Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would block m.domain.com from all crawlers except Googlebot-Mobile. At the same time, I would block domain.com from Googlebot-Mobile. I hope that helps.

Searches that show in kw tool are for the Google search network and include images. What is reported using exact match is the search volume for the keyword.  A search is neither organic or paid, it is a search. So, any traffic for that kw is just that traffic - they choose what they click on in terms of organic or paid. Best

HI Michelleh, As you mentioned earlier that the client has 10 Facebook accounts , so he can manage it with the tracker i.e IFrames. I think that Facebook Disrupts Social Marketing Plans. I hope that you will found the solution.

Entering the subdomain into the box without any slashes will indicate that you are trying to remove the site - and after submitting it, it will indicate the request as a "Site Removal" Example: Enter the URL that you'd like to remove (case-sensitive) Enter: testing.website.com

That is correct.

While it's true that big brands get away with more than other sites, I think it's a lot more complex than that. Big brands also have massive link profiles and high authority, which cushions a lot of other problems. Some big brands actually were hit by Panda, although to varying degrees. Driving brand searches alone isn't going to work for most sites. Google is taking more offline factors into account for what constitutes a brand, I'm willing to bet. They're also looking at overall volume, authority, social activity, etc. It's not going to be easy to make yourself look like a big brand online if you aren't in "real" life. If you want to build your brand, that's fine, and I think it's certainly good to do things like use some branded terms in anchor text (just for diversity). It's also, of course, a business decision as much (or more) than an SEO one. There's value to brand-building. I just wouldn't treat it as a cure for SEO problems. There are plenty of easier and more effective ways to prevent algo-related issues. A lot of Panda comes down to content quality, aggressive advertising, and site architecture.

We are considering experimenting with this as a Panda solution (worked for hubpages), that's why we don't want to put it in subfolders. We can't move to an entirely new domain, so are considering experimenting with subdomains. I understand there is quite a bit of disagreement about whether subdomains work or not, but we want to try it. The content topics are different (beauty vs asthma).

I would return a 404 as the content no longer exists. If visitors are discovering this page via a link that provides traffic then you need to ask why you are not creating alternative content as a replacement.

eHow is run by Demand Media. You may want to look into that direction instead. As far as I know, a person cannot simply create an eHow account and start typing away. Recently I hired a Demand Media editor. She said that there basically is no more work for them and that many had to leave. She also said that the topics are very focused. Here is a straight copy and paste of an email from her: they are starting to focus more on expertise focused articles, so unless you're, say, a mechanic who also knows how to write, you're out of the loop over there now.

All sites were potentially affected by Panda, large and small. Panda is a group of algorithm changes rolled out over time. Each change had the potential to affect a percentage of websites directly. Even if a site was "panda-proof" they were still affected because they would have moved up in rankings as other sites were penalized. As an example, take one of the questions asked of Google's Panda testers..."would you trust this site with your credit card information?" Google would present a group of people various sites then ask the question. Users would say yes or no. Then Google would algorithmically review the sites to locate commonalities between the sites which received a yes or no response. If Google determined users trusted sites with a visible SSL badge more then they would adjust their algorithm to boost sites with a visible SSL badge. This change would affect all sites, large and small. Either a site has a SSL badge or it does not. Panda is a group of many such changes.

Not familiar with the exact study but, if this type of thing interests you it would make sense to follow Derek Halpern at: socialtriggers.com. Also Jay Baer's convinceandconvert.com.

I don't work in that sector myself, but I have a friend who does, was hit heavily by Panda and tried HON code as part of a recovery strategy. He seems to have clawed his way out of Panda this week, but doesn't attribute it to the HON code directly.  However HON does impose some criteria that are probably good to stick with in order to build trust in that sector, which might give off some secondary signals. In short some of the stuff he did to get the HON accreditation probably helped even if the accreditation itself didn't. For reference his attributes much of his recovery to removing thinner content - ensuring he has 1 article per topic and making it a better article by combining similar ones.

I can comment on pagination as Google has released very good guide for this in light of their support for prev and next rels: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html

The only way it could be duplicate content is if you load the video to multiple sites (it's better to load to one location on your site and share the EMBED feed) that way you also get credit for the inbound links too, and if you transcribe the content of your video feed for the site and populate that across multiple other sites. If you just transcribe the content of the video and leave it as is, you'll be fine

Well said, I agree. There's too much uncertainty. I'd be shocked if anyone could guesstimate (at the keyword-level) with any decent level of accuracy. Overall % improvements are a bit easier to ballpark guesstimate.

Thank you everyone for the great advice! That's what I thought, but just wanted to double check.