Welcome to the Q&A Forum

The date on that post is 2010-- a lot has changed about Adwords since then!
Here is a more recent post, hot off the presses: http://www.business2community.com/marketing/google-updates-adwords-keyword-planner-tool-advertisers-need-know-0861602

When I look at your profile page, both OSE and the Moz toolbar tells me that PA=43. [Maybe you were just seeing a glitch...]

Here's one that might be helpful for approximation: http://www.ecreativeim.com/pagerank-link-juice-calculator.php

I like Ayima's Chrome extension "Redirect Path."

When you go to a page, just click it and it will tell you all the URLs you visited on the way there and what the http status codes are for each. Nice.

http://www.ayima.com/seo-knowledge/redirect-checker.html

It is hard to answer without seeing the pages in question, but there are ranking factors other than on-page that affect position. Maybe page B was less optimized but had a better backlink profile, for example.

Meta descriptions play an important role whether or not they are counted in ranking. When done well, they can cause a searcher to click on your result over the others. If the clever description you write for your page is too long, it will get truncated or Google might choose to show something else entirely (which it might do anyway, especially depending on the search term). I like to use this tool when writing page titles and descriptions: http://www.seomofo.com/snippet-optimizer.html  It allows you to see what your result might look like in Google's serps (it uses 70 characters as the allowed title length and 156 as the allowed description length).

If you use the words Weber 522053 in the query, Google is likely to return the title with Weber 522053 in it, even if it doesn't return it that way for a different query, because Google sees that Weber 522053 is important to the querier.

But this does show that Google knows what the intended title is and is shortening it for its own unfathomable Google-ish reasons. (I did notice that Weber 522053 is not visible on the page at all, so possibly that is what makes Google think that it is not important information to display in the serps.)

Since the links are using 302 redirects they are not passing any link juice, so I can't imagine that you'd be penalized for them.

Yes, presenting the reasons you should keep it on one domain [duplication of effort between two sites, splitting up potential links, duplicate content on the sites, possibility of Google thinking you are creating a link scheme by linking between the sites] might convince the decision-makers.

If there is no way to convince them, for the magazine site I'd optimize for long-tail search terms relating to "magazine" or "travel" or whatever is unique to the publication's content. [And from reading the media kit, it sounds like luxury lifestyle content is an intended focus, so I'd probably emphasize that.]

As strict as Google can be, I have never heard of them penalizing  anyone for something bad they used to do (but didn't get caught at) and have now stopped doing. I think they reserve their penalties for current bad actions. [Which is not to say you were doing something bad--we are talking about your wanting to be sure that it doesn't appear to Google that you tried something bad.]

In general, I think it's best not to disavow unless it is an extreme situation. As Google itself says: "In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool."

And of course DMOZ, if you are talking old-school directory. And the keyword meta tag (not exactly a tool, but it got the job done).

Yes, I went to one of the websites before reading these replies and could hardly get the page closed fast enough--a lot of people can see my screen. Yes, the original poster should definitely edit in a disclaimer before the links!

If it is a true 404, it will drop out of Google's index on its own. If it is a soft 404, returning what looks like a 404 page without a 404 response, you should fix it so it returns the correct response code. (Though it will still drop out eventually, because the content is not there.)

Fetch as Google is handy if you want Google to recrawl your page, to make sure it sees the current content.

Assuming the keyword is still relevant, why not update/rewrite it and keep the page one ranking?

I spot check on a regular basis by taking a unique chunk out of a post, putting it in quotes, and doing a Google search on it. It's not comprehensive, but it is free. [And the main problems we have had with scrapers have been with sites that have taken huge portions of our content, not just an article or two, and a spot check roots those out.]

The page title should be what makes the best sense for the page, so no, you do not need to maintain the same pattern across all pages—just make sure the keywords you use describe the page. In many if not most cases brand will not be the first keyword you want in the title. Read more about titles here and here.

fabric-fabric, I see you have asked this question in a couple of threads. The best way to let people see your question so they can help you is to post it in its own thread. To do this, look under "Have a Question?" in the right column and click on "Ask". You will be brought to a page where you can enter your question.

If a page has no links and has not been submitted another way, Google won't see it.

Also keep in mind that a few bad backlinks are not going to hurt you, especially in the context of a lot of good ones. Google knows that these come up.

From Google's Search Console (aka Webmaster Tools) help:

"In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this [disavow] tool."

This sounds like you will be pointing/canonicalizing the two similar pages to the third one that is different from them? I am not quite sure why you would want to do that.

If you don't want the 1/2 content available but the pages have some authority (good links), 301 redirect those pages to 3 (if the topic is close enough and you don't have a more similar page) or if they are not strong pages, just remove them and let them 404.

If you do want the 1/2 content available on your site, but don't want it competing with page 3 in search, you could redirect 2 to 1 and rewrite 1 to make it stronger for whatever it is that makes it different from 3, so both 1 and 3 could potentially rank (for different things). Or you could redirect 2 to 1 and noindex 1.

Canonicals are intended for pages with very similar content, however people sometimes do use them as a type of redirect for not-so-similar pages. The problem with this is that a canonical is just a suggestion to Google and, as you mention, Google may ignore the canonical, especially in a situation like this.

I took a quick look at those links and I am not sure why you think they are black hat. They seem to have a lot of well-known clients which would account for the authoritative domains.

And when I clicked on the sites listed in Moz, I saw that there were in fact links back to APBSpeakers.com. [Even if the company wasn't named, its speakers were--you have to look at the page source, not just do a site search.]