Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Yes, that should work for both -bmw -ford and -intitle:bmw and -intitle:ford

That is a pretty good example you have there of a slightly ... unexpected ... knowledge box! The knowledge box can draw data from a number of places, as Ron mentions schema markup and google plus pages are used as are other online sources like wikipedia (which is the source in your example) and freebase listings. Dr Pete has written a number of posts about this which might help (here, here and here for example) and another good article on 'hacking' the knowledge graph here. The particular case you mention is a definition box and is driven from wikipedia and might be pretty difficult to change, if you are looking to influence knowledge graph data about a company or an entity the above links should help.

Hello Mike, This is definitely a situation where proper analytics and consistent reporting that show losses when changes are not implemented (and gains made when they are) is necessary. If you can prove that slow action (or inaction) on their part is hurting their bottom line, then they will be spurred to make the necessary changes. It can be a challenge to maintain willpower and work ethic when you know that small changes on the part of your client will make discernible differences to their success. I have a client that followed this same pattern - small alterations such as additional content or meta tags were multi-month endeavors. The action we took was a combination of the ideas offered by Martijn and EGOL - we began by making monthly analytics reports for 3-month periods showing the cost of inefficiency (noting changes and the average amount of time they took compared with revenue figures before/after said changes were made). After 3 months, we made the alterations ourselves at no cost to see what kind of difference it made. Within 2 months of the changes we made, their bottom line had increased by 18% when compared to their average monthly earnings. When we showed them this, we made the argument that we could be responsible for their ongoing updates (for a fee) and they were happy to move ahead with that system. 2 years later and we still have a great working relationship with them. As marketers and SEO's, it is our job to lead our clients to revenue, even if they don't understand how it works or place little value on it. We have to provide value and get their buy-in. After that, we can take on more challenging (and inspiring) projects to keep ourselves entertained. Hopefully this gives you some ideas for moving forward. Keep plugging away and feel free to fire any questions you have my way. Best regards, Rob

Mark, thanks for the question. My short answer: If you are doing anything that is potentially risky, then don't do it. I mean using guest posts at all -- whenever I see people talk about using this strategy, I die a little inside. Here's the long answer. Matt Cutts, the head of Google's anti-spam team, said here that people should stop using guest posts to build links. In response, Jen Lopez of Moz wrote this great essay that I highly suggest you read at least twice: As with anything, you don't want to be out there trying willy-nilly to get your posts on every blog for the sole purpose of building (probably bad) links. It's important to have this tied to your business and marketing goals, as you would with any other tactic. SEO is only one piece of the larger strategy, and if you focus solely on writing posts for link building purposes, you're missing out on a ton of other possibilities. Here's why guests posts are usually bad ideas: Websites that just publish countless random guest posts on desired topics are rarely authoritative websites in those niches. Does anyone actually visit those sites? Do those sites send legitimate referral traffic? If the answer is "no," then Google likely views them as having little authority. So, a random link on a random post on such a site isn't going to help you that much. Any guest-post website that charges for publishing posts is almost certainly violating Google's guidelines. Paying for links directly (or indirectly via paying for posts) is very, very risky. You are "building" links, not "earning" them. Why should Google give you credit for a link that you essentially give yourself? So, what's my answer? Read this Moz essay of mine that was inspired by Lopez's response. The key is to stop thinking about links and to start thinking about marketing. The best links, rankings, traffic and more are actually just good by-products of doing good public relations and publicity. My essay goes into to detail, but I'll summarize here. First, determine your website's target audience. Second, find out what major news outlets, publications, and blogs are actually read by your target audience. Third, use the methods that I detailed to get news coverage or a quality article or opinion piece (not a few hundred words of fluff) published on those websites. Yes, it's hard. But nothing good comes easily. ONE of those links is worth 100 or 1,000 random guest post links.

Hi Mike, Welcome to the Moz community and congratulations on your new website. It's great to see you here and doing your due diligence on link building beforehand, it will surely pay off in the long-term. Moz has created a very handy and informative link building guide, especially for those in your position. Have you read through it already? If not, I highly suggest starting there. Moz's link building guide: http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building

Another vote for changedetection.com.

A popular (and free!) tool (for up to 10 questions I believe) is SurveyMonkey. I have created a Pinterest board with some pretty helpful conversion optimization resources on it if you're interested.

Looking at a screenshot of a website is a very poor way to determine content quality.

You can block Wayback Machine from crawling and creating a record of your site by adding the following to your Robots.txt file: User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / This will not only stop new records from being created but also stop people viewing what had previously been indexed by Wayback Machine. More information about this can be found here: https://archive.org/about/exclude.php