from outdoor and home decor and arrive on the same page the URL will have different number.

In addition you may want to remove "zero products" pages from index and not link to them as they are not good for users or search engines.

If we forget the anchor text for a sec and focus on PageRank only, it should split up in two minus the dampening factor (0.85) and then converge back into the same URL. If only one link to the same URL from each document counts for PageRank passing I would like to see a study or a test that demonstrates that.

Speed (even when set at slow) is not always the problem but a regular timing of queries which is unlike humans who operate randomly.

I would focus on local citations as much as possible and until all relevant places have been covered. While you're at it you will score links as well so probably the best way to start as it's easy and ROI is fairly good. Next step is identifying best branding channels - a very broad and difficult question - I guess your client's budget will be the helping factor and you'll have to decide what to attack first in line with budget size.

Prioritisation is not easy and you will no doubt hit the wall many times before you find the right solution.

I am seeing this page as #1: www.rpgdicas.com.br/builds/diablo-3/wizard.html

Good point. I would go further into exploring which pages / phrases have been cut most and work out any common elements of all that have been affected and define a plan of attack. If you have more than 100 articles it would take some time before it's all fixed. It's all about prioritising.

A good place to take a peek at is Google Webmaster Tools which shows search trends and CTR data as well.

I would say do what sounds the right choice from branding and business perspective. Search engines are pretty good and picking up domain migrations and there are tools to help you do that effectively (301, Google Webmaster Tools). To me .com does sound better.