Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If you have links or domains listed in your disavow list that should not be there then you should update the disavow file immediately. The way Google deals with the disavow list is this:

• Google crawls the web and caches pages
• When Google sees a link to your site and they've cached the page (you can verify that they've cached a URL in the Google search results)- If the page that contains the link to your site has been cached, you can assume that it's been disavowed.

Links in your disavow list (or links on domains in your disavow list) are essential "deal with" by Google by the time (or before the time) they cache pages.

So, a URL on your disavow list might be taken into account quickly because they crawl that site often, or it might take weeks in order for Google to actually see another link on your list.

In regards to the list you're showing, I truly home those aren't on the disavow list, as the person who put them there obviously doesn't know what he or she is doing--these are supposed to be links that are BAD links to your site, not GOOD ones.

Generally speaking, this is normal, and you shouldn't have to worry about it. There's a Google Webmaster thread that pointed to this issue specifically, and Google gave an official response (https://www.seroundtable.com/google-sitemaps-duplicate-16128.html)

"This is apparently normal if you submit Sitemap files with the same URLs listed multiple times. Since submitting the same URLs multiple times doesn't change anything with regards to your site's crawling & indexing, I'd just submit it once if you want the correct counts (alternately, if the count doesn't bother you, you can also just leave it like this."

Those pages (e.g., /page/3/, /page/4/ etc.) are definitely duplicate content pages if you're not splitting up posts. In WordPress, we typically recommend using the "more" tag or other functionality to split up posts so that only a snippet is shown in places other than the full blog post URL itself.

There are a few ways to deal with this, but always make sure you're splitting up posts using the 'more' tag or something similar. You'll want to make sure that your category page or blog home page is only showing a 'snippet' of each post, then the user must click on the blog post itself to see the full post.

If you're running into an issue where you have a ton of pages like /page/3/, /page/4/, /page/5/, then you might look at those posts and see how many posts you're showing on each page (5, 10, or 20)? You might increase the number of posts you're showing. That would cut down on the number of "pages" (/page/3/) that you'll end up with.

Another way to deal with this would be to look at the posts and see if you can split them up into more categories or subcategories. I personally prefer subcategories if possible--but you won't want to have a category or subcategory with only one post in it.

When it comes to SEO project management, we typically use Asana. I know others have used Basecamp, and we have used it in the past--but it does have some limitations. In any project management scenario, you're going to have to do a lot of planning and setting up of templates for it to work well. Customization is key.

Google has now officially turned off all of the public data for PageRank. There is no PageRank anymore--all will show a Zero or no data. More information here: http://www.thesempost.com/google-officially-turns-off-all-public-pagerank/

If you are looking for something similar to PageRank, you should like at Moz Domain Authority and Page Authority, or look at Majestic.com's Trust Flow and Citation Flow.

When it comes to site-wide links, first consider the users--if you think they will actually click on those links and it would be helpful for them, then you should include them. If you were to include those links in the footer, they should be nofollow links.

There are a few ways to do this.

First, I would use the Google Removal Tool to remove those URLs. More information here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663419?hl=en

Then, using the robots.txt file is good, you need to make sure that you're listing the correct URLs or URL path there.

I would make sure that you are using a "410 Gone" in the server header, and not a 404 error. The 410  Gone will get those URLs removed faster.

If you look at those links in Google Search Console (crawl errors), you'll see that there is a date there. If there are some that show up with an older date (than yesterday, for example), you can mark as fixed. If those errors are still there, then they'll show up again.

But, I would not agree with their site being the one to take the damage.   YOU will lose a lot of long-tail keyword traffic because now your words are on their site and their site is powerful.

Typically, the first one that's crawled will be considered the originator of the content--then if a site uses that content it will be the one who is damaged (if that's the case). I was under the impression that your content was indexed first--and the other site will be using your content. At least that's the way I understood it.

So, if your content hasn't already been indexed then you may lose in this.

Dmitrii is correct, it really should have no effect on rankings. It might have an effect if you were to do it in the anchor text of links to the site, but generally speaking Google knows what the   is.

