Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This is search feature is a relatively new development, and something that I wouldn't even be sure will stay, but here's what I've seen get people listed.

The first step is definitely to create a brand page on G+ (that's definitely where it's pulling SEOmoz's listing data).

The second step, would appear to be to have a verified G+ listing.  I can't find a single example of this where the profile isn't verified.  Here you go:  http://support.google.com/plus/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=page_verification&rd=1

The third step (I'm assuming), would be to have a company name that isn't at all ambiguous, and it won't interfere with the query.   For example, Amazon has a verified G+ page, but doesn't show up as in your screenshot when searching for "amazon".  They definitely don't want a result that doesn't get people exactly what they want, or that chips into AdWords revenue.

Good luck!

This is good advice too.  

For the most part, Google and Bing are very similar in their ranking practices, but there are definitely still a lot of subtle differences.   Sometimes the difference is obvious, but it's still a fairly dense subject with no immediate answer.  Here are some nice starting points full of lots of ideas to consider:

http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/uk/archive/2012/04/13/optimising-website-content-for-higher-rankings-on-bing.aspx
http://www.searchdiscovery.com/blog/seo-for-bing-google-and-bing-indexing-differences/
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-vs-bing-correlation-analysis-of-ranking-elements

It's definitely cool that you've recognized the comparative difference.  Knowing how Bing works gives you a great creative resource  to check against Google as well, and vice-versa.   It's one of my favorite tricks, namely because it should reduce the possibilities from 200 or so odd ranking factors that are possibly out of wack to a fair ~25, and when the difference is as drastic as you say, it usually lays out a fast path to more traffic.

You'll may want to check with support, but I suspect not.  I've seen similar things happening with the 'moz toolset for our clients all the time.  Eventually, the crawler comes back around for another run and it gets sorted.

I often feel like Copyscape was created by the owners of automated content spinners to falsely prove themselves legitimate.  The place that I've seen it talked about, by far the most, is in any spammy blackhatworld.com or warriorforum.com offerings, talking about how they pass Copyscape.

You should find that quickly, Google is a much more accurate at understanding similar copy, if you paste a few lines into search and thumb through a few pages.  I would never trust Copyscape alone.  There are a number of reasons that it may be wrong; as there's definitely a lot to consider when analyzing copy.

Seems logical to me; PageRank doesn't always flow exactly as you'd expect, but this is more or less how it tends to work.  It's also true that in the end, PageRank alone is 100% meaningless.  PR0 pages outrank PR8 pages all the time in Google.

Where are you seeing the phrase "without quality"?  Without knowing too much more, it's also true that spiders have trouble reaching content loaded via JavaScript, and may think that the given page isn't useful to search users (which, if it had no readable content, it wouldn't be).  Totally independent of PageRank, I'd consider taking a look at whether Google has that page in their index with a "site:domain" search, and see how they're treating it.

Well "social indicators", as they've been dubbed, are a ranking factor in both Google and Bing, although just one factor out of 200+.  Legitimate accounts tweeting links to a site would definitely be a positive signal.  It would also hopefully provide you with some legitimate inbound marketing benefits by giving you access to new audiences.

Personally, I don't.

I use the data to shape long, detailed sets of actionable recommendations.  If you want some really pretty reports, you might consider SEO PowerSuite's Website Auditor (which I do actually PDF up, branded, to clients).   The only downside, as with all of this, is that more quality SEO tools cost more money.

You'll probably want to disallow spiders from crawling them with robots.txt:

http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html

I had one listed last week after just a few weeks.

For as long as I've been around though, the average timespan is somewhere between 1 day to 2 years to never (no matter how well you've complied with guidelines).  It's a pretty terrible system for maintaining such an important thing.  Each category is maintained by different volunteer editors, with different priorities / level of corruption.   Others are totally nice and reasonable.  Some categories don't have active editors at all.

In other words, it's a big game of chance.

First, to cover your question of OSE vs. AHREFS, this comparison of the big 3 link data providers is phenominal:

http://www.seobook.com/comparing-backlink-data-providers

To give you the TL;DR question of why you'd use AHREFS instead of Open Site Explorer, or Raven (which uses Majestic and OSE data last I'd checked)- they're each still hugely incomplete, and tend to give you data that differs in different ways.

If you're looking for link building management tools,  as you also mentioned, you might also like BuzzStream (it's what our agency uses).  It's basically 37signal's HiRise cut and paste, then rebuilt for link building instead of sales.  Still, it doesn't solve for everything, but is a great value for all it does, and no SEO software I've ever used seems to solve more than 5% of the puzzle, max (which is unfortunate, but true).

Have you looked at ubl.org?

This is the sort of thing that you definitely need to test like crazy.  Use the A/B testing tools in Google Analytics and try all possibilities of presentation, descriptions, colors, the order you present them in, and so forth.   If you see any volume of traffic at all, it will be worth it in the end.

That said, the most common approach that I've been seeing for this sort of thing as of late, and I've had success with as well, is to take some vertical tables likeso, and highlight the center option:  http://wrapbootstrap.com/preview/WB00H9006

Good luck!

I wouldn't be so wrapped up in word count as I would be making that page valuable.  An about page can have huge weight in a potential customer's faith in your company.

I do usually target some keywords to an about page, though.  People search for companies as well as their services, and I would use company-oriented phrases in your title, meta, and copy.  So, if you  ran a digital strategy company in New York, you might title it like:

Digital Strategy Company | New York | (companyname)

Firm, agency, provider, etc. work well here as well, depending on the particular niche (AdWords keyword tool helps a lot with that).  You could also get more geographic with it, and close some easier long-tail searches (for example, if you were in NYC, you might find people searching for SoHo, Midtown, Manhattan, or nearby villages and such).  It usually doesn't take much more than saying "Hey, we're located near X, just down the road from Y, in Z.".

