Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I alone cannot do keyword research on all of the online content that  my company produces. There are about 10 publishing support teams who could do this research themselves, once trained, but I don't know which tool to suggest they use since they can't all use my MOZ login.

Right now, those who do any research at all are using Google Trends. Wrong answer, but of course they are used to Trends for their social campaigns.

Has your company dealt with this situation?  I've looked at a few free keyword tools...each seems to have its plusses and minusses.  **What would you recommend...either as a free tool or possible other workaround?   **

Travis, thanks - in addition to my comment to Wiqas, I think that the usability is a big point to make.  See, the analysts will come back to me and say, "we're not seeing a drop in any traffic to comparable pages."  I'm going to do an in-depth look into Page Authority for a related report, but I agree 100% on the usability point.  We do have comparable pages...why the heck wouldn't we 301?  Esp. when external sites are still occasionally use the legacy URL....

Thx.

Thanks - yea, and it's funny because most of the analysts and devs I talk to say, "oh, 302 is just as good as 301, these days."  Everything else I read runs contrary to that.  Thanks Wiqas.

I've found about 900 instances of decommissioned pages being redirected via 302 to a 404 custom page, even when there's a comparable page elsewhere on the site or on a new subdomain.

My recommendation would be to always do a 301 from the legacy page to the new page, but since they're are so many instances of this 302->404 it seems to be standard operating procedure by the dev team.

Given that at least one of these pages has links coming from 48 root domains, wouldn't it obviously be much better to 301 redirect it to pass along that equity?  I don't get why the developers are doing this, and I have to build a strong case about what they're losing with this 302->404 protocol.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on WHY the dev team has settled on this solution, in addition to what suffers as a result.  I think I know, but would love some more expert input.

Any word now?  I'm desperate to share one of the videos with my boss - in part to show her the value of the conference (hint hint!).  Is there even a partial list of completed videos?

My client's site in question has a TON of outstanding, constantly updated, highly detailed articles.  The site owner also has a branded collection of nearly all of them on Scribd.  I guess I can live with that because dupe content isn't an issue and the pdfs there link back to the site and another domain of ours. Plus it gets a lot of eyeballs on our newish brand and content, and we can run reports on users.

BUT, we have Scribd social share buttons on each article on our site that (among other things) allows a user to grab a direct link to the content on Scribd or an embed link for their blog or whatever.

So, two questions really -

• Foremost, shouldn't we get rid of that embed option on our page?  I mean, isn't is stealing from our backlink potential?  I can't imagine juice would somehow pass back to us through a Scribd-located doc or embed but I haven't found info affirming or contradicting that.
• And secondly, isn't a Scribd collection a bit analogous to posting videos on YouTube and hoping your page will ultimately benefit from it via clickthroughs, etc?  At this year's MozCon I heard a strong argument against that.

Thanks -