Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This may not answer your question completely, but I'll take a shot at it. I saw Eric Enge speak at the 2013 State of Search conference in Dallas. The topic was Google+ as a ranking factor. His conclusion was 'Not really'.

What about Facebook and Twitter? Google has total control of +. They don't have total control of many other social networks. A lot of social networks are too fast for Google. Their understanding is incomplete because relationships change.

How a person is connected can change in a second. Indexation takes longer than that. Perfect, up to the second, knowledge of some social networks appears to be beyond them. At least that's what I gather from Cutt's video.

The devil is in the details, social networks are a great way to get your brand/message/content out there. If something 'works' it's likely to result in organic links. But let's stop worrying about ranking factors for a moment.

The ancients in our industry existed before most of the search engines. Thus there wasn't an algorithm to worry about. They thought about link building the way it should be done. They approached link value with the question; "How much traffic can this link drive to my site, and thus convert?"

So if you have a link with a lot of visibility/traffic potential, wouldn't you like to know about it?

I would like to chime in here. It appears no one has mentioned links to domains. In my experience, multi-location efforts generally make for a bit of spam.

If I can't see the domains, I can't tell you it's an issue. Though it's generally better to make a page per location.

I would like to know more about the domains you own.

My Italian isn't that great, but I've gathered it's a coupon site. It just looks like a new site to me. Though the link profile appears to be questionable. Turbocupones.com: 370 backlinks from one domain. That looks like a site wide, or something else.

I would say the best thing he can do is implement a canonical link element.

But also, followed advertising is a one way ticket to penalty town.

That's a very broad question. Generally I don't recommend more than a couple keywords per page. It would be ideal if the keyword(s) work well and make for an attractive title.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you want the page to do well for puppies - you should talk about puppies. If you want the page to do well for kittens, you should talk about kittens. If you want to go for kittens vs. puppies, you should go after that.

If you're concerned about keyword density, that's a myth. Saying something X amount of times per word guarantees nothing. Hopefully no one told you keyword density matters.

You'll have better results if you put them in the . I noticed you use Yoast, so this should work.

Indeed.com usually has quite a few listings in the SEO field.

It looks like the site has been penalized pretty heavily. I wouldn't want to be there if I were you. Pop it into http://www.semrush.com/ and witness the horror.

Of course they aren't seeing a drop in traffic to comparable pages. Those pages are fighting under their own steam. If you send a customer/prospect to the right page, the first time, they'll likely see an increase in traffic.

It sounds like they're talking about 'what is' rather than 'what could be', which in our opinion is likely better. So I guess you could make the business case that incoming referrals are bouncing when they could be buying. Hopefully there's tracking code of some sort on the faux 404 page.

It sounds like there's a problem with the .htaccess file. There's a lot of potential negatives to the situation. One of those is duplicate content.

Find out if the potential duplicates are indexed. Perform a link audit for those pages and 301 or 410, depending upon value. I'm not a big fan of 'excessive' 301 redirects, so knowing nothing else about the situation I would err on the side of 410s.

Not a problem, please mark the question as answered. It keeps the forums neater. If you have already done so, thank you. The site appears to be experiencing some problems today.

Yep, and Christoph Cemper has stated that you see ~15% of your actual links in Google WMT.

I would imagine they took that route because it's fast/easy. I would find using a site that cares that little about usability more than a little annoying. Imagine hitting page after page of 'whoops' pages. It's not something anyone wants to do.

There should be 301s put in place for relevant pages with good/clean links. Then they should 410 unwanted pages. Both the search engines and site visitors win.

It appears you're using two SEO plugins. You'll have to pick either All in One or Yoast. I would also recommend running the page/site through Page Grader.

You should be able to crawl the entire site without increasing the RAM, once you buy the paid version.