Welcome to the Q&A Forum

No.

It's what you do with it that counts! Way-hey!

It's not worth spending money on anything that'll increase your toolbar PR unless you're planning on selling links, but I'm sure this is just semantics and you're meaning to help you rank

Big 'paid' directories like YDIR, JoeAnt, BOTW can help a new site gain a little authority quickly, however if you're some weird niche and on a page far down them the link juice power of them isn't going to be particularly strong.

Remember you're not actually paying to be in the directory for these sites but for somebody to review the site and see if it's worth including. Don't get links from directories who say they will sell you an entry!

For the price I'd recommend sinking it into some sharable content (good infographics, a few videos to populate a youtube channel etc) and/or invest it in something else that will add value to your brand. The directories aren't bad as such, just maybe not the best way to spend the money.

If the page is not already listed as a multiple entry for your domain then removing it from the sitelinks will not make it appear there.

The page has to be strong enough on it's own to give you a multiple SERP listing and would appear there even if it did appear in your sitelinks.

Blocking it from the sitelinks would not stop it showing up independantly, but removing it will also do nothing.

Keyword density?

ಠ_ಠ

http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/seo-myths-that-persist-keyword-density

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/some-opinions-on-the-seo-myths-realities-fight

http://www.miislita.com/fractals/keyword-density-optimization.html

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/perfecting-keyword-targeting-on-page-optimization

Det kan hjelpe

But yeah, if it's a decent description (and you seem to be happy with it) I'd look elsewhere for problems first.

Not quite up to date with their latest offering, but I've used it in the past along with many other content networks.

Unlike many people here I don't think something should be ignored just because it's against search engine guidelines. If nothing else it's worth testing what's working, then figuring out why it's working.

To answer your question; of the many large and small content networks I tested, SEOLinkVine produced the worst results by far. ALN and 10LAD both produced results, either in combination with other linking or on their own (before being decimated). SEOLinkVine did not.

I see they claim to have updated but are selling the same results as before. If it didn't work then, I'm not convinced it will work now.

Thoughts on proceeding.

Personally curated content networks, or even joining some smaller editor driven content networks will still probably get you results, if done well. However when they get found out and discounted you'll be in trouble. Sites that I had propped up by these networks ended up with a penalty from which they've still not recovered.

If you're after some shorter term success, might be worth doing, but in the long run you'll be better putting efforts into improving the site and relationships.

.

301 redirect them to their new page location.

EDIT: To clarify, there are probably some links coming in to those pages or there are new page equivilents that could better serve customers.

If there's definitely no match then I'd still consider redirecting them to the home page (or even a custom landing page, rather than the custom 404 page) to preserve as much link juice as possible.

Already a lot of good info out there if you search, either use the forum search or go here - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=seomoz+plural&pws=0&hl=en&num=10 - (the .co.uk results are better than the .com results).

A page is a page from a SEO point of view. Build it the same way as you would any other page you wanted to rank (title, alt text, content, headers, etc). Unless you're also a news outlet I wouldn't necessarily be trying to compare myself with what NYT and CNN are doing either.

While I appreciate that any page that brings a visit from a search engine or other campaign is a landing page, what exactly are we talking about? Do you mean you have a specific campaign (PPC or even targeting a specific page to a keyword)...

Actually, before I go any further and looking at your examples, do you mean homepage?

Hi Jo, when did you notice that you stopped ranking?

At a guess, the fact that all your anchor text contains the words "Paid Surveys" in some form or another, with almost all of them that exact phrase; I suspect you've been hit by a Penguin update (or whatever this mysterious update was around the 17th of last month).

Your links themselves don't really seem to be coming from terribly relevant sites and overall it looks a bit spammy.

No easy fix on this one if it's the case, but please provide some more information if you can.

Doesn't matter if the line's not there if you don't want the robots to do anything. Not including it just assumes the position that they can do whatever they're doing ie Index, Follow

All of those sites do have a few things in robots.txt though (and the meta is really for people that can't edit robots.txt)

http://www.amazon.com/robots.txt

http://zappos.com/robots.txt

http://www.altrec.com/robots.txt

I would say Hootsuite might be better for that sort of number than Tweetdeck.

