SEMRush.com can do this for you, but you need to upgrade to the Guru level to get access to historical data. It will give you the info for you and any competitor you want. The Guru level is about $149 a month. It doesn't require an annual or minimum commitment so you could join at that level for a month and drop back to free once you felt like you'd gotten the data you needed.

Does that help?

I think Wesley is right. "RDs" mean "linking root domaind" which means the number of root domains (not individiual pages) that are linking to your site (URL). I believe you are seeing this via the Mozbar in Firefox, is that correct?

Hi Aaron,

I identify with your frustration, but want to lead my response with the caveat that I am not a developer so there may be people here with much more technical SEO expertise than me who might have a better answer.

What I do know id that Google Webmaster Tools data is not real time and can often take days to weeks to update. It could be that the reason GWT is showing something different about your robots.txt file is because it's old information that hasn't updated yet.

When I looked at your robots.txt file, I found two sitemaps, one with 2 URLs and one with 8 URLs. This is pretty tiny. Even in the old days, conventional wisdom was that it took at least 20 content pages in order for Google to take note and index the site.

Have you tried posting the URLs of your new site on Google+? I have heard that this is a great indexing tool in addition to the Fetch as Googlebot in GWT. Just a thought!

You know, there was a time when it took 6-8 weeks for a new site to get indexed. Google has definitely sped up to the point where I think we are all expecting instant results and sometimes that just doesn't happen.

I think this just might be a matter of patience. However,  I am always willing to admit that I could be wrong and am interested to know what others think!

Dana

If you are starting every page title with "Photographers Miami" then I think that's probably not the best because you'll be trying to target the same keywords with every page. If, on the other hand your page titles look more like this:

Photopgrahers Miami | Cameras & Accessories

Photopgrahers Orlando | Cameras & Accessories

I think these are perfectly fine. You might notice that exchanged the word "equipment" with "cameras.: Equipment could mean anything. I assume you are selling cameras, so why not say so? Also I removed the word "Find." Save your call to action for your Meta description. That word "Find" is not helping your title at all. However, it's perfect for a meta description.

Those are my thoughts. I hope they help!

Hi, You must be excited. I know how much work goes into a redesign. Here are some things I noticed while browsing the site on a PC using Internet Explorer (yes, the nasty, unforgiving IE...the bane of Web Devs everwhere!!):

1. There is a problem with the placement of some text in your Contact Us forms (I attached a screenshot)
2. In the blog, the "Like This" gets stuck on "Like Loading"....kinda reminds me of a spaced out Valley Girl
3. When I click "Share This" I am just popped to the top of the page...and I can't really share anything.

Screenshots attached. Hope that's helpful!

5tZAqmy t56aEiw

Hi Keith,

This it totally fine. Using class within the

is very common. The ID isn't a problem. Googlebot still understands that this is an

. I think as time goes forward, some of these technical SEO elements will become less important. Search engines are going to understand, particularly as HTML5 becomes more widely adopted, that <h>tags are used as much to define stylistic elements as structural elements. Hope that helps!

Dana</h>

Hi Alex,

As I read your question my mind was already turning. I haven't dealt with exactly the same situation, but I have run into a situation where the same company has different divisions that each have separate addresses and phone numbers, but only one business name. It's a different, yet similar problem in reverse in a way. Consequently, I have also struggled with the whole business citation problem and inconsistencies with NAP (Name, Address, Phone Number) information.

That being said, I think your idea of splitting the addresses by adding Suite # and having one of the dentists get a uniqur phone number is probably the best solution under the circumstances. This might be hard to explain to the business owners, but I'd just present a case to them on how important it is to have all of those online citations line up with absolutely matching NAP information.

Do these dentists share the same Website? If so, this could be a problem too, and it might be worth convincing one or the other to get their own domain, but it sounds like they already have separate sites (since they have different brand names). If they were sharing the same site that would add a whole additional element that hopefully isn't a factor here.

Hope that help! Cheers,

Dana

Hi Steve,

This appears to be schema used to help search engines understand the nature of content in objects containing "stuff" that search engines have trouble completely understanding. For example, I found keywords as possible markup element for a Video: http://schema.org/VideoObject

I don't think this plays into rankings at all. Google is so over that kind of easy manipulation. However, I DO think that when these are marked up in conjunction with ALT attributes for images, or transcriptions for videos, they can help Google understand the semantic relevance of that content. For example (and I am totally making this up), imagine a video of a veterinarian administering vaccines to an animal. During the video the vet keeps referring to the animal as "the patient." So from the transcript, a search engine (or someone who's visually impaired) wouldn't know that this video is about medicine for animals instead of humans. Using the schema.org markup for keywords would allow terms like "animal vaccine best practices" to be included to help search engines understand better what the content is really about.

That's my 2 cents. Hope it helps!

Dana

Hi,

Well in general I agree with Arjan, I am strongly of the opinion that some directories are still VERY worthwhile, and BOTW is one of them. When you are launching a brand new site, you just aren't going to have a lot of attention and inbound lin opportunities at first. Submitting your site to DMOZ (which is free), Yahoo.dir (Paid), Business.com (Paid), JoeAnt.com (Paid) and yes, BOTW (Paid) are all most definitely worthwhile. IMHO they send a signal to the search engines that you are a legitimate business. That's a very important message to send when you are a startup.

In addition to those I think there are some others that are worth it as well, depending on your particular business, particularly localized directories and directories targeting certain niche markets.

Hope that's helpful!

Dana