Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Physically hosting your server in a target country does help, but that help is miniscule. In Geotargeting, the largest signals come from your link profile. So if your links come from the US primarily, you should rank better in the US. You also have a genertic TLD instead of a ccTLD, which helps.

Some possible actions to help your site be seen as US would be to do some marketing within the US. Another option is to see if you can get covers.ca and then work on geotargeting that site to Canadians. That would send a strong signal that covers.com is aimed at the US.

While not having a 301 or even the original domain is problematic, I don't know that it is a bad as you think. Unless they took the previous site and set it up exactly as it was (which I doubt the new owner would do that), you should be able to set up your new domain and start over as it were. That's not as hard as it sounds and, believe it or not, Google can figure out domain migration like that without a 301.

Once it's up and running again you need to market the fact that it's moved. Nobody likes dead or incorrect links so go find all the old links you had and let them know that you've moved. That should get them to update and you can possibly rebound some of your original brand authority.

There's nothing wrong with hidden elements as long as they serve some purpose other than to game Google. A hidden div with tons of content that will never be seen by a end user is spam. A hidden div that requires you to click on something to see it is not spam.

Matt Cutts talked about the issue a couple of years ago

I doubt it's a Moz error. Having had to deal with the API on the other end, sometimes FB will lose authorization on its own. My wife plays some games that are in app form and those apps will ask you, sometimes 2-3 times a week, to authorize FB again.

I read this article on Search Engine Land last week about authorship

http://searchengineland.com/authorship-dead-long-live-authorship-217209

It contains a lot of great insights about how to navigate the post-google-plus-authorship landscape.

You could always try Alexa. They're paid but they might give you a breakdown like that.

If not, there's no way to know without their server logs and/or analytics.

I'm leery of anything that bills itself as a "one size fits all" approach for responsive. Real responsive takes work because you have to design for the 3-ish viewports out there (mobile, tablet and desktop). To say "Just add this and you're responsive!" means you either have a VERY simple site, or you don't care how bad it looks on mobile.

I guarantee if you try to do it the easy way that some future Google update will ding you. Google is now HIGHLY focused on mobile and how well you do it. Take the time to do it right and you won't regret it.

If you've gotten them to like your page then anytime you post something on FB, that will show up in their feed (and this costs you nothing). Unfortunately FB came up with this long after the "Like" mechanism so they couldn't name it something less confusing, like Twitter's Follow option even though it works the same way. Liking a post is liking a post. Liking a page is to follow their feed (unless you edit your feed).

Paying for ads on FB means that, quite often, what other people in your orbit on FB like will influence what ads you see. So I'll see a Paid news feed item that notes that "Friend A, Friend B, and Friend C Like Brand X". And that's how FB extends your reach. Ads will also appear in your target demographic feeds as well (whether or not their friends have liked it), but that social element is smart because tying it to social activity increases responses.

Using FB for product comments is also another way to engage people socially.

I love the Firefox Web Developer Toolbar for that reason. Want to see all the cookies your domain is setting? It can show them to you in a nice, easy-to-read format.

Cookies > View Cookie Information (wow, this page has 43 cookies!)

The only way to know for sure is, after having linked your GA to Adwords, is to look at server logs and look for the following (in bold)

www.yourdomain.com/somepage?gclid=XXXXXXXXXXXX

This is how Adwords passes the session on to GA. If you click on your own ads you should see this show up when you finally arrive at your site (if not check configs).

the amount of sessions of Paid Search (in channels) and  AdWords sessions don't match up (The number of actual PPC clicks is substantially higher than the Paid Search sessions)

This is normal. Because GA relies on JS code there will always be missed sessions. Some people have JS turned off, while others have plugins that block GA from loading and sending data back. Server logs are the only real way to know true traffic.

Wait, you just saw a bunch of links and disavowed them because... you saw a bunch of links? Did you have any penalties or rank drops? Anything that would lead you to believe these links are actively harming your rankings?

