Welcome to the Q&A Forum

SEO for these videos may need a bit more help. Higher number of views is good, however, selecting specific keywords - per video - is important, using them in the title, text and closed caption also make a big difference.

So,for example, I wouldn't recommend trying to optimize multiple videos for "ledato guitar lesson." Inbound links to the videos/video embeds also play a role. This is a great site for video SEO that can get into lots of detail: http://www.reelseo.com/

Google has ignored a robots.txt for my site because it thought we were "hiding" important content.

Depending on your site structure, putting a "no index" tag on your page is also a good idea. Doing that as pages are built can prevent it (better) from being indexed in the first place. Then you remove the tag when you are ready to go live. And, submit your updated sitemap via GWT when you finish your move so Google will know what pages to index.

Odd, right? Seems slightly backwards. But you are educated enough on SEO to know all the common sense things...and if those don't work..?!

Then again, you may just not be getting very good advice

I think LinkedIn keeps some of this type of information close to their chest. I'm surprised you may have dropped out (I checked and looked through the search results because it's just odd) since Google is normally so good about making those connections. Then again, you do a lot of work and there's some good competition for your articles and such

Quite frankly, most anything you can find on the Web on this subject is so 101, it's not worth reading. My only suggestion is - can you do some links to it from some of your other sites/postings/whatever to drive traffic and/or raise the visibility to Google? It could be over optimized, so if you are concerned there, that's one set of edits you could address.

(I am clearly not a LinkedIn expert unless it comes to setting up profiles and user tips; the SEO side of how they do things doesn't have much data.)

I had it happen in a sitemap I submitted to Google in my Webmaster tools and it didn't like it. So I removed it and resubmitted it.

When did you notice this - how long? It can take Google a while to recrawl a LinkedIn profile.

I agree with everyone, and keep in mind that exact keyword anchor text can look spammy. So, aside from just the links, shake up the anchor text so it also doesn't look  as spammy. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2172839/Google-Penguin-Update-Impact-of-Anchor-Text-Diversity-Link-Relevancy

Did you create a sitemap and submit it to Google through a Webmaster account (I'm making an assumption you have one)? That's one of the best ways to get them to crawl and index your pages.

I also think it's a strategic way for Google to push G+ when there's been a significant drop off of engagement. People sign up but don't use it often/regularly (I mean, most people) so this is a good way to give rationale and expand beyond the original "Facebook killer" assumption.

I agree - and also look at any possible technical issues. if the on page is good, then most likely something else is afoot. I won't speak to if it was for sure Penguin because I don't want to speculate.

And what I mean by technical issues: is a page looking fine but registering a header check of a 404/500? (I mean via a tool like this: http://www.seoconsultants.com/tools/check-server-headers-tool/). Or is Webmaster registering an unusually high spike in errors? Those things can add up and have an impact, too.

Well, page load time is page load time - it's going to to take (for example) 4.2 seconds to load regardless of how you are navigating. I share that because tools don't really look at it in the way you are (section to section) but you get the same information.

Webmaster tools (https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/) is a good way to go, or you can use one of many other tools like http://www.gomez.com.

Do you use Google Webmaster? You can check page load times times there. It's not quite the same as section-to-section but gives a better idea of what search engines (I don't really understand the focus on what matters about moving section to section) experience -and users - with your site. And if you install the page speed browser add-on, you can get more data.

And, keep in mind - if you use a tool to find out (about) how many backlinks your competition - or, the the top 3 sites for whatever keywords you are targeting - has, you just need more than that. Even better if you can get .gov/.edu links to help give you heft.

There's a few thoughts on this one: many say keep it brief (70-100 characters). Others say it's part of content and should be the length needed to best describe/support the image. (For example,  since blind people use software that reads the image text to them, what might they need to be able to 'get' it?)

Focus on being brief and reconsider how wordy you are being if you hit more than 12 words.

I am aware of them but don't know anyone who has used them, nor (when I did research a long time ago) was I able to find comparisons/user reviews. I know we crossed them off of our short list, but unlike others, we weren't (maybe) as driven by price. I think with an annual membership it's easy to get spmamy to get value - so it goes back to what you want to get out of it.

You know, I've seen all kinds of data that says ranking #1 means you get 33% of the clicks, or up to 80%. (I take it all with a grain of salt.) Matter is: if (this is according to my AdWords; I just looked) "business hosted VOIP" gets 58 clicks per month (yes, I swear that is the number they gave me when I selected "exact" and "local monthly" but I also really like to look at what the smallest opportunity would be), then 1/3 of 58 isn't many. Even 80% of that isn't many and matches back to the numbers you are talking about.

(590 comes up for "broad" in AdWords which isn't anything I use, mostly, again, because I like to look at what the smallest size could be so I know what I could be getting myself into.)

As for lower ranking pages having more traffic, that can vary as well. You'll hear people say searchers go for the top 5, but if a page ranks #6 for a word that has 11,500 searches a month, there's more opportunity for traffic than a #1 ranking for a KW that gets 58, you know?

Ideally, a bounce rate of 30% is where you want to be - you aren't that far off from there, but if 50% is the average, I'd look into additional keyword opportunities. For as much stats and science is behind SEO, there's just as much art to it

Well, there's certainly a balance between what % of keyword searches you can expect to capture. Lower volume words like offer less traffic but if targeted they should have better CTR - right? We know this. Using Moz tools to quickly check your site, you have good links and optimization, so there's two other things to explore: the keyword isn't as viable as you think it may be and possible technical issues with your site that impact the end user.

What does your Webmaster (or other analytics tool) show you? is that term driving traffic and/or what other keywords are sending people to your page? What's your bounce rate? If it's high and tied to your keywords, then perhaps it's not the fit you think it is.  Have you considered going for a higher volume term, like 'hosted voip' and then 'business hosted voip' on a different page?

As for technical issues, that's a whole other slew of things that I am sure other Mozers can speak to in better authority than myself. From a quick look, again, you seem pretty solid here. You did a nice job getting a lot of things right - including rankings. So I'd look at other keywords to expand opportunities.

It depends on what you want to get out of it. I've had issues with releases ranking higher than our product pages - or, really, the pages we'd like to have rank. So, that's one possibility. For driving links and such, though, it can work well. Keep in mind though that releases are still viewed as ways to get news to the media - old school, but that is the audience these services cater to.

As for which service, the price points vary significantly and I will say that I prefer to stick to the big dogs. PR Web is OK, but I default to PR Newswire. I think names like PR Web are kinda misleading because Web is only one part of their audience (and I see the attraction for SEO; however, think quality sites vs quantity for links). Again, I'll admit my bias as I have worked with them for about 15 years, so I witnesses their online evolution. Not all SEO support is equal!

One last comment: look at where the big brands go and what services they use. I get smaller groups usually go for cheaper, but you get what you pay for. Aside from price point, there's usually some rationale as to why reputable brands stick with a partner.

You are welcome (you also aren't alone; I don't have problems often and it's great that the Moz team has such terrific service).

If you are referring to having SEOMoz crawl it, I have had the same problem. Email their help desk - they are very responsive! And it will get it crawled. I also had crawls by them taking up to 10 days - waaaay too long. But just let them know and they will take care of it.

help@seomoz.org