Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If you are in the process of updating, maybe an easier way to attach images?

Yes, I agree with those responses. The other thing to consider is that H1 tags should be specifically descriptive of the page that they are on. If you have the same H1 on every page (company name) you are not giving search engines any extra clues to what the page is about. (Also H2 and below can be useful in structuring your page, but are not big ranking signals.)

Look at the source code of your page and search for "a href="--that will show you your links.

Linking to an image on another site, sometime referred to as inline linking or hotlinking, can be a big no-no for a variety of reasons, including theft of bandwidth usage.

However it is possible that the same entity owns both the first site and the site on which the image is hosted, and they chose to do it that way.

Some people shorten their links differently to make them more memorable. In the case you mention, MZ.CM is like MOZ.COM.

This is done through bitly: "A Branded Short Domain (bsd) is a the domain that takes the place of “bit.ly” or “bitly.com” in a shortend URL. Adding a Branded Short Domain to your bitly account is free of charge although you must purchase a bsd from a third party domain registrar. Domai.nr, GoDaddy, and 101domain are great places to begin your search, also visit our help article “Common Domain Hosting Providers”. Keep in mind that your bsd must be less than 15 characters, including the dot."

URLs that don't exist should display an error page and return a 404 (not found) response.

When you have made-up URLs going to an actual page that returns a 200 (OK) response, the problem actually is that Google will start seeing this as soft 404 errors, which is not good.

From Google Search Console: "Returning a code other than 404 or 410 for a non-existent page (or redirecting users to another page, such as the homepage, instead of returning a 404) can be problematic. Firstly, it tells search engines that there’s a real page at that URL. As a result, that URL may be crawled and its content indexed. Because of the time Googlebot spends on non-existent pages, your unique URLs may not be discovered as quickly or visited as frequently and your site’s crawl coverage may be impacted..."

It was great to be able to review some of the talks where I couldn't take notes fast enough...

It is a known bug and Google should fix it soon.

On Google Webmaster Tools or Moz?
On WMT, you can just mark things you fixed as fixed, and they will go away immediately and won't come back unless Google sees them again. For Moz, you should just have to wait till the next crawl.

Canonical tags are used to let Google know which version of two identical/very similar pages to index.

Even if you don't think you have duplicate pages, sometimes you may have duplicates because of parameters or letter case.

They are also helpful if someone scrapes your content and brings the canonical along with it—Google will know where the original is.

So it's good to do this, but just having canonicals on a page will not improve ranking by themselves.

1. Invite test users who were not involved with the development to try out the website and see what they find.

2. Check your robots.txt, meta noindex, and other exclusions to make sure you are not blocking your own content (once you are live).

BrowserStack is the one we use--it seems to work pretty well.

I have never done it, but Adwords has a policy about it, which makes me think you can do it:

"Links to anchors or fragment identifiers on the same page count as the same page." (from https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/1054210?hl=en)

*edit
I am referring here to the destination URL, not the display.

I also like Majestic SEO, and it is free to use for sites you own. I use it in combination with Webmaster Tools and of course Open Site Explorer.

This older question may be useful to you: http://moz.com/community/q/meta-name-canonical-content-url-usage-instead-of-link-rel

I had this happen when we had someone leave the company without documenting one of our logins. The way I reclaimed access was as sachin-sv said, I claimed the account in question and they verified ownership (with a postcard mailed to the physical address).

As far as a reference for the answer that the keyword should be near the start of the title, Moz's Beginner's Guide refers to this.

But what I find interesting is that if you look at those pages (not just the serp), only two of them actually start with the company name in the title on the page. The others are just displayed that way.

You have it set up correctly. You can use Google's structured data testing tool to see how the images would look: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

Google doesn't guarantee to show authorship information, that's just a possibility and can depend what the person was searching for.

For my site, I find that the pictures that are most likely to show up in the search results are the pictures of the authors who write the most.

Similar questions have come up a few times. I am not sure there is a clear answer, but you may want to look at this thread: http://moz.com/community/q/612-home-page-banned [Or search on 612 in the forum search.] Good luck!

Since the error message you get is "no more than one canonical URL tag," I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the affected pages have more than one canonical.

You can check this by looking at the source code of the page (which you can do by going into the menu of whatever browser you are using and choosing "page source" or "view source"- it is different in different browsers- look around or use the browser's help feature) and doing a search for rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>"; this should only appear once. If it appears more than once, remove the ones you don't want.

The canonical should be the URL of the page that you want Google to see as the one to index and return in results. For example, if you are using canonicals because you have tracking codes appended to a URL and that creates the appearance of duplicate content, use the URL without the codes as the canonical one.

Just remember that when you put a canonical URL on a page, you are telling Google to ignore the actual URL of that page and consider it to be the canonical URL instead.