Disavow is a cleanup tool, not a preventative tool. I mean, there's a really good reason why they tell you NOT to use this tool lightly. If i could put this on a giant neon sign I would, but here's what Google says on their help page (emphasis mine)

This is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution. If used incorrectly, this feature can potentially harm your site’s performance in Google’s search results. We recommend that you disavow backlinks only if you believe you have a considerable number of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site, and if you are confident that the links are causing issues for you. In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool.

If I were you, I'd yank the disavow out right now

You're 100% right. You should have one 301 redirect to the other. While there are some SEO reasons for this (mainly with duplicate content), the best reason is that it's just less confusing to end users to only have one URL to use. If your non-www has trouble loading I would say you need a 301 to the www version.

Moz restricts Top Level Domain (i.e. domain.com) and crawls accordingly. I have some set up with www.domain.com and some with just domain.com. The 301 to the www forces the issue but Moz is smart enough to crawl the proper pages.

We're trying to download a larger OSE report of inbound links and the report only has headers and no actual data. I'm logged in, so is there a bug here?

The first step is to visit your Pro Home Page. Then you will need to add a new campaign for your website. Within this campaign you can specify your competitors' sites for tracking purposes. Moz will do a partial crawl of your site to get you up and running and then a full crawl within a week. At that point you should start receiving weekly status updates about your site.

I don't know that outbound links can help you in SEO. Outbound links can definitely hurt you, especially if Google detects that you have too many links or thinks your links are low quality (i.e. link farm).

Links tend to benefit the site you're linking to, provided you're not penalized for the reasons above

It sounds like you're talking about CNAME vs a 301 redirect.

DNS can't really "redirect", at least in the SEO sense. A CNAME DNS entry acts as a pointer to another site. Sooner or later you have to have an A record to act as the "glue" between yourdomain.com and an IP where it can be accessed. The problem is that yourdomain.com is the end result. So even if it is just a CNAME for loadbalancer.abc.some.cloud.com, it will be seen as yourdomain.com by both the browser and any robots that visit.

A 301 redirect is an actual instruction (HTTP response code) from the web server (IIS in your case) to the end browser, saying that yourdomain.com really belongs over at anotherdomain.com. At that point your browser (or crawling robot) goes to the new domain. This is considered the proper SEO way to redirect anything, as it is known that robots respect the 301 response and most SEO benefits that the previous link had will flow through the 301 to your new page.

I see you're in the UK. While I'm not a fan of the court decision, there's always Right to be Forgotten. While it doesn't affect other Google indexes (i.e. google.com) or the article itself, it would let you at least have the article de-indexed in your local European market. It might buy you breathing room and maybe get the attention of the publisher so you can have the record corrected (I don't think any press organization likes having bad info out there).

I would focus more on marketing to make up the shortfall. There just isn't any other guaranteed solution. Buy ads, Pay-Per-Click and media time if necessary. Be louder than this article is.

Depends a lot on how you configure your site. If your site isn't deep (meaning the number of pages to navigate to a given page) then breadcrumbs don't make as much sense. If you use broad categories with a drill-down into increasingly specific categories before you reach a given content page, however, then it makes a lot more sense to offer breadcrumbs, The purpose of breadcrumbs is to show the navigation path to that page.

I wouldn't worry about the duplicate links. A site may link to a page internally multiple times. Internal links are not counted as votes like external links are.

So... why return a 403 Forbidden? A 404 Not Found is what you should return. That sends a stronger signal than a 403. Either way, both will eventually lead to the pages being de-indexed. If you need the pages gone faster, there is a way to manually de-index a page using Webmaster Tools.

Correct. If you have a wall Googlebot won't index it unless you make some sort of exception for it (and even then Google frowns on walled off content). SEM had great article on this talking about Google's rules for walled news content (may not apply to you but interesting nonetheless).

I would put your wall behind your content, not in front.