Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Search engines can read meta refresh, but the the standard practice for passing value is a 301 redirect as meta refresh can have other uses while a 301 is specifically for permanent redirection.  Use the 301 if you want to pass value.

Also available is SEOmoz' http://www.seomoz.org/popular-searches

Since Google leaves SafeSearch Off for its text based results, it's rare that you'll see a difference.  In some cases if people have SafeSearch set to moderate or strict you may notice your listing removed.  Pretty easy to test though.

With the addition of a sitemap specifying only the great URLs and rel=canonical on those pages you should have the situation cleaned up in a tidy way.  It's not uncommon to have to redirect from a few older sources as a website ages.

You'll also tap into the larger Wordpress community by using it as a blog platform (in a folder is typically best) so the useful plugins that are available now, are also growing in the future.  Take advantage of that momentum to make your job easier.

Typically slider content and partially hidden content isn't an issue, just try to use layers in a clever way instead of moving the content way off the page left or right. As Steven mentions: TEST TEST TEST.  You'll want to look at this from both a user experience angle and how well the page does in Google post change.

Just to add, you won't have to worry about translated versions of your pages, as Google considers the same content in different languages unique.  For example, you could have an English version and a Spanish version of the same page and both would be unique content.  Also something to consider, Google Analytics displays 100% bounce rate for any visit that only views one page and if you'd like to get more insight into if visitors are loading videos, using Java, or downloading files in those views you'll want to incorporate event tracking: http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?answer=55597

Here's a solution that might work in your case, but like Steven said, hard to tell without an example: http://www.webmasterworld.com/apache/3957440.htm

In most cases there's certainly less value for the second link (even more so to the target page since it's going to the exact same destination and the source page would have less link juice after the first link anyways). And yes, Google can measure several aspects of a keyword: popularity, commercial intent, search frequency, buzz/trend, etc. But I don't think one instance of this on a site would penalize an entire domain. A high instance of it would dilute a site in the hub/authority sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITS_algorithm as it's only pointing to one resource.

Concur.  Looks like a link farm and your link isn't surrounded by content so much as it's surrounded by a ton of other links.  Definitely look for another solution.

Great expansion on the line of thinking from Steve here. Thumbs up. @Drew T, questions like these are the things you'll want to consider and map out for someone(s) that you task with building links.  Ultimately some of the best relationships you'll cultivate online will come from more than just getting a link, but actually connecting with other people that are in your niche.

Short answer, yes.  The more PA a page has, the more link juice it can distribute. Here's a comment and blog post from Rob Ousbey from that helps explain it (2009): http://www.seomoz.org/blog/using-small-website-to-create-a-bigger-impact

"I think that domain diversity has been more important of late, which implies that links from two domain are better than one link that is superficially twice as strong. Of course, we must remember that mozRank and PageRank do both work on an exponential scale with base about 8 - 10. Also, that the number of links on a page affects the strength passed."

Authority is more of a qualitative number counting the types of sites that link to that site--usually being higher due to the variety and breadth of links, while mozRank is more of a quantitative number--becoming higher by the number of links, even though they may be from a smaller range of websites.  Both numbers are made of the components of the links, but the variety of links that can be gained from the web allow for these two difference to emerge.

Here is a page explaining it in more detail: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/mozrank

Like "grunge" seen here?  Your question is pretty vague. If you expand on it people will have a better idea of what you're asking and can provide you with more in-depth examples / answers.

You can use websites like oDesk, Rent-a-coder, Craigslist, or many similar other sites to bring on outsourced contractors.  With a careful plan you can probably attain a much higher rate of return.

I think you can find examples on both sides that would be consider perfectly white hat, or completely spammy. If your links are relevant and part of your niche then I wouldn't worry too greatly about the interlinking although I would make the effort for the text link to be more contextual than an ad.  If you end up hosting a lot of banners for things unrelated--like casino ads if you are a child education site--that would be considered spam.  If both links are straight up ads, Google asks that you have those no-followed or sent through an ad server anyways, so that negates their organic significance.

Would any of the pages that are getting a lot of direct traffic also be popular for a home page, or as a tab that someone would keep open on their browser?  Also, I've seen some shopping carts strip referral data and Google then refers to them as (direct).  Try to do a visitor audit and see if there are any pages or functions on your site that turn someone from being a search or referral visit into a direct visit.

If time isn't a factor, and you're able to create similar content on your own site, you could 301 all the old pages that had existing links into new, applicable pages on your site.  This would probably grab you the most link juice in this scenario because you'd be attempting to address the most links and pages as possible.

Creating all those mini-sites wouldn't just be tedious from a time perspective, but also in terms of user experience and brand.

It sounds like the scenario you're describing isn't an issue of the URLs changing, but more so content shuffling within given URLs.  This is VERY common.  Google even promotes this with the Website Optimizer as they understand that a users experience with a website can vary from user to user, and having the flexibility to change to meet a specific user's needs is a good thing not bad. Unless the shuffling is dramatically affecting your own search traffic goals, I wouldn't be too concerned with it. Mostly I'd recommend strong categories for your pages that target your key search demographics and the archival of pages that have come and gone in their voting cycle.  That way you'll have plenty of static content to work with as well.

Ouch.  That's a tricky one, but a 302 is likely your best bet if you HAVE to move to the new domain and then move them back to new URLs on the old domain with a 301, but why do the middle step of moving these pages to the new domain?  If you're going to put them on new URLs on the old domain, why not just create those URLs and move the pages there?  Any competent developer should be able to work around having pages on a domain remain live while development takes place in the background.  Really the only instance I could see of having to part with your domain for a few months is if you lost ownership of it, other than that, I'd do what I could to avoid bouncing around on domains, especially as far as a brand is concerned.