Put a canonical tag on site.com/products to itself and the parameter versions will go away. (They eventually will anyway--duplicate content does not cause a penalty, it just causes duplicate versions to not be indexed, which is what you want anyway.)

For me, a good rule of thumb for this type of question is to search with the term and see if ads for products come up. If so, there are people spending money on the  niche. I then look in Google Adwords to get search volume and see how much people are paying.

Google's ranking factors are designed to improve the user experience [or so they say ], but a lot of them are definitely subjective ["Would you trust the information presented in this article?" for instance], so yes, it is sometimes hard to know exactly how to make that improvement.

But linking to a random high-rank site will not improve the user experience--the site has to be relevant. If you are writing on a very niche topic, there may not be a very high-rank site that is very relevant. Linking to a good (even if not super high rank) site that is very relevant will create an association for Google between that good site and its relevant content and your page, which is a positive thing. Google is looking at many quality signals at the same time and no single SEO "rule" can really apply equally in all situations.

[You might find this article interesting. The author has gathered a list of "known" Panda factors and where they were found (not the slickest piece you have ever seen but food for thought--a lot of comments as well).]

I sincerely hope not, as I am about to redirect most of my main website.

It is a common thing for websites to do a wholesale redirect of pages, whether to change domains or better structure the site. Matt Cutts said a few years back that there is no problem with this, even with sites of 100,000 pages and I have not heard anything to contradict this.

You can use a cross-domain canonical from site 1 pointing to to site 2, or 301 redirect the pages from site 1 to site 2.

Duplicate content isn't a penalty, it just makes Google choose which version to show. If you use one of those signals (probably the 301, if you are sure this is a permanent change), the correct site will get the benefit of the content.

That is apparently what Google thinks is the most useful result to return. The searcher knows the URL of the company, but maybe wants to know the name associated with it.

It's hard to tell sometimes exactly why Google does what it does. (Which is what keeps SEOs employed.)

If you did a 301 redirect, you do not need a canonical. If I were to use a canonical, I would use the https://www version, since you had the www before.

If the old URLs are being 301 re-directed to the new URLs, you should not lose much link authority, so that by itself shouldn't be a reason to change back.

If you prefer the two-level structure (which I would, for a couple of reasons) then go ahead and change back, but as Andy says, do it carefully so you are not sending conflicting messages.

Not at all, Dirk. I was just clarifying my answer.

If the pages still exist (just not listed on the website) and were doing well = Redirect or canonicalize to take advantage of their residual authority.

If the pages no longer exist = Not much you can do...

In either case, no problem with duplicate content as Google will soon figure out where the content now (exclusively) lives.

David Mihm (Moz staff) has replied to this: "We do limit the number of searches per day to prevent abuse and comply with the terms of service of our API partners. It might be an issue with your IP address.  If you email the help team they can hopefully help sort things out for you."

That permalink already 301 redirects to the visible URL in your example and wouldn't cause duplicate content. Sometimes in order to show a nicer-looking link people will use aliases. I do not know why in this case the two structures are needed since it seems the visible link could handle the categories, but then I do not know what all the complexities are—you could ask the programmer why.

You should not look at Moz's domain authority as a fixed number; it will change, depending on their index that month. A good way to look at this number is relative to a couple of your competitors. Track them, and if their number also goes down when yours goes down, it is probably the index.

When you say you see that on-page, do you mean when you look at the source inside the CMS, or on the actual webpage?

If it is the CMS, I agree, don't worry about it. When I first started with the CMS I am using now, I got very upset when I saw image links that looked like this: src="~/media/46166ADB93F248DDB7AF5C6CC8BD479C.ashx

I wanted easy-to-read links with appropriate keywords!

After wasting most of a day working on "fixing" them, I found out that once you get to the actual live webpage, everything looked fine. So I had to spend the better part of another day changing them back. [That is what you get for messing with objects.]

There was a similar question yesterday which was answered by Moz staff that might apply to your situation: http://moz.com/community/q/missing-campaign-after-billing-update

"We found a bug that is preventing archived campaigns from showing up in the UI and have a fix deploying that should resolve this soon, but I do have a workaround for you in the interim. After you log into Moz, type in:
pro.moz.com/campaigns
in your browser navigation window. This will take you to the archived campaigns. From there, just click on the Activate button next to the ones you want to bring back."

Agreed, no one should do 301 redirects for no reason. As I asked earlier, why does the other URL exist? If this is all being set up new, it should only be using the new, well-organized path. (Unless there are multiple paths that one can go through to arrive at that page and the developer wants them all to resolve to one, clean URL.) I think your best bet would be to just ask your programmer why.

Yes, title tags are more important from an SEO perspective, but the real goal is to get people to do what the website is set up for, which in your case is rentals.

Rental pages by their nature are not evergreen (hopefully!), so getting interested buyers to click on a listing is more important than getting a page to rank well.

You do need to rank well enough so that people will see your results (so, first page, anyway) but I know that seeing square footage and pricing information right up front would certainly make me click on that result, even if it were lower on the page.

You could try splitting your listings and doing half with these details and half with descriptive keyword terms, and see what you get.

It is not unusual to redirect a whole website and all of its pages, so it wouldn't make sense that you could have too many. And you should keep the redirects indefinitely--what if there is a link to the expired page? You do not want to lose that equity by having it go nowhere...

Yes! I am having multiple problems, including values that would change when I sorted my columns.

I contacted Adwords support and was told, "Unfortunately the information in the Keyword Planner Tool is currently not the best source of data for your analysis."

She went on to say that she would get back to me when the tool was usable. I have not heard back yet, so I am not using it.

At the very least, they should say that this is in beta and have it on the side, rather than as the primary resource that someone who wasn't paying attention might use, and end up spending  money based on bad data.

You have a inside the

but not thethat it is closing. That is just to start. The rest of that code needs cleanup and is mostly unnecessary--you wouldn't need two spans; the letter-spacing has no value, etc.

What is best is to properly define the h1 in the CSS and then use

Your Page Title

.

If you need to modify the h1 (maybe it is defined for a group of pages and on this particular page you want something a little different), do it as simply as possible. (The span attributes in your example probably would not do anything, assuming a white background, though that depends on how the class google-mixed, is defined...)

This is an interesting question for me. We have been doing video for a while and do it like you, hosted on YouTube. I have never really considered a video sitemap, because I always assumed that YouTube will outrank us for any given video of ours (the typical situation if you have your content on a much more powerful website). And that is what I do see on video search.We do get some organic traffic to our gallery-type page, though. For now, I will probably keep things the way they are, since we get a good amount of traffic from YouTube and that is the main point, but I would like to hear if anyone has had video sitemaps boost traffic to their own site.