Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
More of a minor point on your blog you can also rel=author on your blog to help establish your self as a bit of an authority on your niche (not forgetting the buzz word of rel=canonical too!). This ties in with what Karl said about G= accounts too. Obviously this isn't going to help massively but I'm sure Google trusts this kind of source more.
You can also always take a look at your competitors see why they are ranking better than you and learn a few tips & tricks from them.
Best of luck!
It's an emote, Google tried them out not long ago but they are being removed, they still work in Bing. I've a feeling <cite class="_Rm">expedia</cite> also tried a similiar thing, they are being remove so dont worry
Nope
You may find this question from earlier today helpful -
http://moz.com/community/q/weird-back-link-showed-in-moz-crawl
It can take time for Google to catch up how long has it been?
Give it a couple of weeks for Google to re-crawl and work out the new home of the page.
Unfortunately its a bit of a waiting game which can be a problem for altering your site I'm afraid.
The problem you may have is duplicate content it's kinda trying to have your cake and eat it unfortunately. You could try to manually index the site but it is a bit of a predicament your in. The next option is you wait and both the pages will get indexed eventually or via a sitemap on webmaster tools. As mentioned would have a slight concern for duplicate content.
Try the two links above, one tells Google the original version and the other who wrote it. Hope it helps
good luck!
I'll just go ahead and copy and paste a response from a q&a from yesterday
In short yes, canonical is great on site as it puts all the juice on one page however over multiple sites I don't think its as efficient. I've given you some helpful info so I'll leave it to you I hope something helps here 
"As far as I'm aware and webmaster guide lines are the following is true :
"Can rel="canonical" be used to suggest a canonical URL on a completely different domain?
There are situations where it's not easily possible to set up redirects. This could be the case when you need to migrate to a new domain name using a web server that cannot create server-side redirects. In this case, you can use the rel="canonical" link element to specify the exact URL of the domain preferred for indexing. While the rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive, we do try to follow it where possible."
canonical is for on page more than off site.
Supporting this Matt Cutts mentions that they prefer 301
So bit of truth in it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
Interpretation by the individual search engines
While all engines that use the nofollow value exclude links that use it from their ranking calculation, the details about the exact interpretation of it vary from search engine to search engine.
Google states that their engine takes "nofollow" literally and does not "follow" the link at all. However, experiments conducted by SEOs show conflicting results. These studies reveal that Google does follow the link, but it does not index the linked-to page, unless it was in Google's index already for other reasons (such as other, non-nofollow links that point to the page).
Yahoo! follows it, but excludes it from their ranking calculation
Bing respects "nofollow" as regards not counting the link in their ranking, but it is not proven whether or not Bing follows the link.
Ask.com also respects the attribute
I agree with Lesley, I really wouldn't use Page rank as your main metric moz has some good metrics or majestic to give you another option.
Just a guess here, I know Google if it feels you're Meta isn't right can select its own and this maybe what's happened although I don't think this is what it is. I would also try removing the canonical as there is no need for it as its pointing to its self. You can also try a Fetch as Google see if it refreshes the Meta.
You can always wait a day and see if it resolves its self as sometimes an over reaction can do more harm then good especially if it resolves on its own. Lucky you're in a good placement and the incorrect meta still gets the keyword across.
Hope some of that helps a bit.
Good luck!
Well rather a few of your back links are really bad and this makes your profile look a bit on the bad side to start with, you can try to use the disavow tool to remove some of the bad links. I also recommend you build some better links to try to help counter.
I also recommend finding your self in the SERP and you can then monitor results from the above.
I'm sure some of the other helpful folks here at Moz will have some dandy advice.
You can use services like Majestic SEO or Open site explored to look at your links to see their quality.
Good luck
Hi Mike,
I just wrote a loverly long response but Moz thought it was spam and blocked me so in a shorter version here are the following helpful resources -
Setting up WMT - http://www.bruceclay.com/newsletter/volume117/set-up-google-webmaster-tools.htm
Setting preferred domain - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en
Side note to preferred domain a lot of people also use canonical tag to do the same
Penalty guide - http://monitorbacklinks.com/blog/seo/identify-recover-google-penalty/
Even if that's not the problem it's still good knowledge to have. Any problems I'm sure the Moz community can help
Canonical is great for posts that are the same, as these posts are not and they represent different statistics I would say not.
If a user wants to find a review of directories in 2012 then the canonical would stop this and thus the user wouldn't be able to get that.
in short- No
Few things you can try:
Research is the key and you could dig pretty deep Hope some of those help.
but as to what Google thinks you're still going to have to figure that out on your own.
Good luck
It would work but the content after that e.g http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=2 would but lost as they would not be indexed. so if there is content on those pages you feel is valuable might want to look int alternatives however is the strongest content is on http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses you will be fine to set that as the tag location.
Agree with Justin, There is no right or wrong (www. vs none) pick one which suits you and go from there.
You can learn setting preferred domain on webmasters here - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231
301 redirects depend on your CMS but don't forge to redirect to each relevant page.
Best of luck BJS.
(in short)
1) Hosted on the root domain instead of subdomain
This is your preference
2) 301 all incoming requests on domain to point to www.domain (subdomain)
Yes 301 so you're only using one site not both (e.g use www. or htttp:// but not both) but it doesn't have to be the www.
With out looking at the site the short answer is other pages on your site may be getting links and thus helping your overall site improve but the one page is lacking in links and thus not improving. I'd recommend taking a look at Devanurs links for further info.
I think you've got a bit lost there. By adding the noindex site it makes no difference if you have no follow or not. Even if you have bad content by no indexing most of your site its almost like you've got a one page site. I really recommend taking the time to write some content it pays off down the line and doesn't take as long as you think.
Matt Cutts has said most of the internet is duplicate content so don't over analyze it too much links etc. can make a fairly large impact as long as the bulk of your website is unique and authoritative you will be on a good road.
No index and no follow are nearly the same thing (okay take that comment with a heap of salt)
link juice would matter as Google is ignoring that part of your site as you've told it not to index it so any link juice going that way is just going into a black hole.
I think you heard wrong, no-follow is safer than follow because its like saying "i don't endorse this link" and so it doesn't transfer link juice but reduced any risks but remember trying to manipulate link juice on your site is a risky game and most of the time you will come off worse of than just writing some content for products
I would take a look over here if you needed more reasons not to - https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/
"Q: Does this mean “PageRank sculpting” (trying to change how PageRank flows within your site using e.g. nofollow) is a bad idea?
A: I wouldn’t recommend it"
Hi Andy,
The bottom tab of screaming frog there is one called "in links" From there it will tell you where the links are coming from to get to that page. Its then just a matter of going to that page and looking for them (ctrl+f)
Hope that helps.
edit
okay Just to go in a bit deeper you've obviously got that as a 302 redirect (I'd swap that to a 301) so thats a bit down to the CMS but you can also find out any links pointing to the urls to work out any juice etc. e.g. that one has links from dig.do. Obviously crawling just that url doesn't tell you the in links but crawling the whole site should reveal internal links that are pointing there if any.
Let me know if it all works out.