Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Typically, links from multiple subdomains on the same IP address aren't recommended or wanted. It's links from separate websites that are on unique Class C Blocks of IPs. This way we know that most likely each site is not owned by the same site owner. Just on a side note, typically we don't recommend getting a lot of links from blogspot sites. There are unique cases where a link is okay, but we don't prefer blogspot links.

Two theories, and these are purely theories (I don't have hard evidence): (1) There was a time when we believed in the "sandbox" - a holding pen for new sites/data. Whether or not that existed in any explicit form, I think Google has moved to more of a reverse sandbox. I think new data gets a little bit of forgiveness in the short term, while Google sorts the data out, and then it settles back to normal. So, resubmitting pages can give you a little boost and the benefit of the doubt, until Google does the rest of the math. (2) The alternate, but related explanation is that Google is seeing something in "the rest of the math" that it doesn't like. So, it's possible this could signal some impending SEO problems. They aren't deep enough for Google to dock you on a surface level, but when they take a closer look, you're losing ranking power. I would strongly suggest not refreshing content frequently to game the system. I think this could trigger a red flag with Google.

This is what are the differences between dynamic and static URLs (by Google): http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html  In short it's that static URL have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls, but the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking. Anyway the URL is static or dynamic you should keep them in one place, because redirecting a URL to another loses up to 10% value. You can read more here: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection Hope this helps.

Tamra, This is one of those there is no real answer type questions. I have been running an agency for a while and still occasionally scratch my head when something that is thin as a razor for content, stuffed with keywords, etc. ranks well. Typically, as you get into highly competitive verticals, it is less and less prevalent. As to microsites, why they would rank with no content, no links, etc. it would really depend on the vertical IMO. The more global answer is this: With a change in the algorithm, I think you have to understand that there are a lot of factors that weigh on one another. So, with the EMD update, the main site may have already had a bad link profile, some thin content or old content, etc. So, the weight of those negatives are already on the balance and then boom the next update (EMD in this case) tips the scale and you slide down or disappear. I would think it would be possible that the microsites by not having the links are just rarely crawled (you can look in GWT) and by not really being deep sites, etc. have little to weigh on. Yes, I understand thin content, keyword stuffing etc. it should not be so, but I am throwing out some possibilities. I would suggest convincing them that there is little chance they will stay where they are and this might need to serve as a wakeup call. Good luck, all the best, Robert