Welcome to the Q&A Forum

For starters, I'd add the NOODP NOYDIR meta robots tags to your pages.  That tends to do a pretty good job of keeping Google in line (i.e. using your meta descriptions and page titles in the SERPs). Recently I've noticed that Google will often attempt to extract your company name and prepend your page title with it. e.g. if your page title is "Purple Widgets - ACME Inc." and your URL is www.acmeinc.com, Google will show "Acmeinc: Purple Widgets" in the SERPs for your headline.  This seems to be new as of a few months ago, and NOODP NOYDIR doesn't seem to stop it like it used to.  But I'd try NOODP NOYDIR because it does USUALLY still seem to have the effect you're looking for.

Hi Jane, Many thanks for that, good news indeed.

Robots.txt exclusion is definitely the easiest way to go. The URLs within the site might still be "indexed", but they will not be crawled and if they ever showed up in a search, they would look like something like this: http://i.imgur.com/xU6mDYA.png

Dear Chris, I understand your question and the answer is you have to add Schema code in your website, Add this scrip to ur website <script< span="">type="application/ld+json"> { "@context" : "http://schema.org", "@type" : "Person", "name" : "your name", "url" : "http://www.your-site.com", "sameAs" : [ "http://www.facebook.com/your-profile", "http://instagram.com/yourProfile", "http://www.linkedin.com/in/yourprofile", "http://plus.google.com/your_profile"] }</script<> For more mail me in hanief.mohamed5@gmail.com

Kashif, it may be time for you to go out and hire a firm to do an audit of your site. We have a list of recommended companies at http://moz.com/article/recommended. Also, please check your email associated with your account. I've sent you an important email regarding your account, and want to make sure that you see it.

Hi Pawan, You're welcome Yes, I believe you are correct in saying that the data highlighter really only translates to Google right now. However, it seems Bing and Yahoo1 really are doing very little with structured data right now. I think it depends on your industry regarding your timeline of adding the markup. If you are in the restaurant, food or travel industry, I think you really have to start now just to stay competitive. If you're in a niche, maybe it's not so crucial. One thing's for sure, what's true about structured data now will probably be different in 6 months, so whatever you do now will need to reviewed over time, just like most anything else related to SEO There's always something new and always something changing. That's why we love it right? Dana

This may be a situation where it is worth your money to hire a consultant and use an NDA and get some professional advice. We have a list of recommended companies in the footer that can be a place to start looking.

Hi John, As the others have said, there are issues with all three types of links. Number 1 is obvious. Number 2 comes from a site that appears to blog about absolutely anything, as long as they're paid to do so. The site has posts about buying a car in Philadelphia, passport photos, saving money on gas, business protection... and piano lessons. It's pretty obviously a source of income for the blog owner, with these posts placed in between personal updates. Number three is from a piano website, but they even list "reciprocal links", which was an outdated link building technique in 2006 I would say that Google is well within its own guidelines to suggest that these links are bad.

The only way I could imagine this would hurt the home page is if the site structure is terrible enough that its Panda penalty is extremely severe. I can't think of a place where I've seen this "in the wild" though so that's entirely theoretical.

You should be able to use canonicalisation here, but for a more in-depth guide to pagination including rel="next", "prev", etc., check out this blog post by my former agency. It's a great resource on the subject.

As I mentioned in my Inside YouMoz post, there are even some posts that I would have turned down if they didn't have links. I try to treat links as scholarly citations rather than votes. There's a post right now in the queue that I need to respond to and tell the author that they need to back up some of their statements with links to the source of what they are claiming.

Awesome response Mike, and you're right on the trail of some other thoughts that are buzzing around the team right now. Thanks so much - Tim

Hey Arthur, Your CSS is not the issue here. None of your content is is hidden or "cloaked." You can see this when you disable CSS and JavaScript with the Web Developer plugin to get a sense of what the text crawler would see.  However the issue is definitely that the content is indeed thin and you're not offering anything beyond what can be found in the product specifications sheet on the manufacturers website. You should absolutely consider some more text-based content. You may consider having user generated content in allowing people to  comment on the differences between the two and what they like better. Responses would be inherently keyword-rich and the approach allows you to scale it across numerous pages. However the UX is very nice. Best of luck and let us know if you might be interested in sharing your progress. -Mike

Thank you I'll be steadfast and yes it will be hard, i have sent three e-mails and for now no respond

Are both pages being indexed? If so, you won't lose the http:// version because googlebots are treating them as two separate pages.

ok William fair call. I was taking the question in general way though as he asked for the best way to do this, frame or location. Most do location. End of the day we know neither is of any use and should research this. Virginia

You can also use Google Alerts to both monitor your competitors website changes, as well as general mentions of them on them web. Mike

Hi If your users are clicking on the links then yes keep them, but make them no follow, however if they are not driving traffic to your other sites and don't add any real value I would recommend removing them. However this article is very similar to a question that was asked last year and instead of duplicating everything that was said here I thought I would just post so that you can read the comments http://moz.com/community/q/are-sitewide-links-bad-for-seo (we know Google doesn't like duplicate content)