Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Google does support RDFa.  However, on their own site (which is notoriously bad at giving us info) it says "Google suggests using microdata" - that's enough for me.  I have a few clients still on RDFa and from what I've seen, as long as you can get results through the Structured Data test link, you're usually good to go either way. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

I agree.... love the dashes only. Also a little bit of usability, dashes are easier to type (not that a lot of people are typing long urls with dashes or underscores, but dash is one key press and then underscore is 2 keys)

Do 301s need to be added to htaccess file? Sorry to be a little thick on this, but the only thing I've done in the past is point a single domain at the the registrar level to dns1 and 2, or IP addresses.

Mat is right, it's happening in the code that creates your "View Larger Image" button below your pages: <a <="" span="">href="</a>/images/products/detail/AC7034048RoundGlassDiningTable.jpg target="_blank" The code is not outputting the second "double-quotes" after your anchor tag href property. The page I see this on is "http://www.efurniturehouse.com/Joshua-Glass-Chrome-Dining-Table-Set.aspx", but it looks to be happening everywhere.

I think it's possible that the company would "lose out," but that's not necessarily the case. If I have successfully convinced the algorithm that I am an expert on widget maintenance, my articles about widget maintenance will get a rankings boost. Then I leave the widget-maintenance industry. The algorithm still believes that I'm an expert in that niche ... for a while, at least. It's quite likely that the algorithm's confidence in my expertise will decay over time if I no longer engage with that niche. My AuthorRank may drop, and the content I authored may no longer get the AR rankings boost. How far the content would fall in the SERPs depends on how much it was relying on that one ranking factor.

Okay here are two links from one  of the sites: http://www.allitsupported.com/atlanta-it-support http://www.allitsupported.com/chicago-it-support As you can see the duplicate content is on both pages as well as all the location pages. I'm not really sure where to use the rel=cannoical tag for this site? Also we need all the duplicate content ,so im not really sure what to do in that aspect as well? The other links are here: http://www.computerrepairservicesusa.com/residential/antivirus-support/agnitum/ http://www.computerrepairservicesusa.com/residential/antivirus-support/agnitum/ http://www.computerrepairservicesusa.com/delaware/computer-repair-delaware/ http://www.computerrepairservicesusa.com/connecticut/computer-repair-connecticut/ http://www.computerrepairservicesusa.com/illinois/city/computer-repair-bondville/ http://www.computerrepairservicesusa.com/illinois/city/computer-repair-cleveland/ As you can see for the first two links, the first paragraph is the same with just one word differing. While the description of the vendor is unique I'm not really sure what to do because we need all the content.  i'm not postive where the rel=cannoical would go in this situation? As you can see for the third and fourth links, there is numerous duplicate content such as, towns,zip codes, and the first quater of the page. I'm not really sure what to do because we need all of the content. Also i'm not sure where to use the rel= cannoical in this situation? For the five and sixth link this is universal across all the towns and city's. What I mean by this is the first quarter of the page is duplicate as well as the towns' are all duplicate to that specific state. Once again we need all the content, so i'm not really sure where to put the rel= cannoical on this page. I hope that is not confusing to you. It is a bit hard to explain over the text thanks.

Thanks for your replay Marko.  I agree that the home page needs a lot of work.

No problem, happy to help and welcome to the community!

Google indexed around 20k useless URL's due to mediawiki's insane amounts of URL's that is generated by not using "Short URL's". It was resolved when we moved the wiki to another location, added the short URL's. We have just redirected everything. (301).

Akhil. You have probably blocked googlebot, with canonical tags or "noindex" or robots.txt or 404 They would have tried to crawl those pages and failed or they were possibly told the page was not to be indexed for some reason.

can you please. share you finding with me as what is the problem with link profile. how I can improve it. is there any chance for me to keep the site?

Stephen, Open Site Explorer does not crawl as "deeply" as Google. It hits roughly the top 25% of the web and therefore will not show everything that you will see in GWMT. Obviously, to have that type of depth would require a lot of bandwidth and servers and that is what makes Google, Google.;) Also, it would depend on when your links were established as it can take up to 60 days for OSE to show the links. One thing you can do is check when the last crawl was by moz and compare that to when the links were created. I believe the last one was Sept. 12. Here is a post by Rand regarding the August mozscape crawl  which will give you a lot of info as to what is crawled, etc. Hope it helps,

Every page has its own rel=canonical link reference.

OK you can redirect www to non www, or non www to www. Google is fine with either way so that is not technically a mistake unless you have domain associated set in WMT for www - then this is an issue because you are sending mixed signals. Verify both www and non www versions in WMT like they are two separate sites, then go into the non www site account and request it to be removed from Google's index to help speed up the process.

Here are the stats: 3/2011 unique organic traffic/Google compared to 2/2011?  -47% 2/2011 compared to  01/2011 -7.7%  (2/25/11 compared to 1/25/11   -55% ) 1/2012 compared to 1/2011  -65% 8/2012 compared to 8/2011 and to 7/2012 -52% If it looks like a Panda, walks like a panda....

Thank you so much!

Well the social buttons will still keep the link count from the old url (which you set manually when creating the button) and when a user clicks on the link that was shared, they'd be 301ed to the new page. I don't think there is a way to transfer likes to a new url but this is the cleanest workaround (looks and feels like the social buttons are related to the page they are on but actually reference the old url which redirects to the new one) Hopefully that's clear haha