Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Possibly a really stupid question.

Is Page Rank logarithmic or exponential?

I've seen a lot of people talking about Page Rank saying it's logarithmic but when they describe it they're actually talking about an exponential scale.

(Apologies if I'm showing a basic misunderstanding in mathematical knowledge - I studied Drama)

That's a good indication that they're not worth buying. If you're going to be buying links then you might as well pay for a guest posting service to get some good links. I don't use one myself but I know people who do and it seems to work.

I would imagine that algorithmically there is no ideal number of links to build in a day. Really your daily number of links is only limited by your own resources although depending on your site and the tactics you're using it might not be appropriate to build so many links in one day. So for example

I wouldn't worry about the umber of links built in a day and instead focus on getting decent quality links.

It takes some time for Google to crawl and index pages so sometimes they won't find your links very quickly and sometimes they might not find them at all.

Is 20 links per day the ideal link building amount? I doubt it - but I don't have any evidence to back this up.

There's so much that's dependent on context.

For example if you're a design agency and you want to get guest post links from other design sites then it's pretty easy to put together a roundup of "Top 35 Most Beautiful Examples of X" that will get published by a lot of medium weight sites and be worth the two hours you spend putting it together.

On the other hand if you want to be featured on powerful sites that are going to drive referring visitors and boost your brand reputation then you're going to have to put more effort in.

I would say that guest posts are good for monthly reports - they give you guaranteed links. If in doubt you could always dip your toe in the water and outsource. There are plenty of people who will gladly do guest posting for you and it's pretty cheap (sub $100 per link if memory serves).

I don't use GA very often (I use a paid analytics package i my day job) but I think this page from google on multichannel attribution might help.

http:// is automatically added to any address you put into OSE.

If there is a redirect from one page to another then OSE will automatically show the data for the page that is redirected to (the main page).

However there is a yellow box that appears above the link data that will give you the option of exploring the data for the redirected page.

Make sense?

Hi Dana,

I wrote the following after assuming , for no reason at all, that you didn't know much about SEO. However having looked at your profile I realized that I was wrong and that my tone is probably a little patronizing. That being said it's 1am over here and I really don't want to rewrite it so please accept my apologies.

If I had to guess (and it is a guess as I'm not technical) I would say it was some badly formed links.

You know how some of your error pages have an Origin parameter (like this one) that say where the page was generated? Well these URLs follow the same format as the error pages that you're finding. It looks like rather than using an absolute link (like http://www.ccisolutions.com/page) the onclick action is actually generating a relative link (so just /page).

When you use a relative link your site adds the partial URL (/page) onto the end of your domain to give you a full URL (http://www.ccisolutions.com + /page = http://www.ccisolutions.com/page). It looks like you're using relative links as if they were static ones. Which is why you have "www.ccisolutions" in each URL twice.

If I had to blame anything it would be whatever is powering your IAFDispatcher however as I haven't been able to replicate your problem I couldn't be certain. If you can track how these URLs were generated by looking at the preceding pages that are sending traffic/bots to them then you should be able to narrow it down to which links are broken.

Structured data (microdata etc.) is markup that specifies what a section of a web page is about. So for example you can markup a review so that Google can identify the star ratings and knows that the product got a 4/5.

This type of data is part of the semantic web - which is a WWW where bots like Google stop seeing Sites and start seeing entities. So for example in the current web a search engine might see links to a site with the anchor text "shoes" and interpret that to mean that the site is relevant for "shoe" based queries but if those links went to that brand's Facebook page the connection with shoes would be a lot weaker. In a semantic web the search engine would be able to tell very easily that a brand's Facebook and Twitter pages are part of the same organisation and that links to either count the same as to the main site.

That's a pretty crude example (and to some extent search engines are already doing this) but you can see how it can affect SEO. That's not to mention the benefits that you can be getting right now from having rich snippets (Google them, they're cool).

It depends on the purpose of the video. I'd put informational videos onto Youtube just because of the traffic floating about on the Youtube platform.

I'm not an expert on video SEO but if you read this then you will be.

They're two different URLs.

If the URL changes but the content stays the same then it's classed as duplicate content.

I feel your pain though - the amount of duplicate pages I've ended up with just because copywriters like to capitalize their words...

You can learn a lot.

But what you'll learn is probably a lot different from what you'll hear on SEOMoz.

I wouldn't want to say that one is right and one is wrong but right now I wouldn't pay for access to Warrior Forums.

I would definitely bring the content onto the main domain.

As far as how to structure the folders - it depends on the content. If it sits quite naturally as a stand alone section then a resources folder would make sense.

1. They cheat using automated methods of link building.

2. It's a loophole in Google's algorithm.

3. If it's as bad as you say then I would imagine they will be penalized for it however you can always give them a little help by filing a spam report

There is an argument that linking out might increase your rankings by a tiny bit.

So long as it's a decent, none malware hosting, none spammy site it won't have  an adverse effect.

With regard to follow/no-follow - if you trust the site and think it's passing a benefit to users then why put the no-follow on it?

This is a tough one.

The keyword difficulty tool can give an indication of where you need to improve in order to move up the rankings but at the same time there are other things that you might need to consider like one page optimization.

You also have to remember that SEOMoz's data does not necessarily reflect how Google views the same data. For example SEOMoz might be saying that you have 30 unique linking root domains however Google might discount 29 of them as having been previously identified as being in a link network. So you see, you have no way of knowing whether the data you see is the data that counts.

The keyword difficulty tool gives an indication of how hard it will be to rank for a certain term. So the lower the difficulty the easier it is to rank for.

A good rule of thumb is that you want to rank for terms with a low difficulty that drives a lot of users who are likely to achieve your goal. So for me he perfect term would -

• Have a low difficulty score
• Have a high volume of searchers
• Have a higher than average conversion rate when those searchers hit my site.

Hope that helps.

Your site is a subdomain of blogspot.com so Open Site Explorer and other tools will return Blogspot's domain level metrics.

If you look into the link data you should be able to see subdomain data - however in this example I think the site is too new for Linkscape/Open Site Explorer to have picked it up yet. Give it till the end of the month and if you've built some links you should see some change.

Hi Laura.

Well the obvious thing is to push for organizational change and get the whole company on board with SEO and moving in the same direction. That's the best solution as if you're all working together you can pool resources and work cohesively.

But you probably already know that.

To make the most out of your current situation I'd start by doing some onpage analysis - checking your pages are targeted at the right terms and that everything is set up correctly.

If possible I'd push to improve your page types - making sure that your product pages are as good as they can be and packed full of information. That way you might be able to do some linkbuilding to your pages based on the quality of the content.

If not possible then you've got to figure out how to linkbuild to your pages in their current format.

And that's pretty much it - do as much optimization as you can but if your company really wants to move the needle on SEO then you'll be wanting to work on a sitewide level.

Hope that helps.

Nope.

A 301 is something you have to actively implement.

You can change your title tags without it causing any technical issues UNLESS your CMS automatically rewrites URLs based on the title of the page. If this is is the case then you'll need to find a way to disable this in order to change your title tags.

Having a presence on social media can be an enabler for other marketing methods. For example having followers on Twitter makes it a lot easier to get people to visit your blog which can drive links which in turn drives rankings and sales. Not to mention the potential for your client to set themselves up as a thought leader within the industry.

Even if you're just providing a curated source of industry specific information there's always something you can do on social media. Once I came across a maritime protection service who had a Twitter account that detailed all pirate activity off the coast of Somalia in almost real time. How cool is that?!