Or, you could get really crazy, and about weird minor niches that sometimes only the keyword tool will pick out.  Like, do people care about you being certified in A, using B software, being compliant with C, having a charitable / environmental program like D.  People search for some crazy stuff.  Even if the volume is very low, competition for these sorts of things usually is too, and taking a few moments to consider usually adds up to a lot in the long-term.

I see what you mean.  Here's what you do for these particular pages.

Since these have no real value as a search engine landing page (since they're basically all the same), Google won't want to send people to them.  Seems reasonable, right?

But, because your site has a whole lot of these, Google may also decide that loveday.se as a whole is feeding them content that has a high % of non-useful pages.   It's an indicator of an overall low-quality site.  This really started to become an issue with the first "Panda" update.  So, for each of these particular pages, you want to add a tag to your HEAD section:

| name="robots" content="noindex,follow" /> |
| We tell Google "noindex", because we don't want these pages in their index (really, they don't either, so everyone is happy).  They're terrible landing pages for a search engine. |

We tell Google to "follow", because the other pages that these are linking to are still of value.  And we want Googlebot to continue crawling and crediting internal links on your site.

I'm seeing a little drop too.  If you switch this to monthly view and zoom all the way out, you'll see that their domain as a whole took a bit of a dive this month:

http://www.quantcast.com/squidoo.com

I'd suspect that 90 degree day on MozCast 11/19 gave them a swift kick in the junk.

First off, never use rel='nofollow' to your own site.

Personally, I would trim up the left menu if you can, or find an easier / creative JavaScript-driven way to present the data.  The 100 links thing isn't a law written in stone.  SEOmoz's tools do yell about it if you go over 100 links.  This "100 link lore" comes from a Matt Cutts blog post:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-many-links-per-page/

If you look close, you may notice that there are more than 100 links even on the page that Matt wrote about this.  It's kind of a loose guideline in my eyes.  From my own professional experience, if every page on your site has 500 links, you're going to hurt for it.  But if you have 125 links on quite a few pages, or put out a blog post that's just an insane resource that links to a few hundred people, you'll still be just fine.

I'd think about it as just one more signal of a potentially abusive or low quality site.  If your site isn't under heavy scrutiny for other reasons, and you don't go totally nuts with links, you'll probably be just fine, but there is a lot of wisdom in Matt Cutt's post all the same.  Eliminate the unnecessary and things will work better, in and out of Google.

Based on similar scenarios that I've observed, I wouldn't be worried about a terribly negative Google reaction to a select box.  Obviously if your rankings take a dive within 60 days of rolling this out, I'd consider backpedaling this feature.  But select box navigations aren't uncommon and it seems that Google understands them well enough at this point.

My issue would be more related to quantity; usually "normal" links on a page are best kept much lower than this, although, I also wouldn't be so sure whether Google will understand the JavaScript like a link or not.  That is, Google does crawl your JavaScript these days (source: Matt Cutts), but, sometimes Google seems to understand it, sometimes they don't (source: much first hand experience).  Also, from a UX standpoint, a select box with 450 items is really tedious.   Users hate having to do more things to get to other things (ie. scanning through a small box of 450 items that only displays 4 items at a time, not fun).  If you think that they already know the name of the concert venue, a suitable replacement could be a text box with autocomplete (if you search for prototype.js and autocomplete.js, you'll find a slick pre-written code to help with this).

If people don't already know about the concert venue they want, or if you wanted to accompany this, I'd think about some other ways to present the data.  There are lots of cool ways this could be done, some might even score you many more organic links / social mentions.  A Google Maps plotter comes to mind.  As does some creative categorization by niche (ie. blues bars vs. hipster hangout).  One more possible factor to help people talk about your site ...  "Omg I can't believe X calls Y a hipster hangout!".

As with all things web and marketing, test the crap out of whatever you do to validate, regardless of what route you decide.

Could you provide a few samples of URL's that SEOmoz Pro claims contain duplicate content?  It should show you if you click on the error, then click on individual links.

These topics are always a little subjective, but here's what I'm seeing.

1. Screen readers (used by the blind) do like 'H tags'.  And Google does give preference to sites better that are more likely to be handicap accessible.  From what I see, this isn't an ideal use though.  For example, if you can end up with 200 x H2 tags on a page, I'd say this is wrong.

Keywords placed in 'H tags' are also given more weight in a page's ranking.  So, if the # of H tags is abused, and your page provides near nothing but H2's, it's not unreasonable to suspect that Google thinks you're stuffing keywords into the second-most powerful tag that can go into .   It seems that Google does more to go after these kinds of possibly manipulative practices than they do to award the positive:  far more often people shoot themselves in the foot.  And this seems to, at very least, make that a lot easier to do.  A page should generally have a single H1 at the start, and a small handful of relevant headings marked H2 - H6.

2. I'd again be a little wary.  Text in the source that's not visible to the user is the definition of cloaking.  As AJAX has gotten more popular, you do see more prestigious sites hiding content with JavaScript, and very slowly (that is, much slower than mainstream development), Google seems to adapt to these kinds of evolutions.  But hiding everything by default in a CSS class?  I'd personally avoid that, and if I saw it on a client's site, it would sit high on my list of things to tweak and test.

Hope something solid gets sorted, and then extensively A/B tested in production.  Drupal is a good application; it still blows my mind that people still need to write SEO plugins / hacks for literally every application out there.   It gives us SEO's a little more job security that these technical problems are almost never fully tackled at the source.