Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Even though inline uses less code than usual, I'd still say always go for an external file so there is less code to crawl though for your content. The cleaner the code, the better. Inline is still more code than just a linked external stylesheet.
*Edit: Oh and CSS every time over JavaScript 
Some.
I think that's all anybody knows right now lol.
I watched a seminar from Distilled's LinkLove set where it was explained that in an experiment, a bunch of retweets boosted a site with just one link above a competing, similar site with a lot more links.
The topic as a whole though seems to be in discussion a lot at the moment, with blogs, etc... talking about it, and of course research being posted here at SEOmoz.
I think the general consensus is that it has value, and that value is likely to increase, but I haven't seen anywhere as yet where there's much agreement about just how much value there is in it. I assume we'll be seeing something soon enough though
Please do anybody correct me if I'm wrong, it would be great to see if there are any hard & fast stats out there.
There is the ranking factors of course... which provide a good guideline: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics-4
Haha yes EGOL and Alan, along with a couple of others on here... I would certainly trust their answers above any paid experts too. They should form some kind of SEO A-Team!
Well I'm pretty sure, in fact I know, that I've answered questions before with an answer I thought was correct and then found out through others on here that it was in fact incorrect. I'd like to think that happens every time I'm wrong but possibly not (partially so the person who asked the question gets the right answer, but mainly because I like to know if I'm wrong about something).
So yeah, certainly I've given wrong answers accidentally but then there are people on here who are far more experienced than I am who I'm sure wouldn't make that same mistake. From spending time on here you get to know who the people are who really know their stuff and so I would trust their answers a lot. Also, I think most of us will be able to intuitively tell if something "seems wrong" and would question it.
I would recommend you visit conceptfeedback.com
There's a free and paid service. Paid is relatively inexpensive for what you get, but if you give some reviews yourself then you can get reviews in return from others, some of which are design and UX experts who provide comprehensive stuff. Well worth it I think
Wow that's a big, bold move! I don't know how to answer it but if I were you I'd wait until you get a few, nice and comprehensive answers on here before doing anything to drastic. Either that or use a private Q&A question to SEOmoz staff if you have any points spare to do so. With such a large change, you want to ensure you're doing it right.
I'll be interested to see the answers you get for this.
I wouldn't worry about the PR. It won't be due to content changes anyway, since PR is based on incoming links only and has nothing to do with what you have on-page. We've gone from PR 4 to PR 5 with the update but I don't care as I practically ignore PR now anyway... can't wait for them to hopefully get rid of it. It's one tiny metric which isn't a true reflection of what they have anyway. So much more that matters.
At the moment you have a direct link from the homepage to the quickbooks hosting page with anchor text in the footer. Above that, you have some body content about quickbooks hosting (still on the homepage), put a link in there to the quickbooks hosting page. Body content links are better than footer links by far.
Also it seems that you've had the following URL's for that page:
/quickbooks-hosting.html
/host-quickbooks.html
/hosted-quickbooks.html
Were/are these all the same page just with URL changes? Have you put 301's in for them so that both older URL's point to the new one?
Yeah there is no longer any difference in the eyes of search engines between sub domains and sub directories, they're seen as the same thing now... so no SEO benefit in changing.
Haha brilliant! I'm totally with you on that. And since Matt doesn't tend to divulge much (and half of what he does is cryptic) that would put Rand as source number one, or I should say Rand & co... all the staff and associates, etc... on here are pretty much a fountain of knowledge. I'd be screwed if I didn't have SEOmoz to learn things from.
Righty, I've been on a mission to clarify... it seems there's a lot of conflicting views on it. I mean I know there's conflicting views on pretty much everything but these views all seem to be from very good sources, so now I don't know what to think... I'm on the fence!
There's some discussion in here: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4176006.htm
Along with this: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/backlink-age-seo-factor/9943/
It's a difficult one, but it doesn't appear to be in the ranking factor survey, which is a shame as it would be interesting to see what level of agreement there is.
Anyway, Rand's is more recent than Ann's so I guess it would make best sense to follow his
Thank you for pointing it out, I would have been none the wiser otherwise!
Ah, okay. I've heard it said a few times and assumed it to be correct but clearly I should have questioned it. Thanks, I've learnt something new from that
If it's not a spammy site in a spammy neighbourhood, and there's not tonnes of other links on the page (and it's not from a page called links.html lol) then go for it I reckon
They'll get more from it but neither of you will get that much anyway from it being reciprocal. There's a good chance it'll pass a little value at least so I wouldn't say no.
Having said that, much like what EGOL has said, I don't give requests I receive any time to get that far, they get deleted from my inbox as soon as I get the gist that it's a link request, although that's primarily because of the vast amount of spammy link requests I've received.
That crossed my mind too, it's even got canonicalization issues lol
It does seem like it could be put together and marketed by someone other than Google, posing as them. But then I doubt that would get very far.
Surely that would depend, it sounds as if it's not actually all dupe if there is simply similar content.
Wow, what is this, and how did it spring from nowhere like that?!
I see what you mean though, game changer for sure... undoubtedly it will be in the toolbar, etc... soon too.
I'm pretty sure that is a glitch, there seem to be teething problems with it in a few ways but I'm sure they'll have it sorted soon
They will be getting more from this yes.
But, you need to consider where the link will be, not just on what page of the site but where on that page.
Will it be on the footer, a side bar, in body content?
Also, how many other links are on that page, what text will be surrounding the link?
Mainly though, above the issues of the Moz Rank, etc... is the link of any vale through relevance? If it is of value to users then take it no matter what the MozRank is, if not, then you need to consider that they will be getting more out of it than you. Maybe suggest that your link is on their homepage, whilst the link you give to them is on a weaker page on your site.
I would say try to educate the client but I know where you're coming from, some clients simply don't want to be educated on it. They heard from their mate or read in some forum that something is important and that's all that matters... I've had a couple like that lol. Thankfully though, they seem to be few and far between, with the majority of clients wanting to understand it all as much as possible which is great