Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
You just need to ensure that there are set pages with relevant keywords for them, and don't cross the keywords with the other pages.
There's two SEOmoz articles on it by Rand from ages ago here:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/keyword-selfcannibalization
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-solve-keyword-cannibalization
I wouldn't do it anyway... think of all that link juice, social signals, usage data, etc... that will end up getting split between domains instead of all going into one!
Do you need to keep the existing info on it?
If not, you can archive the domain and re-enter a new one in its place.
Righty... in the interests of defending my original position 
I've looked around a bit, and granted not all of these are credible sources but again Todd Malicoat is as I'm sure you'll agree. Jill Whalen in one of the below links says she'd prefer them not to match and the others are people of whom I don't know their knowledge or experience, but (and admittedly this is hearsay) one guy says he heard Matt Cutts at PubCon say they should be at least a little different.
One guy (again I don't know how credible he is as a source) said he tested it and found it can be found as more spammy if they're the same.
Anyway, it appears this debate has happened before in other places and there are some good points made, so here's the links 
http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41271
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4078221.htm
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=0a4f386adacc7769&hl=en
Over all though, I think we need to know if the test Rand and Todd spoke of ever happened, and if so what the results were.
Yeah you can see it right away, look at your title tags... mass repetition of the same words. Look at "Home" and "Filme Online".
I see you decided to keep the massive ads all over the place lol.
Don't forget that in some instances if ownership on whois changes as well as the content then the domain could lose some of its age based trust, and therefore rankings. Though I have no idea how common place that is, I've just heard it around so possibly worth checking out.
You'd do well to study this a bit http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics-1
It has many answers to your Q.
That's interesting, it says it does it when:
"(1) titles are particularly short, (2) titles are shared across large parts of your site and/or (3) titles appear to be mostly a collection of keywords."
But I'm guessing none of those were the case with your sites EGOL, they must be taking it a step further now... bit cheeky.
Something has happened which is, well inexplicable to me... I'm stumped!
We have a client that has two sites which compete for the same keywords. One is a .com, the other is a .co.uk. They have different content so there's no dupe worries.
We have, for the past few months been carrying out SEO for the .com site. It's doing great. We don't do anything with the .co.uk site, which, incidentally dropped from 2nd (under the .com) to 9th after Panda for its main keyword.
The owner of the site has switched the .co.uk to Wordpress and now that site, with the same content, same links, same social signals, etc... (nothing was done to it except the platform being changed) has suddenly shot up above the .com for not only its main keyword but most of the others too.
What gives?? It doesn't even have a link from the .com site!
So, the .com which has undergone SEO is now being beaten by the .co.uk which hasn't. The .com is still directly underneath it. It feels like all of the things we know about SEO, all of the ranking factors and everything are being totally undermined here, just due to a change to Wordpress. Surely that can't be it?? The .com is an older domain, has more content, has always done well, has more links and from better places, and all the social stuff surrounding the business is targeted at it.
This isn't a penalization issue or anything like that, this is simply a matter of the .co.uk suddenly blasting above everything for no apparent reason.
Any ideas?? I know that there "might" be a tiny, tiny, tiny advantage of the country TLD but that's not enough to do this, and the .co.uk always did worse before.
There's a lot of code to crawl through before you reach the indexable content. I remember reading somewhere that there is a way to externalize viewstate, that might help.
You might want some internal links with the keyword in the anchor text pointing to the page... i.e. your sitemap could, instead of just "home" be "Tampa DJ Homepage" or something.
You don't have many linking root domains, and of your incoming links, you need a few that have the keyword in their anchor text too.
We're seeing massive changes in rankings now. Not so much drops but far less in rises, and a few drops. This seems to be happening more recently and not immediately after the update.
We've guesstimated that it is down to the update, despite the delay in effects.
We've come to the conclusion that a lot of the links (both existing links and ones we've been building since) are not holding anywhere near as much weight as they once were. Especially links that were "easier to come by" i.e. blog comments, articles, etc...
Due to the fact that the sites the links were and are on, have been hit themselves it's logical to assume those links are now devalued. Lots of article sites were hit, and "low value" sites. Thankfully not all links were from such sites but some were, which explains the drops I think.
A bit of each if you're limited like that... if you've already got the A grade for the keywords then I'd focus on link building mostly. Maybe an hour on the on-page (as long as your content is right already) and the other seven on links?
You'll still need to do more later though.
I would say to look at it from a business perspective... how much revenue is generated from your existing site and will does it justify fixing it for just a short period of time, or would you be better off using that time planning and researching to ensure the new site is as good as it can be?
It depends... are these links the only direct links to those particular pages? I mean, would you have to go an indirect route through the main menu or something (i.e. via a category)? If they're the only direct ones, keep them. You want the pages linked to from the homepage so they're as shallow as possible to get crawled.
Also, if they are not the only direct links, do the other ones have the appropriate anchor text?
It might be a good idea to keep them for the anchor text alone.
Are there any other links you could get rid of... how many links are there on this page?
Weekly or daily limits would be far better I think
Anyone else getting " " showing up over their "cancel" button when they go to post?
I got a guest post purely from ripping into someone elses in the comments once. Some business guru lady was recommending people "stick to larger companies for SEO... like BT SearchSmart"
Infuriated I went on a rant about how no-one should ever advise such a thing (I hate BT SearchSmart... they're rubbish and they just rip people off), and blah, blah, blah. Then the blog owner emailed me and said I could write a post on what to look out for to avoid getting stung by dodgy SEO companies
So yeah I'm with EGOL about the enthusiasm thing, I was certainly enthusiastic about tearing BT services a new one