Welcome to the Q&A Forum

That's great to hear Grant Best of luck going forward.

We do have a known problem that is affecting some people for downloading their historic ranking CSV. If you could open a ticket at http://moz.com/help/contact, we'll be able to get this working for you. Thanks for your patience!

Right now we're looking at early next year. As you might imagine, there is a ton of testing to do when we go from one login=one account to many logins = one account.

Thanks Gary - that's very helpful information. I have now fixed the contact us. What would you suggest for a call to action? We are an online dropship store therefore do not have an address or phone number

Thank you Keri! That worked.

Sitewide links are not the ideal, even if their are good. I suppose the links in the good blogs are from a blogroll in sidebar, and that location for a link may sound suspect. Said that, I would maintain them at first,  concentrate in cleaning the toxic links you have detected, do a reconsideration request (and eventually uploading a disavow). Just in the case the penalization is not quit, then I will consider the idea of asking the blogs to move the link from a sitewide situation to an editorial one (maybe creating a page: "The site we like", which should not be just a list of links but also give an explication why the blogs like those sites. That would be helpful also for the sites themselves, because they will get rid of any suspect of manipulative link building from their side.

djlittman, We've had a couple clients use Reputation.com for their services. None of them really had any bad reviews, but they had several locations and wanted to make sure they were covered. Internet insurance, essentially. In what we have heard from them is that they aren't directly doing work to your website and if they produce a link back to your website, you have the right and ability to request them NOT to link back to your site if they created a blog article or a biography residing on another domain or external post. What they do is "bury" SERPs by trying to rank a positive review or a biography articles to rank over the negative reviews, thus pushing down or "burying" the review to Page 2. If you are considering them, get a consultation first, ask lots of questions and even ask for examples to help you understand more clearly how the approach this strategy to help you and more importantly, remain Google friendly. Hope this was helpful. - Patrick

I get exactly the same reports from Webmaster tools when I rename products on my website. The crawler just needs to catch up and so long as your redirect is set up properly (it also looks fine to me) then this will drop out in time as Michael says. George

Having too many 302s won't necessarily harm rankings in-and-of itself. However, don't expect the pagerank from those old pages to be applied to the new page / home page. Also, redirects, whether 302 or 301, which link from a specific page to the home page are often treated as 404s anyway.

Hey Mike, if you'd like to see how important rich content, and content above-the-fold is, turn on the SERP overlay and do a Google search for "best time of year to go to Tahiti".  Have a look at the backlinks data for the #1 result (that's me), and compare that to the ones below (TripAdvisor, Frommers, USA Today, etc.).  Now, look at my page, and then look at the TripAdvisor page, paying attention to what non-template, non-navigation, non-clickable content is above the fold.  And look at the size of the images I trust you're convinced now so let's move on to your next question. Google has spent a lot of time analyzing what users respond well to, and I'd say if their data shows that it's big images and more text, they're probably right.  Keep in mind, you'll have a very low bounce rate if users do NOT find what they want on that page, but think they might by clicking the button next to one of the hotels.  If they bail out after that, it still won't look like a bounce in the stats. You could also consider changing up the layout a bit so that the search hotels form is off to the right (maybe 1000 pixel mark or so), pull in the first sentence or so from the hotel description, and use the larger image of the hotel there. You also have a lot of vertical whitespace in there.  While your style is very Web 2.0 and clean, an open style with a lot of whitespace unfortunately does push most of the content a fair bit down the page.

Larry - In Pinterest, the little heart button is just like the Facebook "Like" icon.  (But they had to be different, so it's a heart, meaning you love it.  But not in the till-death-do-us-part way.) Here's a link on how you can like other people's pins: https://en.help.pinterest.com/entries/22980372-Pins-and-likes#like From Pinterest: What's a like?  (The Heart Shaped Thing) Liking a pin adds the pin to your profile’s likes section rather than a specific board. To like a pin, hover over the pin and click on the heart icon in the top right corner. What's a pin? A pin is an image or video you add to Pinterest that leads back to the site where it was found. You can pin anything you find on Pinterest or around the web. Having lots and lots of people pin a product on your website, or an image or video on your page adds to it's social media profile, and should help with both consumer engagement and possibly rankings. Hope this helps! -- Jeff

They're ready! http://moz.com/blog/the-2013-mozcon-video-bundle-is-live

Hi there I often find that it is easier to take value out of the equation when looking to removing/disavowing links, and focus more on how that link got there. Your first example, the link may not be doing any good or harm and it might look out of place, but there's no doubt the link is a "natural" recommendation, in a sense that it hasn't been deliberately built by the company it links to.  Such links wouldn't be a problem at all, in my opinion. For the second example, again while this looks like an odd link, I believe it is clear to see that a webmaster has not gone out and built that link deliberately.  That is what Google is ultimately looking for.  Automatic crawlers, particular statlog and others that will be well known to Google, won't need removing or disavowing - as I'm pretty sure the algorithm (plus manual reviewers) just discounts them anyway. If a link looks deliberately placed or produced by someone with a vested interest, automated or otherwise, that's where I think the alarm bells start ringing for quality checks etc.  I believe it's why terms like "link earning" - getting people to link to you purely on the strength of the content and assets you produce - has proven to be so popular recently.  Google will reward those kind of links all day.  Your first example is an example of that, albeit a small one.  Links like in your second example will just be discounted, but not actively penalised. It's interesting to consider that, once you see links as being "earned" or "natural", such as the client recommendation in the first example, this is where some SEOs have manipulated the algorithm and done so quite well.  They replicate these "natural" looking links.  Where most slip up is that they leave a footprint or visible clues that they're doing it deliberately.  I don't advocate you do that at all - earn those links by being an awesome company - but it's always good to know how things can work and/or be exploited, as you can learn to avoid pitfalls that way. Hope this helps!

You should be just fine with G+ authorship as long as in the clients' pages you have the rel=author links in there. Yes, there are alternate ways of establishing G+ authorship, but it's my understanding that the explicit 2-way links are the core means of identifying the author-document relationship, and that the alternate methods are just that. I think it's pretty safe to verify these using Google's own structured data test tool.  Yes, it has a few bugs, and fails to read some websites, but it's overall pretty reliable, and I would expect that it's using a very similar bit of logic to determine authorship that the SERPs-producing code is using.

Hi, Here you go for an excellent write-up regarding local SEO: http://moz.com/local-search-ranking-factors Best, Devanur Rafi