Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Amen. Couldn't agree more and looking forward to see this image replacement madness stop for once.

Nofollow should not be an issue if Twitter feeds raw data to Google directly via firehose. I do of course appreciate the fact that there are secondary benefits to nofollowed links.

Wow. Hashbang - a protocol I was completely unaware of. Thank you!

It could be the case of different browsers hitting different data centres which have not yet consolidated their rankings.

View all! Of course... how did I not think of that before? Thank you.

To me this sounds like a completely legitimate reason to 301 the pages to that new location. If you do get in trouble with Google it will be pretty straightforward to explain it. If you run into an algorithmic penalty the solution would be to remove 301s. This, however is not a likely scenario at all.

Another option you have is to use rel="canonical" to tell Google that the page they're crawling has a correct canonical version. This will not only fix duplication but will also consolidate link juice much like 301 redirection.

Having company address in the footer could be a good practice but it's not an absolute must. The fact that it may reside in an include does not affect SEO at all if that include renders as part of the same document.

Let's ignore the "social metric" value of Twitter links and mentions and look at it from the pure link juice point of view.

Twitter accounts such as http://twitter.com/randfish used to have their own PageRank and were treated as separate URLs. Twitter changed that to http://twitter.com/#!/randfish consolidating all their content to a single URL. When I search for "randfish" in Google, however, the result is the first URL version.

Some clarification on this matter would be much appreciated.

Here's a tip.

1. Download your rankings from Google Webmaster Tools.
2. Calculate average CTR for each position.
3. Estimate increase in traffic for each phrase if it was: a) #1 and b) in top 10

Focus on phrases that bring best traffic increase.

Aside from that it's a good practice to clean up all easy phrases you're already ranking for (but not high enough to get the desired traffic).

I suspect that moz bot did not yet crawl this site either due to restrictions imposed by the site itself or perhaps because it simply didn't get to it yet.

Example: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.tntaccess.fr%252Fintegral.html/a!links

Speed could be a problem if it affects the performance of your site to the point of not being user-friendly. 2.8 however is not an alarming speed. I have seen sites with 5 and doing well in results. I rarely ever see websites in green (unless they are total text content only and no graphics and files to call on). I think Google is to lower the bar a bit on site speed expectations.

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.

Getting links to multiple domains fragments your efforts. Unless we're talking about an exact match domain the long term benefit does not seem that interesting. Not to mention branding. There was a recent post about this in the blog actually, if anyone can find the link.

I know he likes to party: http://www.seomoz.org/robots.txt 

False, all links will be recognised if they have been indexed - they will be recognised as links from duplicate content however. Clearly not as beneficial but still acting as part of the link graph. To say they are completely ignored is taking it too far.

PageRank is simple to understand. Your PR went to 1 because either:

1. The highest pagerank of the linking page is now 2 instead of 4 what it used to be
2. The highest pagerank of the linking page is higher than 2 but with excessive outgoing links splitting up PR too thin
3. PR4 or higher link you had is gone or nofollowed
4. You were selling links and got a filter reduction of pagerank to make it less atractive for purchase (unlikely as your PR is low anyway to start with).
5. The highest pagerank page on your site is now a sub page (did you check?)

That's all I can think of for now...

301 redirects can  take time to be recognised. How long has it been since the directive was put in place? Have you checked that there is no problem with the way redirection was implemented?

I can personally recommend http://www.sennza.com.au/

I support the brandable domain option. No point registering keyword rich domain unless it's a short lived affair.

Hmm... let me clarify this you say:

Now on the first page (eg mysite.com/cat-page1.html) I've set this up to rel= canonical =  mysite.com/cat-page1.html

what about the each subsequent page (... | 2 | 3 | 4... ) what is their canonical value?