Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I said this in a question earlier...today I think. The threshold for bounce rate creating a negative impact for SEO is very high, to the point where you don't need to worry about it.

With regards to using Pinterest as a marketing channel, ask yourself what the benefit to your user is. Are you going to create intriguing SEO images that people will want to save or share? If so, I don't think I'd spend that capital in Pinterest, rather I'd try to turn it into good link bait.

I haven't seen anything good on whether or not Pinterest generates a measurable social signal that could influence a SERP, so I can't speak to that.

Agreeing with Brent on password-protection. And everything else he said.

Also, if these are CMS-driven sites, I can almost guarantee you you've got paths pointing back to the dev-version. Probably absolute links to images and such. I've had that happen before. Remove the database and files from your dev directories and see what breaks on the live-site

Moving to a new domain means new link building. You can 301 all you want but it's just not the same. Close, but it's never feels as pure as your first.

I'd business-case it. Will the keyword-as-domain give you some ranking power? Probably. Will the boost be worth the $2500? Well...maybe. Also take into consideration what happens if someone else snatches that domain up. Then $2500 might not look so bad when faced with a competitor with a new full tank of SEO gas.

There are many potential reasons.

1. GWT hasn't re-crawled since 301 implementation

2. The 301ing URLs aren't all right

3. You're 301ing to 404'ing URLs.

4. About 100 other things.

Can't give specifics without specifics.

Google SERP displays the title tag as the domain, indicating that it either hasn't been re-crawled or wasn't indexed in the first place.

There are some matter-of-opinion items that hit me, but nothing huge. Just truck on down your SEOMoz error list and you'll be good.

GWT = Google Webmaster Tools. There is an option to view what pages from your site is indexed. Check there to see if you've got duplicates indexed.

Backlinks don't pass 100% of their SEO juice through a 301, just most of it (like 90%). That 10% loss can be a lot if you've got tremendous amounts of backlinks pointing to the non-preferred domain.

That looks good to me. The existing is just...really long and saturated. And not indexed.

How new?

OSE doesn't track every website, and the index isn't updated real-time, so you could be either too new or just not included in the index.

I mean, right there in the OSE page for your domain, it tells you this:

No Data Available for this URL

Although our index is large, there are a number of reasons why we may not have data for the page you've requested. These can include:

• Recency of Page Creation:
  Linkscape crawls the web constantly, but we update the index only once every 30-40 days. Thus, pages and links created since the last index update won't be available until we've seen them. A typical timeline for getting a page/site included in Linkscape is 45-60 days, sometimes less for very important or well-linked-to pages.
• Deep Down in the Web:
  Our crawl focuses on a breadth-first approach, and thus we nearly always have content from the homepage of websites, externally linked-to pages and pages higher up in a site's information hierarchy. However, deep pages that are buried beneath many layers of navigation are sometimes missed and it may be several index updates before we catch all of these.
• Blocked Pages:
  If our crawlers or data sources are blocked from reaching your URLs, they may not be included in our index (though links that points to those pages will still be available)
• No Links:
  The URLs seen by Linkscape must be linked-to by other documents on the web or our index will not include them.

If I had more than just a few datapoints, I'd offer them up. To really prove something like this though you'd almost need to do a controlled study. And because there'd be some seriously qualitative judgments made, data alone couldn't prove the point.

Went live on Monday? Chances are you received a huge brand-new-shiny-ooo-look rank bonus. Happens a lot.

Also, some of your title tags (like the home page one) could use some work.

Are you using a plugin to append .html to the end of WP pages? If not, I'm confused as to what html doctypes are doing on WP

Hmm. I'm seeing the homepage indexed as non-www, however every internal page I just checked out is indexed as the www version.

I'd check your GWT indexed pages, and see if both the non-www and www home pages are indexed there, tell google to prefer the www, and go from there.

Also check your backlinks. If they're going to non-www, well...then it becomes difficult.

Ahem:

You can read the full list of what gets you MozPoints by clicking on "MozPoints" under your user profile thingy.

I believe the practice of pointing negative backlinks to a site has been in use for quite some time now. The prevalence has remained somewhat low, however, due to the relative difficulty of obtaining the quantity of links required to sufficiently negatively impact rank of a competitor. I've seen this practice used as a form of ORM to decrease rank of negative press.

As it gets easier to game this system, I'd anticipate Google making an algorithmic change to consider the sudden building of low-quality or spam-identified links. I'd expect that they'd be ignored rather than used to determine rank or quality.  How this would effect IP neighborhood metrics, however, I don't know.

While I can't substantiate anything meaningful with the data I've seen thusfar, I will go as far as to say I'm pretty sure Google already takes this into account on some level, negating any negative passed. Almost like automatically assigning a nofollow. It's just gut though.

Why would you point rel canonical to a page you don't want to rank?

I've found most copywriters understand density well enough to get it.

It would help to give them a short primer on semantic relationships and search. Use specific examples and the ~ operator in Google. Explain something like how auto relates to car but auto service and car service mean totally different things.

Hmm, well I honestly don't know how to correct that kind of an issue. I know DNN is the cause of a lot of my tech-SEO headaches. Sorry!

I think you've gotten a decent diversity of opinion here, the rest is all just going to come back down to you and risk tolerance. As Dr. Pete said, there isn't a single right answer. It's going to come down to a try-and-see.

It probably doesn't need to be said, but first make sure the content you're developing serves your reader. I can't stress that enough. Never write content specifically for SEs.

Now, to the meat, in my experience density percentages between 2 and 5 seem to work best. You can go all TF-IDF and LDA on it, but simple measure reads 2-5%.

I'm having a hard time understanding the issue. What crawler is finding CaseStudy.aspx? Don't see it in the Google index, and Xenu didn't find it. If it's just the SEOMoz crawler finding the file, what particular URLs are being tagged as dupes?