Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Saijo, Absolutely! in fact that is exactly what I was looking for in the Information Box, I wanted to see the source of the definition. When citing a source it feels like it would look better to cite Merriam Webster rather then Google, if that makes any sense. But perhaps Google is aware of that perception and this is an effort to change it. I know there is a difference between Snippets and the Information Box or I think Google calls it "Knowledge Graph", but when I didn't see a source my wheels started turning. I really like the Snippets as you and EGOL point out, they are extremely helpful and can be a valuable source of traffic. Thanks guys for your thoughts, Don

Hi there, Andrea from the Moz Help Team here, thank you for bringing this to our attention! I'm sending it up to our engineering team to take a look into this.

First, I apologize for responding so tardily. I would like to congratulate you for taking the time to craft a post for YouMoz. Also, it's commendable that you're seeking feedback at this stage. Most authors, myself included, simply want it off their plates at this stage. While, yes, as Dirk said, it can take time for us to get to your post, that's owing in large part to (a) the initial quality of the post (posts that are more ready to be posted do get moved ahead of the line as we review, re-review and include copious notes in the articles to authors for revision) and (b) how effective authors are at making the needed changes in a timely fashion. Our goal with YouMoz is to post the best content possible. That can mean a lot of back and forth between author and editor. Feel free to email us at editor@moz.com RS

I really appreciate all of you taking the time to tell me about your experiences. I am only sorry I could only mark 3 of you as good answers. All your input was welcomed and helpful to me in one way or another. I hope to continue to see you on the boards, maybe just not as much. Don

Thanks Keri - right on!

What SEO is to me is a tool in the marketing arsenal.  That means optimizing the site to get the most value throughout the chain.  Choices abound.  What if getting ranked second instead of first means more profit for the business/client? However, the non-SEO world thinks of SEO as "the way to get ranked first on Google."  That reminds me of the old South Park episode titled Gnomes.  You've seen it before with a slight modification... 1. Collect Underpants 2. SEO? 3. Profit! I run away from this mindset as fast as possible any more.

I went to MozCon last year and a speaker presented info on just this sort of thing.... what to do when your niche category is relatively lame.  You might look at last year's presentations for some ideas. This is a real opportunity!  Depending on your client reception to these ideas, you might want to take a look at a few things.  Decide on a social media tone that's appropriate and sales-worthy. Set them up as a leader in their field - authoritative tone and feel Offer up interesting material - who says it has to be business as usual?  As Ben mentioned about the pirates and creative posting - what if you inject some humor?  Laundry fails?  Cartoons/Comics?  Funny videos? Copper mining equipment ... sorry to say, that's pretty dry.  Wouldn't their potential contacts love some awesome humor interspersed with some helpful content. Here's another perspective .... think about a big player like Pepsi.  Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiP70pBUjuw&feature=related Granted, big video, big budget ... but they were offering something memorable that really had little to do with drinking the product. With a little creative thinking, that might be just the ticket for scoring decent returns in a tough category.

Google analytics has been slow but listening to user requests often. I remember early last year I did a comprehensive comparison between google analytics and PIWIK , which at the time offered real data. A lot of people in the Analytics including Avinash kaushik  mentioned PIWIK as one product offering real time data. This feature is quite nifty but at the same time does not yield instant insights. I think over the course of time, this will get much better offering real time info on user patterns and what people are doing and clicking on your site. This is of course after a user permits being tracked.

Hello Donford, The easiest thing to do if you are really only concerned about providing a link to more information for the distributor's visitors is to nofollow that link. This way you're not going to chance getting "dinged" for adding 10,000 links all at once. If you have a few product pages on the manufacturing site that you'd like to improve you can selectively remove the nofollow tag from the link pointing to those pages from the distributor side, but I wouldn't recommend 10,000 followable links from a single domain all at once. Questions like this are always difficult to answer because Google doesn't treat every site the same. A well-known brand with thousands of high quality links and a trusted, established site that has been in operation for a long time with good user metrics, and has never been penalized can get away with a LOT more than a relatively unknown brand or an "average" site. That is why I recommend starting with the nofollowed links and, if you want, testing the waters by allowing a few of them to be followed. Please let me know if you feel your question has still not been adequately answered. Cheers, Everett

Great that is exactly what I needed to know.

If you go to google and do searches for these variations you will quickly see how optimized pages are treated in the SERPs. It varies.

Hi There, A good question. **1)  **Your example for Ted Baker based on a similar Title structure for your own site: Ted Baker, Ted Baker London, Ted Baker Clothing, Ted Baker Men's Clothing, Ted Baker Clothing Collection - Buy Online Now at Manamialameseo.com This is not an ideal title, it is spammy with all those mentions of 'Ted Baker' within, is too long and is simply not necessary, it's not good for Search and also it's not that good for User Experience/Readability. So it's best to avoid these types of Titles 2) Your example from the SEOmoz blog post that you linked to: Ted Baker London - Men's Clothing Collections 2005-2008 | Sartorialmoz.org This is a much better Title structure; it starts off with the main keywords/keyword phrase (great for search) followed by a descriptive title element based on what that actual page in question provides. NB. The Domain Name/Business Name at the end is usually unnecessary for pages other than the homepage, about us page and contact page. In this example, it seems to repeat the domain name, a waste of valuable space and simply doesn't need a repeat of the domain name. Other than that, it appears to be a great Title tag for what I imagine the page is about. What this better Title example in 2) above is getting at is Symantec Search.  This can be two things: i) Words that are closely related (Collection and Collections) (Clothes and Clothing) are assumed to be the same thing, so if the search phrase contains e.g. Clothes, relevant pages optimized for Clothing can be returned in search results. ii) Where words in a title are taken to form the phrase being searched on, as per your suggested example in your question (Ted Baker Mens Collection). The words don't have to appear in order, if they are close together, that can be good enough, so with a great Title, you'll be catering for many different versions of a similar search. So to sum up, start replacing your current Title structure with the structure in that Blog Post (it's an old blog post, though still spot-on today) and in your question (and 2) in this answer).  From your question, it seems that you suspected this to be the better option of the two, which is most certainly is. So that's an example structure of: **Ted Baker London - Men's Clothing Collections 2005-2008  ** as your new structure, for appropriate pages, without the domain/business name at the end for most pages. Hope that helps, Regards Simon