Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I feel like this article explains the breakdown of the edgerank factors pretty well.  But before you click and I am hoping I am answering your question, likes are only one piece to the pie. http://www.digitalorganics.com.au/seo/facebook-seo-and-edgerank/

One other thing came to mind overnight.  I think that the API had some limits with regards to follow/day.  That might make an API reliant app less useful for some purposes.

In my opinion it doesn't hurt SEO

Completely. Its a great investment to own the .com version as well - you never know if the client wants to expand in the future. It also insures you against people buying (and using) the .com version. Hope this has helped you.

Oleg gave a great answer. Still I would add 2 things here: 1. Go to GWMT and under "Health" do a "Fetch as Googlebot" test.      This will tell you what pages are reachable. 2. I`ve saw some occasions of server-level Googlebot blockage. If your robots.txt is fine and your page contains no "no-index" tags, and yet you still getting an error message while fetching, you should get a hold on your access logs and check it for Googlebot user-agents to see if (and when) you were last visited. This will help you pin-point the issue, when talking to your hosting provider (or 3rd party security vendor). If unsure, you can find Googlebot information (user agent and IPs ) at Botopedia.org.

Hi there, the maximum URL length is around 2,000 characters. This is for browsers rather than Google. That said, shorter URLs are best practice for usability reasons. Neither of the examples you give seem overly long. While it's a good idea to avoid unnecessary folders or words or characters, it's good usability practice to reflect the site's structure and navigation in the URL. Good luck!

Hi JP, I believe what you are describing is Google+ Business Pages and Google+ Local Pages (the pages that replaced Place Pages a couple of months ago). If I've misunderstood, please correct me. Right now, multi-location businesses are having all kinds of trouble because Google has not yet truly clarified their policy on this. According to Google employee, Vanessa Schneider: "“Be sure to choose the Local category so that we can bring your multiple pages together to create one listing later on.” See: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/05/31/google-local-qs-and-some-as/ As I read this, Google intends, in future, to offer easy management for multiple locations businesses from a single account, but how they will do this is still really up in the air. If you will look at the Google and Your Business Forum, you will see tons of business owners asking about this. Example: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!searchin/business/multiple$20locations/business/A5Itcap9y0I/il_B2XnjeAYJ Now, the one aspect of your question about which I'm not totally clear is your concern about Google presenting local results to user groups based on their country of origin. Google should do this. Maybe you could describe what is currently happening with your Canadian vs. US-based searches. If there is a problem you are noticing, could you please describe it as fully as possible? Thanks! Miriam

Hi J.P. Your Blog title makes a great RSS feed page or value already, although xml declaration may not be required it seems like a great practice in terms of effective indexing. There are tons of free services and tools for managing Blog RSS feeds just like this   http://wparena.com/freebies/top-tools-for-managing-blog-rss-feeds/ | |

So I just asked this same question here because I couldn't find any answers from Mozzers on this topic. This was from 2 years ago. I've been finding conflicting advice on META order. It seems like best practice would be to have title before keywords. AM I wrong?

Hello, Check this guide out. I found it to be extremely useful, it takes you step by step over the most common issues faced during a website migration. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/web-site-migration-guide-tips-for-seos Farris

Hi JP, Addon domains are OK as long as you play by the rules (do not interlink them, user unique content). Think about them as sites being on the same dedicated server. Do not do things you would not do to sites on the same server and you will be OK.

Vistage, I can appreciate this and understand that this listing is probably in the recommended searches because of the query's popularity. Likewise, logic led me to believe the only way to get rid of this from the related searches was to create more highly relevant searches for the brand. Sometimes - as I'm sure you know- SEOs can implement a bit of voodoo to either 1.) eliminate, or 2.) expedite the removal of such unwanted information. I was just hoping that there was something I could either do in Webmaster Tools or another one of Google's products to accelerate this process. With reputation monitoring being as big of a discussion topic as it has been in 2012, though, I was confident that someone may've discovered some sort of work-around or other means of getting these unwanted queries out of the 'recommended searches' list. Regardless, thank you for your input. I still believe there has to be another way to 'bury' unwanted recommended search queries and if I find anything out, I will definitely let you know.

Catalyste, Yes, this is something that I will need to implement. With that, I also wanted to ask you, if we fore-go implementing 'rich snippets' and 'authorship' fields in the BETA is that going to create more problems for development down the line? More specifically, if we decide to hold off implementing authorship/rich snippets until we launch the actual production site for visitors/customers, will this create more problems than just implementing this stuff now? Likewise, are there any additional suggestions you'd make for a news organization's site?

The social network is targeted towards business professionals and companies.