The way you're going about it sounds just fine--as long as it makes sense to you and is logical. I recommend you use a keyword classifier (such as ads, careers, location, etc.) in the URL so you know which ones are which ones.

We typically have had up to 50,000 URLs in one sitemap.xml file and then it's split up. Some of the files may contain less, but typically that's the maximum.

This is typically called a "microsite" and is not a black-hat strategy at all. It is more of a marketing tactic--to build a good, quality site with lots of content on a keyword rich domain name. Typically, many companies will purchase keyword rich domain names and not use them, they will just redirect them to their main site: like the way Books.com redirects to Barnes and Noble.

If the microsite only has thin content and doesn't have quality content, it could be considered a doorway page or doorway domain--but if it does have enough quality content on it then it would be considered a microsite. It still needs to have a good amount of quality links pointing to it, as well, in order to help the other site it points to. But, if the microsite is working, then the main brand site doesn't necessarily need to rank well. It gets its traffic from the microsite.

While that is kind of odd to do, it should not have any effect on your site's search engine rankings or visibility. Simply providing a sitemap file is not going to help or hurt rankings in any way. It will help them discover and crawl pages. That's all.

A sitemap file is not required at all, and in fact some sites don't have them--they rely on Google's spiders to crawl their site through the links on their site. The sitemap is only a tool to help them crawl.

As SEOs who are trying to do linking the "right way" by getting on-topic, relevant links, it's frustrating for us to see sites rank that don't seem to "deserve" to rank because they have so many off-topic, low quality links. We really hope that Googles' penguin update will fix this--but I don't have high hopes.

All we can do is continue to look for and obtain high quality, on-topic links--and report spam to Google when we come across any link networks or link spam. If you see a weird link tactic or link network, Google does have a way to report it: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93713?hl=en

When it refers to links, it's ALL links on the page, even navigational links. If you have too many links, then you might consider updating the navigation and splitting up those links into categories and subcategories. You may need to add additional category and subcategory pages on your site as a result.

In an ideal situation, the canonical tag is preferred. Since you mentioned that it's not the full content, and you can't implement it, then there may be limited options.  We haven't seen any evidence that pointing back to your review page URLs would prevent them from outranking you--but it's not likely. If there are links there, then you'd get some link juice passed on.

Most likely, though, if that content is already indexed on your site then it's going to be seen as duplicate content on their site--and would only really hurt their site, in that those pages may not rank.

During these events we show them the "behind the scenes" of our company as well as the manufacturing process and give them an amazing experience surrounded by our products.

I believe that that qualifies as promotional--you are giving them a perk that others don't normally get. So, those links should probably be tagged as nofollow links. The post or article that is written should include an explanation that the writer was invited to the event--which would be clear when reading what they posted.

Keep in mind nofollow links aren't always a bad thing--it's logical that your site have both links that have nofollow them and links that don't have nofollow on them. It's ultimately up to the individual blogger or author/site to decide, though, and I wouldn't obsess over these links.

Yes, I believe you're referring to Google's PageRank--which has, in fact, been turned off. It is no longer available. You may want to use Moz Domain Authority and Page Authority, or look at Majestic.com's Trust Flow and Citation Flow.

Whenever you have images on your site that tend to rank well in image search, you're going to get others who scrape your site's images and put them on their site. If they're linking to your site, as long as you don't reciprocate the link you shouldn't have any problem (don't link back).

But, if you prefer, you may want to review those links (look at the site's Domain Authority and Page Authority) and decide if it is a good link or a bad link. You can then disavow those links or disavow the whole domain with Google using their Disavow Tool.

What we recommend is that you make sure that you're serving up the mobile version to Google's mobile crawler and the desktop version to Google's desktop crawler. You may be doing both, serving mobile pages to both the desktop and mobile crawlers.

I recommend taking a look at that to make sure it's not an issue. You can crawl your own site using something like Screaming Frog SEO spider and change the user agent to mobile vs. desktop to test it.