I do like Tweetdeck, but not as much as Hootsuite for multiple accounts.

I think you're right. There was certainly no way to request them for the old sitelink style and could/can only remove them.

@confettiwedding Is 8 not enough for you

I get 10 appear for [confetti wedding] as well as for my own (2 dictionary word) brands. I imagine that you might actually be getting the max for what it is. In so much as people searching for confetti aren't definitely looking for your site.

Use words like: Kangaroo, Fosters, Wallaby, Shrimps, Barbie, Castlemaine XXXX, Strewth?

Ah, the double English problem (rising to the triple and quadruple when thinking about USA and Canada). I can give you a few things but I've not had enough success with any to say they are undoubtedly the way forward.

1. Another site
   a) Subfolder - /aus/
   b) Subdomain - aus.domain
   c) New TLD - domain.com.aus

Rather than hash out the pros and cons here's a recent Whiteboard Friday - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/international-seo-where-to-host-and-how-to-target-whiteboard-friday

Also check the comments for some good suggestions and sites.

Google now treats sub domains as a key element of the site

[citation needed]

Though I know you're talking about  - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/08/reorganizing-internal-vs-external.html

However, as far as I'm aware, there's no information yet as to how Google are changing the weighting of these links (or even if they are), so I'd still be wary of charging ahead with a subdomain

2 sides to this, 1. Protecting brand and 2. Just want more results for a keyword.

With regards protecting brand, using other sites worked best for me.

Putting YouTube content on mydomain.tv, putting company info on a .info, creating my own affiliate sites with brand name in the URL. A few of these and you can control the first page for your brand quite easily.

Also with language Googles assigning a folder to a language in WMT and building links from those language sites into it seems to give me an easy 1-2 with /county/ first and plain dot com second.

For getting more results in on a specific keyword, yes pdfs or other media types (either youtube videos or host my own and make a video sitemap). If you can get into Google News (depends what kind of site you have) that's good. Plus getting a few Twitter accounts to tweet about the keyword can get you to show up.

Both ideas kind of overlap but I find the domains provides more stable control where as the other media varies wildy by search.

Yup, Google should just grab a piece it thinks is relevant.

Additionally if your meta description doesn't match what the user is searching for (but other content on you page matches) Google will sometimes show that instead anyway.

Hmm, I'll probably say one thing and someone will come along with the opposite again, lol.

Well, the only real advantage of forwarding the domain is for type in traffic. If it's a site that people would expect to be live they may just put it straight into the address bar and end up at your site. 301 redirecting that domain means that it won't appear in the search engines. Your new site won't really rank for the exact match domain you're forwarding.

You could also make an index.html/php page and meta refresh them to your main domain and that would allow the site to rank for exact match but still not really going to give you much benefit.

If the URL is awesome, consider putting some content up and sending it to your site via links, but otherwise I'd just forward them at the registrar.

A blanket answer would look something like

25% Keyword exact and almost exact match anchor text
25% Partial match anchor text and longer tail anchor text
25% Raw url and domain
25% Generic style links (click here, visit site, now, here, etc...)

For something like 50 articles, assuming you're putting them out in article directories and that was all the links that page was getting, I might not be so bothered and go for a much higher percentage of exact and partial and pick up more generic anchors elsewhere for the page.

It also depends how strong the site and page are.

I'm not quite sure exactly what it would take to trip Penguin but more than just the anchors it'll depend on where those links are coming from. If they're all good sites then you could go 50/50 on the exact match and should still be fine. If they are of, let's say, less authoritative sites then I'd still want a few other anchors in there.

News sitemaps only look at the last 3 days worth of stuff, however you will probably get a real person have a look to see if you qualify so could be worth moving them if it just looks like you're simply rehashing material.

You'll also probably get rejected the first time you submit, so always double check you conform to the guidelines and submit again (it's really a way to weed out people that know they shouldn't be in there).