Alex, I prefer to have the most relevant term in the url. No big issues with what your doing except the url being a bit more difficult to understand. If you do decide on one term, I don't think you will be missing out on traffic for the other term as the rest of your on-page seems to be optimized properly for the that term as well. Good luck!

Yes, I typically always do and place it after the topic of the page:

Plagiarism Types | Brand

It helps with brand recognition.  Just remember that if is a long brand name it will get truncated. Also, make sure you have a compelling meta descriptions to improve click-throughs.

Good luck!

I prefer to avoid is simply because prices fluctuates and titles aren't updated in serp's in realtime. If a user sees an item with a price in a title and clicks to the landing page and see it more expensive, it will decrease goodwill toward your brand and increase bounce rates. Both not good.

I haven't found any great PPC guides (and I purchased most of them).  Check out the adwords blog is useful and the last Perry Marshall book was ok (some good ideas/insights).

Good way from => http://www.henderson.cc/wp/tag/301-redirect/

While poking around on the Web, I found an article by John Honeck, entitled “Page by Page redirects in IIS for .asp, .html, .pdf, etc.“. He presented an ingenious method for implementing redirection of a PDF document. Rename or remove the old PDF document from the directory. In its place, create a new folder and give it the exact same name as the outdated PDF, including the use of the .pdf extension.

Inside the new folder, place a default Web page (index.htm, default.htm, etc.). In the head of the default Web page, place meta redirect code. A user (or Google spider) visits the directory, finds an object with the correct name and the default Web page redirects them to the new content!

Here’s sample code:

<title>Moved to new URL: http://www.example.com/pdfs/thenewpdf.pdf</title>

This page has been moved to http://www.example.com/pdfs/thenewpdf.pdf

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location please click here

No evidence on this.

As long as the text and background isn't the same color you are safe. Also, the more contrast the better for usability sake.

Along w/Chris and Eli's suggestion, a sneaky way of doing this is inputting this into Google to get an already made form:

website analysis filetype:doc  or website analysis filetype:pdf

Try switching up the kw (such as website checklist, seo website checklits and etc.). Good luck!

Yes--but as the old saying goes--the "King" can't do no wrong.

The way I always use them is if we didn't have a high organic position for one of our product lines, I would allocate points to get the no-follow link removed off the free listing. Did this help? I didn't notice any increase/decreases in organic positions for any competitive keywords (ie: widget). Did it help for long-tails (ie: stainless steel widget)? It seemed to help, but difficult to say.

Feel free to PM as I'm extremely familiar with their programs.

Federico--sounds good. Maybe I was focus more on the issue of the websites were difficult to update--and this would provide an avenue to update. My recommendation was to create informational pages that would link into the parent site does add value--and would not be perceived as a doorway page.

If the page is low-quality and does not provide user value it could be classified as a doorway page.

Have a good one

A good rule of thumb is if you can see all the "hidden" content if Javascript is turned off you are basically safe.

Publish on your site first w/self canonical. Wait for it to get indexed and then publish over at LinkedIn. What is probably happening is that the LinkedIn article w/self canonical is getting index before its on your site so Google shows the LinkedIn version as the preferred version. Good luck!

In my opinion, as long as the page title, headings and some of the content have your kw in it, you should be fine. The content should be natural, but because it focuses on a specific good/service those terms will naturally flow out a bit more.

Google understands "natural" much more than people think. If something is "unnatural" it might consider it giving the person who queried that keyword a bad user experience and that is what Google doesn't want to do. If the searcher always has a good user experience, they will come back (and that is one of the objectives of Google Algorithm).

I would try to get them manually removed before using the tool (Google recommends this). If you can't find any contact info, try doing a lookup on whois or try entering site:domain.com "@" for emails or site:domain.com "Ph" in Google.  Good luck!

See below. Google doesn't always nail this. I'm guessing that if it's Google isn't getting EuroFlorist  from one of your pages. It's from another source. If you query "telefleurs EuroFlorist " a bunch of results. This could be the other sources.

Form: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35624?hl=en

"We may try to generate an improved title from anchors, on-page text, or other sources. However, sometimes even pages with well-formulated, concise, descriptive titles will end up with different titles in our search results to better indicate their relevance to the query. There’s a simple reason for this: the title tag as specified by a webmaster is limited to being static, fixed regardless of the query. Once we know the user’s query, we can often find alternative text from a page that better explains why that result is relevant. "

Try to always create useful and unique content. It's difficult and time-consuming, but well worth it in the end!

According to Matt Cutts, in the domain it doesn't matter. However, the keyword should be in the url (but doesn't have to be).

Sometimes Google will change the text on where the title tag usually appears if they think they can do a better job. For more information, please see this post.

1. Do you think this strategy will work to preserve my current rankings? Yes, as long as the 301's are done properly and expect around a 15% loss.

2. Do you have any lessons learned or advice to share with me to make this as smooth as possible? Make sure to test the 301's before hand. Specifically, change your hosts file to the ip of domain. Next, go to google and do a site:yourdomainname.com and click on each result and make sure the redirects are done properly. Also, pay attention to Google Search Console, Analytics and etc for 404's and such. Make sure your .htaccess file isn't huge and add a new sitemap and etc.

3. Do I really need to wait to add new content?  I might get antsy and want to do it sooner!   No, but I would wait until the dust settles (more of a personal preference)  as you need to focus on the launch.

Sounds like you have it handled! It's all in the prep and how to handle issues post-launch in a time-sensitive matter. Good luck!

Tom,

From Google (may not answer your question though):

Here are some potential reasons reviews might not post, as outlined in this sticky post.

• Duplicate listings of the business. If we've got more than one page representing a business, reviews may live on one but not the other.- Old reviews. Reviews written before the Google+ Local launch display differently and may be difficult to find. You can upgrade the display of old reviews by trying to write a new review of any place.- Review sort. The default review sort on a page is by Most Helpful. Your recent review is not necessarily the first one to appear. You can change the sorting of reviews to Most Recent using the drop down menu above the first review.- URLs in reviews. We don't allow URLs in reviews. If you edit your review to remove the URL, it should post almost immediately.- Marked as spam. We can't share details about what exactly constitutes as spammy behavior, but the goal is to ensure that users viewing pages see only quality, legitimate information to make informed decisions. We know that sometimes our algorithms may flag and remove legitimate reviews in our effort to combat abuse, but believe that overall, these measures are helping to ensure that the reviews appearing on local Google+ pages are authentic, relevant and useful. Here's our reviews posting guidelines and policy: http://goo.gl/LtFCS