Not the easiest question to answer, but I'll share my thoughts:

• Keyword density - for me, a red flag is raised anytime this phrase is used even if it's checked only to 'make sure we're not keyword stuffing.' Content should be created to be as helpful as possible to the human visitor; if that's done, search bots should pick up on what your site is about '_organically.' _ Pun intended.
• A quick control-find for "office" shows 36 instances of the word just on your homepage, which is spammy in my opinion. Try using some pronouns to help the content read more naturally.
• Yes, href and alt tags do help search engines understand what your site is about. So if (for example) "office space" is used throughout the page's copy at such a high frequency AND in the link & image tags, then I would consider this kw stuffing / spammy. I'm not familiar with SRE tags, sorry!
• In general, your site seems to offer a lot of valuable content that's just over "optimized," especially on the homepage. I would even suggest redesigning the homepage to be a little more brand and user focused - or at least a refresh of the "What's your search scenario?" section, which is pretty busy/overwhelming & was probably created mostly for SEO.

I hope this helps!

There probably isn't much harm in deleting them, but I'd also see if there's any way to repurpose some of the pieces or maybe some of the topics are still relevant & can be rewritten/updated to not be "crap." Even if you don't do any updating to those old posts, I would consider archiving the pages (making sure you don't create any duplicate content!) rather than deleting them as they're likely influencing how Google understands the overall context of your site. I would review the content relevancy report in Webmaster Tools to see how Google understands your site... Click on any of the listed terms to see if those old posts are where your top KWs are occurring - should help you decide on keeping or nixing some pages.

Hope this helps!

First thing you need to do is determine which is your preferred URL (probably www.site.com/fishing/). Once you have that, the key to good linking is consistency (using the same, preferred URL for any given page you're linking to & also using descriptive, naturally-occurring anchor text that's relevant to the page's content).

The fact that your site has other versions of the page (/fishing/ and /fishing/index.html) means that you probably need to implement a solution to prevent dup content issues - either 301 redirect all variations to the preferred URL or implement rel=canonical tags to tell search bots which is the preferred URL to include in its index. You can read more about this here:

• http://moz.com/learn/seo/duplicate-content
• http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization

I hope this helps!

From an SEO 'link building' perspective, links behind a login can not be crawled by Google & will not provide any type of traditional/old school link value (since bots cannot access that content).

However, as Andy shared, those links may still be very valuable if your business is contextually relevant to the news outlet. Readers of a paid newspaper are likely serious about getting the info shared there, so visitors from the news site may be high converting if your service/product fits their interest. In general, try to think of the value to the human visitor rather than the SEO value... you'll tend have a more clear answer on what to do every time.

I hope this helps!

The self-referencing canonical tags should only be for your actual preferred URLs. So if www.testwebsite.com/duplicate is a duplicate because of parameters (for example), then no, it should not have the self-referencing canonical tag - it should have a canonical tag pointing to the preferred URL should (www.testwebsite.com/ in this case, which would have the self-ref tag).

Zappos example:

• http://www.zappos.com/beyond-yoga-women-shirts-tops~1 (self-ref canonical tag)
• http://www.zappos.com/beyond-yoga-women-shirts-tops~1#!/beyond-yoga-women-shirts-tops/CKvXARDL1wFSAv0eegLgBIIBAukjwAEB4gIFGAECCg8.zso   (canonical tag points to unfiltered page)

If www.testwebsite.com/duplicate is a static page that you want indexed, but that has the same content as www.testwebsite.com/, then the solution is updating/adding content to be unique (then applying the self-ref canonical tags to both URLs which are now unique).

Make sense?

I agree with Kari's comment. Using this tactic is becoming more and more rare for me, as I have moved towards using tabbed content (which there's also a good amount of debate about its SE-friendliness) and anchor links for having additional content in an easy to navigate, lighter/better designed way. A good example is at http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro.

I hope this helps!

I do not have experience with any site using this type of selector, but theoretically you should not encounter any problems as you're showing different content with the intent of improving the experience, not to deceive. If Google handles this like an ip-redirect, then you should be fine.

In scenario 2, however, I'm wondering if you even want Google to index these URLs - since it sounds like these URLs will be dynamically generated & might end up being duplicates of other pages on the site (similar to internal search pages). Something to watch out for!

Do you mean that your Moz Analytics Crawl Diagnostics Report is showing duplicate titles for pages that have rel=canonical? If so, this is something I noticed a few months ago & brought up to the Moz team. I believe it's something they're working to implement/somehow allow us to 'check off' pages in the report that we've already implemented a solution for. Also, if this is your situation, I think you should add your experience / request to Moz's feature request forum.

I hope this helps!

Moz.com does this as well and you may also see an "Insight" in your Moz Analytics account recommending site-wide implementation 'to prevent any unforeseen duplicate content issues.' I have started following this practice since it really can't hurt & sometimes dup content pops up in the weirdest, most 'unforeseen' ways.

I agree with Oleg's response. As it stands, I would have all of this content on one URL, then focus on building the authority of that page for all terms related to "This is our youth."

In general, tabbed content is not bad for SEO & is actually a great way to simplify/improve the UX of pages with a lot of content. I've been implementing this more & more lately, especially when consolidating multiple 'orphan SEO pages' to one or a few more valuable pages. You can do this a few ways:

• actual tabbed content (making sure all copy shows up in the text-only cache version of the page). Example: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-ipad-air-2-wi-fi16gb-silver/2881022.p?id=1219084308979&skuId=2881022
• tabbed navigation that looks like tabbed content, but are actually anchor links (or links within a page) that "scroll down to the appropriate part of the page." Example: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-mini (see just below the fold).

My preference is to use the anchor links - with users getting more & more mobile, scrolling has become second nature.

I hope this helps!

Hi there! So lots of thoughts came to mind as I read your question, so here it goes:

• Yes, links to subdomains are counted towards the entire domain - I believe it was 2010 or 2011 when Google announced this change, which was to prevent black hat SEOs from using their own subdomain as a link farm/wheel to the main domain- which leads me to my next thought...
• This statement raises an immediate red flag: "The main purpose of this blog is to attract backlinks."
• Generally, it's best to have your blog at domain.com/blog - of course there are sometimes technical limitations preventing this.

I hope this helps!