Welcome to the Q&A Forum

URLs that don't exist should display an error page and return a 404 (not found) response. When you have made-up URLs going to an actual page that returns a 200 (OK) response, the problem actually is that Google will start seeing this as soft 404 errors, which is not good. From Google Search Console: "Returning a code other than 404 or 410 for a non-existent page (or redirecting users to another page, such as the homepage, instead of returning a 404) can be problematic. Firstly, it tells search engines that there’s a real page at that URL. As a result, that URL may be crawled and its content indexed. Because of the time Googlebot spends on non-existent pages, your unique URLs may not be discovered as quickly or visited as frequently and your site’s crawl coverage may be impacted..."

Adding a meta noindex tag can mean it takes a few weeks for a page to fall out of the index. These pages probably aren't doing you much harm, so if you wanted to just wait for them to fall out, that's probably fine (although I would update the tag content to "noindex, follow" to help Google crawl to the other noindexed pages). If you really want them out of the index faster, you could use the "Remove URLs" function under Google Index in Google Search Console, which will temporarily remove them from the index while Google is registering the noindex tags, or you can use the Fetch + Render tool and then Submit URLs in Google Search Console, which will cause Google to come back and crawl your pages and find the noindex tag.

Just a little more info from Google here as well on how Pagerank Sculpting no longer works... http://www.thesempost.com/google-pagerank-sculpting-still-doesnt-work/

I have came across similar situations before and I have to say that Choice 1 should be no problem at all as long as the content is fairly unique on each site. This should rule out the chance of duplicate content. I guess it all depends on the volume, but for me I would go with choice 2. Simply because you then get to cover more spread and aren't stuck in one specific niche. Truth is there is no right or wrong, both will work fine. It just depends on volume/competition

Hi Rich, I cleaned up a clients site using a method similar to what Derk described.  The developer basically kept all the site exactly the same, removed infected areas and then let Google know.  The vulnerability was in an old plugin. It took 24 hours and the 'this website may be hacked' was removed by Google.  I dont think it is as dire as you think as long you have a competent developer.

Hi Rich, Here's what you'll want to do: Build citations on only those directories which support hidden addresses. Phil Rozek has done the most work of anyone in the industry on surfacing lists of these, which you can see here: http://www.localvisibilitysystem.com/2012/08/13/can-you-rank-well-in-local-google-without-revealing-your-street-address-anywhere/ http://www.localvisibilitysystem.com/2013/04/22/private-local-citations-where-can-you-list-your-business-but-hide-your-address/ *Please note, those posts are couple of years old, so you may want to do some of your own research to see if there is anything different or new, but in the main, those lists should be a great start for you. Build links, yes, but do be advised that these may/may not have quite the same impact as citations. They should help, nevertheless. Interestingly, the quality/authority of inbound links to the domain were judged to have the 2nd greatest impact on organic rankings in the most recent Moz Local Search Ranking Factors but only the 12th greatest on local rankings. This is pretty typical, but I think it's important to note that many Local SEOs are advising increasing focus on link earning as a result of the universal rollout of the 3-pack, making local rankings harder to win and organic rankings more important to earn. So, there's my expert opinion Hope it helps!

Google prefers local phone numbers that connect directly to the place of business, but in recent times, they have allowed toll free numbers into their system. You can read the guidelines here: https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=en

Indeed.

Thanks Gianluca Fiorelli Based on your response I will leave the pages indexable and encourage my client to add extra testimonials in the beginning of each page.

Your gut instinct is correct. Yes, it's entirely possible to crawl javascript. Is it still difficult to crawl? As far as I know, yes. So why put up that barrier if you don't have to?

I would use rel="canonical" instead.... Check this url: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/smartphone-sites/details

It would make sense that the same idea behind Authorship for the written word would eventually be applied to video content.

yes no-index all ppc landing pages, so they wont impact your seo. You should keep meta title relevant to the ad group/keywords, as this will slightly impact your quality score.  However remember that quality score is primarily based on click thru rate...very little of your quality score comes from text ads or landing page relevancy.  My AdWords rep told me that if I have the keyword in the text ad, meta title, and a few times in the page content, you are good.  After this, just focus on click thru rate.

Thanks for the great responses. I have decided to do audits by hand and compile results into a Google Doc. I do around 1 a week, it's worth the time. I tried sitebeam.net. it is good for a quick overview but like woorank it doesnt really scratch the surface when it comes to content analysis like What are the title tags and what are the headers.