Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If all 15 comments are written by 15 different people the content would clearly be unique...and you are fortunate to have that sort of engagement. Perhaps you could create a page where you link all the answers in one place..maybe sort out the answers.. You have probably already seen this this http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content Good luck.

Hi! We're going through some of the older unanswered questions and seeing if people still have questions or if they've gone ahead and implemented something and have any lessons to share with us. Can you give an update, or mark your question as answered? Thanks!

Hi! I'm following up on older, unanswered questions. Can you tell us what you ended up doing in this case, and any lessons you learned that could be helpful to others reading this thread? Thanks!

Hi Wardy, We're going through older unanswered questions. What did you decide to do here? Do you have anything you learned that you could share with us? Do you have any follow-up questions? Thanks!

Thank you kind sir!

Thanks John for the suggestion. Unfortunately the https pages aren't separate pages from the http version; one is secure and one isn't but the actual code is identical. The rel canonical tag would appear on both the http and https version. Are you sure Google wouldn't have any issues with the http pages having a rel canonical tag that points to itself?

DW about this question-i seem to have found the answer in this blog post http://www.seomoz.org/blog/dispelling-a-persistent-rel-canonical-myth

Are there any particular attributes I should be looking for in a linking root domain that might suggest it's seen by Google as "artificial or unnatural". The first item to check would be your site seal. How exactly is the backlink created for the seal? I would presume it is an image link from the seal. Be sure there is nothing which could cause a penalty in your site seal. If you sincerely have not purchased links or performed any shady tactics, a coding issue with the seal is a likely cause of the warning. A prime commonality to look for in OSE is the anchor text. Adjust the 4 filters at the top of OSE as follows: followed + 301d, only external links, pages on this subdomain, group by domain. Perform the search on the particular subdomain which received the warning. These settings will reduce the list to the links which are most meaningful to you, and in this case the ones which could reasonably cause an issue with Google. Next, download the CSV file from the OSE link, then sort by the "anchor text" field. If there is any anchor text used repeatedly, investigate the links. There should be a natural variation in the anchor text such as "SSL", "SSL cert", "SSL certs", "SSL certificates", "purchase a SSL certificate", etc. If a high percentage of links all use the exact phrase, it may trigger a flag. Once you complete your research, take any corrective actions necessary then report back to Google with the results.

Hi Lewis, We're going through old, unanswered questions and wondering what you ended up doing here and if you have any results to share with us (such as changing from a 302 to a 301 and seeing rankings change, etc.). Thanks!

Hi! We're going through some of the older unanswered questions and seeing if people still have questions or if they've gone ahead and implemented something and have any lessons to share with us. Can you give an update, or mark your question as answered? Thanks!

Hi! We're going through some of the older unanswered questions and seeing if people still have questions or if they've gone ahead and implemented something and have any lessons to share with us. Can you give an update, or mark your question as answered? Thanks!

Hi! We're going through some of the older unanswered questions and seeing if people still have questions or if they've gone ahead and implemented something and have any lessons to share with us. Can you give an update, or mark your question as answered? Thanks!

Hi! We're going through some of the older unanswered questions and seeing if people still have questions or if they've gone ahead and implemented something and have any lessons to share with us. Can you give an update, or mark your question as answered? Thanks!

Hi Neil, Your URL structure is affecting Google News. There is information here about the URL structure requirements, which can be waived if you use a Google News sitemap. http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/answer.py?answer=151309. I don't know of any way to see the number of pages indexed historically, unfortunately.

Are you still having this problem? If so, I think the best thing is to email help@seomoz.org with your question -- I'm guessing that the foreign characters are part of the problem here, and it's something they should know about if they don't already. Thanks!

What Lucas said is correct -- both tools are saying "take a second look to make sure you do want to block these". To me, these URLs do look like the type you don't want indexed. You don't want people landing on someone else's order tracking page, or step two of the registration process, etc. Looks fine from here.

I think there is no easy answer as both have advantages and disadvantages. Rand discusses the different options here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/international-seo-where-to-host-and-how-to-target-whiteboard-friday I think this is a good start, and from there you will have to make up your mind. We use fr.mydomain.com, and I am happy with the set-up, as it gives you a better URL structure with less sub folders, making the site more easily indexable.

I doubt this will dilute the effectiveness of the keyword - what I would be more concerned about is a potential ranking penalty. I have seen this technique used in the past but hardly ever see it being effective these days. I would stick to crafting well crafted titles designed for the user in mind - keeping your keywords first in the title.

I agree with Ryan and EGOL. Spend your time and energy on making content that users want to read, not in trying to outguess the search engines.