Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Yes, the combined quality and quantity of links pointing to a mobile (or desktop) site is a major factor in its ability to rank.  See: http://moz.com/search-ranking-factors for more factors.

I wouldn't use OSE as an onsite crawler. That's what a tool like Xenu Link Slueth or Screaming Frog is for.

This is mostly a factor of time since the 301 redirect was implemented yesterday. With any change that affects domain names you can expect to wait a while for propagation to complete (like how your hosting setup typically warns that it may be 24-48 when creating or modifying things like CNAMES).

Your new site appears to be indexed in Google https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:modli.co so that's good and leelach.com is redirecting properly, also good!  Now it's just a matter of waiting for a bit. One thing you might consider as design elements would be the text one modli.co that says, "Formerly LeeLach.com" or something along those lines. Just so people know what to expect.  Cheers!

Bryan is right. More details will be needed to determine what you're asking, but there is plenty of research on site here about the onpage variety of links (#). For example: http://moz.com/ugc/the-true-potential-of-anchor-links-  These are both useful to search engines and users.

Stick with graydigital.com. You don't want to be saying, "Gray DASH or Hyphen Digital (but not underscore!)" when talking about your website. Plus, the words separate nicely visually by having the y and d juxtaposed. With any sort of link profile, content on site, and webmaster registration Google will know fairly quickly that Gray Digital Marketing and graydigital.com are the same thing.

My hunch is that it wouldn't perform as well against a site with a static menu and more information readily available. Graphically it's nice, but it's being marketed towards that sector: fashion, photography, art.  Maybe you could theme his gallery section that way... and stick with an easier to navigate one around it.

Doubtful. Running a site:holidayhypermarket.co.uk search in Google returns 10,700 results, plus from the help documentation on OSE it says, "The second thing to keep in mind that the exported data will only include the top 25 pages per linking root domain," from: http://moz.com/help/guides/research-tools/open-site-explorer/top-pages-ose

So by design it's not really a tool that's trying to duplicate Google, rather make an actionable scaled down copy of what's going on.

Ah, the image you linked to showed the dashboard. Try going here instead: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/keywords?siteUrl=http://arowautorental.com

And look for it in the report: Google Index: Content Keywords.

Cheers!

Hi Roderick. Yes, links from anywhere in the world have value too them based on that domain's authority and trust. In fact, if all other things were equal (super rare hypothetical) but one site had a greater diversity of linking domains (.co.uk, .de, fr, etc.) that site would likely rank higher.  See: http://moz.com/search-ranking-factors, and, "As in 2011, metrics that capture a diversity of link sources (C-blocks, IPs, domains) have high correlations. At the domain/subdomain level, subdomain correlations are larger than domain correlations." Cheers!

A few days plus ~100,000 decade's old pages in Google is usuallynot enough time to see a change. You can spot check the 301s and run a fetch / render from GWT to see if the changes should be working though. Other than that, you'll probably have to wait a bit longer.

Even though the hosting was changed, a lot of other factors could be coming into play: age of the site, freshness from republishing, increase in organic search terms, branding lift and others... Those things separately or in aggregate could account for the 26% lift.

Hi Jeannie. You'll want to check the links being reported in a tool that specifically displays HTTP status such as: http://httpstatus.io  This will tell you if those pages are having specific problems or if it's an error within the Moz tool.  The result you should be getting will be 200 OK.  Cheers!

Are the different views going to be substantially different pages or a reordering of products seen throughout each view?  If the latter is the case I wouldn't use rel="canonical" for each view.  If the pages are substantially different, like one is just displaying widgets, while the other is displaying widget maintenance tools, the having each of those pages as categorical sections to your store is worth it and worth being in the sitemap.

Good work Adam! You pretty much have to go with the contact method at first if at all possible. As more sites transition away from this sort of thing though you'll likely run into more success as you do. It's abundantly easy for Google to spot sites like goarticles and ezine and spank them if they choose. Who knows, that could be something that comes up in the EU...

Generally forum links that are from useful and accurate comments don't bother me as they're semantically relevant to the conversation and pretty well established in the global scope of the web. I wouldn't expect them to bring too much value though as well, especially the sig ones. Still, if you're ranking highly within the forum, and your comments are adding to the conversation, the sig link would be good just from a users perspective. I'd leave it for that alone.

Within IIS you use the IIS Manager. Here's a blog on page-by-page: http://www.proworks.com/blog/2010/02/11/adding-a-301-redirect-in-iis-for-individual-pages-with-non-aspx-extensions/  It's older but still applicable.

There's also software available like ISAPI_rewrite that can help with the process if you're migrating between Apache and Windows servers: http://www.helicontech.com/isapi_rewrite

The Windows doc on this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/WindowsServer2003/Library/IIS/6b855a7a-0884-4508-ba95-079f38c77017.mspx?mfr=true

Power Mapper is another one with several visual options: http://www.powermapper.com/products/mapper/maps/visual-sitemaps.htm

http://slickplan.com also has some visual options.

Another useful visualization is to run some Analytics reports in the same was as you would say the skyscraper format in Power Mapper using pageviews by pages in site content. That way you can visualize which pages are most popular.  You can do the same via search visitors as well.  Cheers!

Hi Clay. Google will be able to parse your page meaning not only from the Title Text but also the semantic linking to and from your page, so "structural steel fabrication" should be a fine choice.  Something that could help you test the efficacy of your title tags though would be to start up a small paid campaign (AdWords) around the company brand and then split test the various titles you come up with amongst people searching specifically for the company brand.  Then you'll have data on which title tends to beat out the other from a CTR stand point.

VERY script heavy. Google has recently released updates on a lot of this (Q4 2014) here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.mx/2014/10/updating-our-technical-webmaster.html.  With further guidance given here: https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/optimizing-content-efficiency/optimize-encoding-and-transfer.  Without doing a deep dive that's the most glaring issue and obvious difference between pages that are still being indexed and those that are not.

Hi Eslam. A link via an image is perfectly acceptable especially if they're natural links. Some sites will tend to have an abundance of these if they're things like images sharing sites, online comics, meme generators, etc. And many of these sites do perfectly well with a high percentage of image links. The bigger concern is that the site isn't spammy, see Moz's new tool that's part of OSE: http://moz.com/blog/spam-score-mozs-new-metric-to-measure-penalization-risk and http://moz.com/blog/understanding-and-applying-mozs-spam-score-metric-whiteboard-friday Cheers!

I see. Yes, I'd plan on it being like a new website when adding content and building out the site.