Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Wow, that's a great answer! I totally agree about Screaming Frog--I'd feel blind without it.

As far as the question of subdomain vs subfolder, Matt Cutts said to do whichever is easiest: http://youtu.be/_MswMYk05tk

However, there was a question about that topic here on Moz a few months ago, and Rand Fishkin "strongly urged" a single subdomain (which is also my own preference): http://moz.com/community/q/moz-s-official-stance-on-subdomain-vs-subfolder-does-it-need-updating

And for www vs not, you will have to 301 it one way or the other and there is generally very little link juice lost with a 301 so if no www is better for your brand, I would go for it.

Post transcripts--it costs about a dollar a minute for a service. If you can't afford to do them all, do the most important ones and post summaries for the others.

I keep our privacy policy indexed. I figure that if someone is thinking about interacting with us in some way and doesn't happen to notice the link in the footer or the call-to-action boxes, it should be findable in search so that we don't look like we are hiding something. And for the second part of your question, I think having your privacy policy readily accessible helps users feel more secure and that is a good thing, so I would still have it in the footer.

If they have no traffic and no links, I would not move them.

I would only re-purpose them if you think that by combining/editing them they would have value, but in a situation like this, that usually isn't the case.

(Unless we are talking about a significantly large percentage of your website becoming 404--in that case some rewriting/repurposing would be in order.)

It is a very nice rundown of what's out there. Thanks again.

Is that exactly how you have the URL written? If so, I think your problem is the missing http://

From webmastercentral:

"Specifying (a relative URL since there’s no “http://”) implies that the desired canonical URL is http://example.com/example.com/cupcake.html even though that is almost certainly not what was intended. In these cases, our algorithms may ignore the specified rel=canonical. Ultimately this means that whatever you had hoped to accomplish with this rel=canonical will not come to fruition."

This might not be anything you are doing; Google is having a little stormy weather right now. You can take a look at Google's volatility here: http://mozcast.com/

Yes, I think Party_Experts is right, that duplicating the date will help the user's experience because they'd be able to see all of the information together. As far as H tags, anything lower than the H1 tag is probably not going to have a lot of influence, so I wouldn't worry about that part too much.

Yes, the question is a bit unclear. H tags (which are not meta elements) are used in the body of your page to indicate headings of sections, with h1 being the most important. Usually the style of the h tag is defined in the CSS, but sometimes people do use inline styles like this: <h1 style="color:red; text-align:center;">Centered red text</h1>.

This is still an h1 tag, and the text will be red and centered. If you want to change the style, for example <h1 style="color:blue; text-align:left;">Left-aligned blue text</h1>, you will not affect the SEO of the page, only the appearance. Search engines do pay attention to h tags (particularly h1) so you will want to keep that, even if you edit the style.

That's a very broad question. Common keywords for what topic?

Here is a post describing how to get demographic information around search terms using Google Adwords. (Though Adwords is less generous with its data than it used to be, especially if you are not a paying customer, you might get some ideas.)

Yes, using a 302 redirect loses link equity. You can take a look at: http://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection for more information. "A 302 redirect is a temporary redirect. It passes 0% of link juice (ranking power) and, in most cases, should not be used. "
*I also love this infographic: http://moz.com/learn/seo/http-status-codes

Yes. Once you get to the cached page, on the bottom right of the grey bar at the top is a link that says "text-only version". Click on that, and there you have it.

I have not had this problem myself, but a search turns up the possibility it is your plugin, W3 Total Cache. Here is a link about how to clear the cache, in case you want to try this: http://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/edu/wordpress/recommended-wordpress-plugins/clearing-cache-in-wordpress

http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization

"Another option for dealing with duplicate content is to utilize the rel=canonical tag. The rel=canonical tag passes the same amount of link juice (ranking power) as a 301 redirect, and often takes much less development time to implement."

When you download your crawl diagnostics as a csv, column A is "URL", column L is the true/flase column for "Duplicate Page Content", and column AF "duplicate_page_content" contains the urls of duplicates to the url in column A.

To look at duplicate content, I sort by column L, delete all of the false rows (because they don't have duplicate content), then I delete all of the columns except column A (URL) and column AF (duplicate_page_content), save the spreadsheet as "yyyymmdd-duplicate-content" and work from that. (Easier to see what you are doing without all the other data in the way.)

Also note that column AF "duplicate_page_content" can have more than one url in it if you have multiple versions of the same content. In this case I use Excel's "Text to Columns" function (under "Data" in the ribbon) to put each url into its own column so I can deal with them individually.

And yes, if there are just small differences Google is likely to see pages as duplicates.

According to your description, http://site.com/oldurl is the link with equity and https://site.com/new is the final destination link. Is this correct? To get from one to the other you go via a 302 and at that point you lose your equity. Whether it is a redirect of a redirect or not.

And in general, multiple redirects should be avoided. Google will follow multiple redirects, but you will lose some authority with each jump, and at some point, maybe more than 3 or so, Google will give up.

Wait till Google crawls your page again. You will know when this is by checking the date on the cached version of the page, which you can find by doing a search for the URL of the page you are interested in, then clicking on the little green down arrow next to the URL in the search result.

Also, it is a fixed rather than responsive layout. Google has announced that as of April 21 they will be expanding using mobile-friendliness as a ranking signal, so that would be a drawback. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2015/02/finding-more-mobile-friendly-search.html

According to Moz: "Another option for dealing with duplicate content is to utilize the rel=canonical tag. The rel=canonical tag passes the same amount of link juice (ranking power) as a 301 redirect, and often takes much less development time to implement." http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization

Why do you think it does not pass ranking power?