Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Google have their own internal metrics about what they feel to be natural or not. It is very popular for sites these days to have an article on it go viral and seem to be an unusual pattern. They are prepared for that, if the pattern looks unnatural then it will be easy for a robot to detect. If that pattern is then replicated multiple times for multiple pieces it becomes very suspect. If you do not have a shady past, ie, recovered penguin site, or lots of dodgy links already then its highly unlikely to trigger anything even if the links were in the tens of thousands. If its natural it will be easy to observe even by a robot. There is no upper limit to something going viral. Worst case scenario if it points to an internal page, Google's John Mueller says you can simply 404 the page and all links pointing to that page will simply not count any more. Although if affected by a penalty as a result will still be a long painful task for recovery as you will need to wait for the algorithm to refresh to be re-included. But its more likely that the single page of content would be hit by penguin rather than the whole site anyway.

I went ahead and private messaged you the ip.

Hi Garrett, It really depends on the nature and use of the image. I'd really take that on a case by case basis. If you created unique images that received a ton of links or social shares, or they provided something important to your end users, than sure, recreating them on the same URLs might be a great idea. You might want to spot check a few in AHrefs, OSE and Google ANalytics to see if they were generating buzz, traffic, links or all three. Choose some likely candidates and find out what you see in those tools and let that guide how you proceed. Cheers, Dana

Good, relevant links are definitely a strong signal for getting your page ranked higher. If you're seeing competitors who are ranking for "the exact page," I'd take a look and see what they are doing that's working so well for them. For more info about better internal linking, I'd watch our webinar from August all about internal linking. 

Interesting question.  I've never dealt with a problem like this, so you should probably take my advice with a grain of salt.  The issue has come up in the forum before: http://moz.com/community/q/duplicate-content-from-multiple-sources-cross-domain.   Matt Cutts also posted about this last year. I imagine that your clients want all of their domains to rank, and to pull in traffic, so using NOINDEX is not an option.  The simplest option would be to find a way to add some unique content to the pages - although again, at scale this might be a significant amount of work. More billable hours, that's all. So, my plan of action would be to determine if this is really an issue in terms of ranking for the client (it might not be), and if it is, use the backend of their sites to display unique content on each site.  It probably wouldn't hurt if the sites looked a little bit different from each other. Hope that helps. watch?v=Vi-wkEeOKxM

Thank you very much! I will look at those tools. We used to use KeywordSpy but found the data was getting worse and worse, only to hear from the company that they are no longer able to grab accurate data from Google and did not have an immediate fix for that. This was a few months ago so we have cancelled our subscription. It used to be a great tool though! Thanks again.

Thanks for the info above. I think I'll find out if I can cut the text and try to put popup link.

Matt Cutts covers this in some detail on a Webinar.  If you can fix it, do so, but it would appear that Google do try and make allowances for e-commerce sites where content is duplicated across size colour matrix, being the product description is often duplicated without any other option. Check Youtube for Matts webinar Bruce

Hi Tom, Are they on the same server and linking to each other? If so, then just canonical them. Im also assuming from what you said that it's just a few pages so it shouldn't be any problem. That, or just edit the pages a wee bit. If they are on different servers and practically can't be traced to be related to each other, then I wouldn't even worry about it. Just being practical.

Lindsay is correct. You can technically download them as many times as you want. Our digital rights for them only extend to one downloaded copy, but we're pretty generous / don't really care for those sharing around their office. We do ask that you don't put them out publicly, do public showings, or charge others for them. Thanks!

Hi, That makes sense. Thank you for your help.

I tend to use all Moz OSE, Webmaster tools and Majestic Crawler simultaneously to get the bigger picture as they all seem to pick up different links sometimes, Just a thought, James

the percentage is how many queries are affected, this means that 11.8% of them were affected (this can be negative or positively or resulted in a penalty etc.) The reason there are panda 1 and 2 is its a bit like a software update it gets better so it gets a new number each time. If you want more in-depth things on the panda there is loads of resource over the internet or Moz and only a quick search away. Hope it helps.

Hi Darren, Linda already made the best suggestions but as you really want to get those other links, please reach out to them and ask them to change the URL. That should solve it.

Hi There! Sorry that wasn't what you needed. Basically, no, so far as I know, there is no obvious visual signal looking through Bing Places that a listing has been verified. If you click on the 'report a problem' link at the bottom of a Bing Place page, it takes you to a page that says 'Are you the business owner, claim this listing', but unfortunately, it appears to do this whether the listing is claimed or not. So, that's kind of weird. As an experiment, you could attempt to go through the claiming process of a listing you are curious about and see if it eventually stops you with a 'this is already claimed' message. This is the only test I can think of to run. Hope it's at least somewhat helpful to know you're not missing some obvious visual signal. There just doesn't appear to be one, nor can I find any documentation that such a signal exists.