Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Breadcrumbs are more for UX like you say, however they do help search engines crawl your site's pages better as well, especially if they're not in main navigation.

I think the canonical issue is the more important one rather than what links appear in the breadcrumb.  I would select which page you would prefer to rank, then put that url in the canonical tag of the other page.

So the canonical would be for Google, and the breadcrumb would be for user.

Also, who knows, maybe having the different breadcrumb is better for the user, because they came from a different path to that product in the first place. But Google would count both pages as the same.

Depending on your PageRank it's advisable to have less than 100 links per page.

Cutting down on the amount of links you have per page increases the amount of "link juice" given to each link.

However it sounds like what you're asking is more of a usability issue more than an SEO one.

I would have to see an example of a page you're talking about to give a more precise answer.

If it's a resource that you pride yourself in creating then yes.  Copyrighting this would only run you about $30 so it is always worth it in the long run.  It's always better to protect yourself.  Or at the very least, put the copyright symbol at the bottom like you mentioned, just to scare off anyone from ripping you off.

It would only be bad if the home page and category page are almost identical.  If the page products are 90% identical to both the home and category page, then yes this is duplicate.  But if you just have a few scattered products on the home page that happen to be somewhere else, you should be fine.  All ecommerce stores deal with a similar situation as you, I think if Google were to ban sites that display a product on different pages nobody would rank.  Just make sure that each page has enough unique products on it.

For SEO Structure:

• FV Simpler SEO, Yoast, or SEO Ultimate

For Comments:

• Disqus, Facebook Comments, or CommentLuv

For Social:

• Digg Digg, Sociable, or Get Social

Misc:

• Google XML Sitemaps (for indexing)

• WP Super Cache, W3 Total Cache, or Quick Cache (for page speed)

I ran it through the keyword difficulty tool and it appears it's a very low competition keyword. The site has a PA of 25 and a DA of 15, so I wouldn't be surprised that the keyword in the domain alone is the cause.  The .com also ranks #6 and it has nearly no content which makes me believe this is also the case for this domain as well.

Matt Cutts said they would be "turning the dial down" on exact match domains, not necessarily getting rid of it as a metric.  It is still a pretty powerful ranking signal, just not as much as a few years ago.

If you're trying to rank for this keyword just make sure your website design looks great and has plenty of good content, this alone should get you up there with them.  Then just follow that up basic link building, nothing serious.

You want to stay away from directories that have little to no screening process.  If it's easy to get, it's not worth it.  Make sure to do an "SEO background check" on them as well by checking their backlinks in open site explorer. See if they have good quality links, many linking c-blocks, DA, PA, PR, etc..

Here are some great directories, but you have to pay:

• Yahoo Directory ($299/Year)

• Best of the Web ($299/One-time)

• Business.com ($299/Year)

• JoeAnt ($39/One-time)

SEOmoz also has a list of good directories here http://www.seomoz.org/directories

Instead of blocking it via robots.txt try blocking via a meta robots tag like below:

This way Google (and others) won't index the page but they will follow all of the links.

Try SpyFu --> http://www.spyfu.com/

You put in your competitors url and they tell you all of their profitable keywords.

To follow up with what Steve said, PR doesn't necessarily determine how you rank.  PageRank is determined by how high the PageRank of the other sites that link to you.  So having 20 PR3 sites linking to you won't give you too high of a PR, mostly likely will make it PR3 as well.  Ranking higher has more to do with overall metrics, like Domain Authority, Page Authority, Domain Links, Page Links, Social Signals, Etc..

Here is a great post that explains it better:

http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors

The Master Page is the main template page that all of the asp pages on the site are based on.  If I put a standard canonical url tag in the Master Page, that canonical url will then be on all of the pages.

Yes that is the correct code for apache sites, but asp sites don't have a section.

What is the proper way (or is it possible) to add canonical tags on website pages that end in .aspx?

If you add a canonical tag to the Master Page it will put that exact canonical tag on every page, which is bad.

Is there a different version of the tag to put on individual pages?

And one to put on the home page without the Master Page error?

Would it still be the same code if you had other code in the htaccess as well?

For example my htaccess now looks like:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteRule ^([^.]+)$ $1.php [NC,L]

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]

What is the whitehat way to properly remove the .html and .php extensions at the end of urls?

Example:

http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo.php

should be (and is)

http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo

Try the FV All In One plugin.  It's great, and it allows you to add a custom canonical tag on any page you want.