Welcome to the Q&A Forum

For character sake I would opt to not use the www and have it redirected. But once you have decided make sure you are consistent. You can advertise with either, it's more the actual linking that makes the difference.

Agreed. The risk of losing juice from a redirect would keep me from moving forward. The only way that I would consider redirecting the old page is if the new page provides better and more relevant/current content.

If you don't plan on improving the content and are only using duplicate content then there is no need to change the page or URL.

Seriously. That is pretty amazing. It looks like you have really captured your audience.

At first glance it looks great! But really hard to say without knowing your history further. Overall you have a very balanced traffic set with a 1/3rd split between all your traffic sources. it looks like you are climbing so I would continue to monitor positive or negative effects of link building. Direct traffic at a 3rd of traffic is very impressive and could denote a good following and good branding.

But really this is hard to diagnose without further info. How long does your search traffic stay on the site? What is the bounce rate of your referral sites?

Test, test, test.

It seems that the general rule of thumb on old URLs redirecting to new ones is that you will lose some of the linking value in the redirect.

But I must agree with Richard Getz, in that you may want a middle ground. You certainly shouldn't over kill KWs in the URL and I would advise never using the Keyword twice the way you have in Example 1.

Length may not directly be a factor. They do look at full views of videos. Compare it to bounce rate. You want the viewer to watch the entire video, 20 seconds or 2 minutes.

Good points. You don't want to amass tons of spammy links.

I guess this would need to be further clarified as to what mediocre links are. Clearly article farms and spam directories are not quality links. I wouldn't consider them mediocre, I would consider them poor links.  I would assume a mediocre link to be a lower PR rank.

It is always a debate. Ideally you do both. I would agree that it is much easier to gather in a handful of mediocre links. Time is money. And while a PR9 link would be awesome getting that link may be near impossible. Plus you are putting all of your eggs into one basket. So beyond just being a little easier, getting links from a few more mediocre sites may diversify your risk over getting one or two links. ...and if your current strategy is working then don't change it.

Thanks Matt. This helped a lot.

And lets say I wanted to do this over an extended period of time.  And for bonus credits... is there any program that would notify me of each new tweet as it happens.

Great answer.. +1

But just to clarify:

"the linking power it had"...

Assuming that the old site actually has links, right?

301 Site redirects only seem to help if there are links being redirected with it. A domain with no links does not really offer much, correct?

Are we to assume that including our own images then would be helpful in getting an approval?

And yes, a simple rejection letter would be appreciated, since spending time on content and seeing it sit for awhile is painful.

... I know patience is a virtue.

Yes... It's not just what you are doing but what your competitors are doing. It's an on going war out there. Bunker down boys.

Do feel the being more consistent is a ranking factor or just a reliable way to get views which helps your rankings?

That's a lot easier to make a connection than say a travel website... What, you don't want your hotel to associated with roaches?

Thanks Brent for the reading material.

I guess if somebody wants it bad enough they will pay for it. Funny, but can't imagine too many buyers are coming out of those 500 views a day.

I agree... Google doesn't like sites that show visitors and robots a different page.