Welcome to the Q&A Forum

A similar thing happened to me once. In my case, the DNS settings were incorrect. Check that

Hi Andrew. Sorry its taken me ages to get back to this. but this is a awesome resource, should help you out. http://moz.com/academy/redirects

Perfect, appreciate the help!

Hello Andrew, It sounds like you're asking about how you should format your on-page factors to rank for searches in which people are typing in a specific year, or range of years. If this is the case, I think you will need to include each of the years. When I search Google for a date range as part of the query (not as part of an advanced search, more on that below...) it shows me exactly what I typed in. So if I search for "shoes 2005-2009" I get pages for that exact date range first, with some single year results for 2005 and/or 2009... but without any 2006, 07, or 08 results. If I search for "shoes 2006" I don't get any of those 2005-2009 results, and instead get results from only 2006, or those with 2006 as part of the listed range (e.g. 2006-2007, 2004-2006, etc...). In other words, when searched like that it just treats the date/s as part of the query like any other number - meaning you'd have to include that date in the on-page optimization. However, a searcher can search within a custom date range on Google by going to Search Tools --> and changing "Any time" to "Custom range", then selecting the range from the calender. This isn't going to show those pages that are "optimized" for the dates, but rather the ones that were discovered by Google on those dates. If you give us a little more detail about what you are trying to accomplish, what types of products you have, etc.... we may be able to provide more assistance with regard to best practices surrounding date-based archives/campaigns/products Vs "evergreen" landing pages that are frequently updated. Good luck!

Yes, pointing from a subset to a superset of information is one of the main reasons for the canonical. So Google would not view it as improper. Just remember... Canonicals are a suggestion NOT a directive. Google will choose whether to listen to you or not.

Looks like you've used the right format and that Google will be able to read the text behind the "read more". You can actually test this by using services that return your website as how the Googlebot sees it.  Seo-browser is one of them, and the simple search is free. Here is the result for that webpage. You can see the text behind the "read more" script on that page, which would indicate that Google isn't having a problem seeing it.

Did you test on the rich snippet tester? I would but no link to example provided. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

Hey Andrew, So, as far as i am aware you will need unique thumbs and video locations. You might be able to duplicate thumb information, but any duplicate locations will flag as a GMWT error. There's nothing technically stopping you uploading the same video to your hosting package time and time again and then just placing the duplicate videos on different URLs and submitting a sitemap with unique   video:content_locelements despite having duplicate content.</video:content_loc> However, this isn't a brilliant thing to be doing and sooner or later, Google will work out that you're using duplicated videos and you could then get devalued for it, which will prevent you from getting nice blended video results There are a few things which will indicate to G that you're duplicating: Audio Wave forms. Google can crawl elements of audio files.- It's how they ascertain a lot of copyright infringements on YouTube - by matching wave forms. Video Lengths If you have tons of videos, all of which are the identical length and have identical thumbnails - it's going to be obvious. YouTube Hosting If you're using YouTube to host your videos - it will abundantly clear to YouTube that you've duplicated the content, by the inevitably poor hotspots metrics you'll receive and the lack of views. For product videos, as a rule, i would recommend avoiding YouTube for hosting anyway - Wistia is a great option for that sort of stuff. Duplicate videos are ultimately the same as duplicate body text and are more or less frowned upon by the engines if exercised at too great a scale - especially following Panda. Ideally, you want to be thinking big and aiming for the unique videos - not only from a Search perspective, but also from a CRO and user perspective. No user is going to enjoy browsing the site if they end up watching the same content multiple times. I contest the idea that you can't scale unique video content easily. You just need to work out which elements can be duplicated and which need to be unique. Always get unique audio - and wrap some stock elements around a small portion of unique footage. I produced the following YouTube series in 1 day. Filmed, cut, edited and uploaded 64 unique videos. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDCBEEAFF5571810B  They're not complicated, flashy or impressive - but they are all unique, full HD and with appropriate metadata, which is the minimum you need to aim for. If you have thousands of products for an ecommerce site - sure, it might take a few weeks to produce everything. But you'll be much better off for it. anyway, hope that's helpful! Cheers, Phil

What CMS is the site using rich snippets ? I am thinking along the lines of finding a plugin or contribution that will bring rich snippets setup 100% correctly. Perhaps it is implemented incorrectly. Maybe drop the URL on here and I can take a look.