Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If you are just getting started a great thing to check out would be our Welcome Webinar! - http://moz.com/help/guides/getting-started/welcome-webinar - we have an awesome team who can teach you some best practices and great tools for getting started on Moz!

You're not being dumb. I had a typo!  Sorry. Slide 21. I'll edit my original comment to so someone else doesn't run into the same issue.  Cheers!

We can help you get all those urls to point to the https on the server. But what reports are you referring to?

If you are 301 redirecting these sites eventually the older URLs will no longer be indexed, leaving only the one site with it's unique content. You don't have to worry about duplicate content in this instance.

That is odd. I'm unfamiliar with that markup other than as an RSS emulation here: https://gist.github.com/jonathantneal/5096851 and used with RSS / Atom feeds: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287.  Maybe your forum software is doing them in this way in order to provide users with the corresponding RSS feed when subscribing to the post.  I'd look into the documentation for your forum software to try and get a better insight into why it's there.  Cheers!

Page 2 and 3 is particularly bad but even page 1 is bad. Some terms in the industry show US retailers on position 1 that don't even ship to the UK. I really don't think people from the UK interact that much with some of the sites on page 1 - by contrast leaving aside Amazon and Ebay they would be unknowns here to 99% of people. I also don't think it is results from google.com since why would random foreign language retailers appear so high up (in fact if we assumed they were showing USA results, I would be asking why so few US retailers show compared to those from New Zealand and South Africa). Having put this one to Rand I think the issue here isn't as easily solved as I hoped but you are right about their results. When they are this bad people will switch to Bing.

Per Sam Weber's answer a few months ago, "You should be able to do that. You'd just need to make sure it's formatted correctly. For the hours you listed, it would look something like this for Sunday: 1:09:00AM:11:00AM,1:02:00PM:06:30PM If the hours overlap, then we wouldn't be able to process it for you." http://moz.com/community/q/more-than-one-set-of-hours-per-day-in-moz-local I notice your code is missing the leading zero: 09:00AM. Cheers!

Great thank you, I think you just verified other research that I have done.  Thanks again!

If your client has listed with every place that Moz says they get listings then it looks like your client has already gone the DIY route as mentioned on the Moz Local "How" page... Still, as a designer you might be able to tie in something like photography services to make their local listings look all the better. Google has been emphasizing higher res especially: https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038221?hl=en, "For best results, add photos that are at least 2,000 px wide and no wider than 2:1 ratio."

Thanks for all your inputs. I will look into the suggested tools. Have a great day, Andra

As part of the measure of impartiality, it'd be up to the reviewer to decide whether or not they link to your site with follow or nofollow. Also, in a video from Matt Cutts discussing paid links, he mentions as one measurement whether the payment would be surprising or not. As his example, he says it's not a surprise if you're a movie reviewer and they let you into the movie for free. Likewise, if the company providing a review is a firm of analysts and there's a minimum payment required in order to pay analysts for the hours involved in the review that wouldn't be surprising and is advertised up front.  The last thing to consider, is the value in this review the link or being reviewed and having your company exposed to the people who read those reviews. Matt's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zupIbMyMfBI

You're welcome both! We can always count on Mike to provide the most awesome answer to any Local question, eh?

I don't think canonicalization would be inappropriate here. Each page is different, but each page of a forum topic is supporting the OPs' main post on the first page. You can canonical the subsequent pages and pass the authority to the main page so it ranks highest. If someone uses a specific search term that another person used on page 4 of the topic, that page will still show in Google's SERPs and direct the user to the deeper page, rather than the main page. So, we're not applying a canonical tag because of duplicate content issues, but to support the forum topic's parent theme. I suggest adding rel/next logic to your site's theme and let Google rank the subsequent pages accordingly. Once proper canonical and rel/next tags are implemented, I wouldn't worry about duplicate meta information.

I've seen it disappear when using a Google from a different country, google.com.mx or google.ca for example...  Neither of these make the searches more generic however.

Duplicate content doesn't tend to burn a website out unless there is aggressive scraping going on as well as other balck hat signals. It sounds like the bigger question you're asking is how can the site be made to have unique content when it, along with many others, are pulling the same MLS content. This was asked about a year ago here: http://moz.com/community/q/real-estate-mls-listings-does-google-consider-duplicate-content, and the general consensus remains the same: try to find a way to make your content unique.

I started using Genesis framework about 10 weeks ago, and I couldn't be happier with the change. I really recommend it

Great! All clear to me now. I'll let you know how things will have developed soon. Thanks for your input! Best, Ivor