Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I don't see a feature like that; you can download the report as an excel file and make your notes there. I don't know of a list of features.

Matt Cutts says not to use nofollow on internal links. He says that causes pagerank to evaporate and that Google has made changes so that pagerank sculpting doesn't really work. He is pretty definite about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SAPUx4Beh8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVOOB_Q0MZY

I don't know anything about this myself, but I remember seeing that Econsultancy had a Middle East and North Africa SEO Best Practice Guide; the author's name is Husam Jandal. The landing page says the report talks about keyword selection; maybe someone over there could help you out.

On the Home page of the Analytics beta in the upper left corner right under "MOZ" and "Select a Campaign" is a choice (in light blue letters) "Back to Pro". Click that and you are back on the old Home page.

Go into your campaign overview, at the bottom of the Competitive Link Analysis is a button that says "See Full Competitive Analysis." Click that and on the next page, under the menu that begins with Overview, Rankings, etc., are three little blue links. Click "History" and there you are.

When you download your crawl diagnostics as a csv, column A is "URL", column L is the true/flase column for "Duplicate Page Content", and column AF "duplicate_page_content" contains the urls of duplicates to the url in column A.

To look at duplicate content, I sort by column L, delete all of the false rows (because they don't have duplicate content), then I delete all of the columns except column A (URL) and column AF (duplicate_page_content), save the spreadsheet as "yyyymmdd-duplicate-content" and work from that. (Easier to see what you are doing without all the other data in the way.)

Also note that column AF "duplicate_page_content" can have more than one url in it if you have multiple versions of the same content. In this case I use Excel's "Text to Columns" function (under "Data" in the ribbon) to put each url into its own column so I can deal with them individually.

And yes, if there are just small differences Google is likely to see pages as duplicates.

They load for me.

Would it be possible to put your introductory material as footnotes, after the articles, rather than at the beginning? Google tends to give "above the fold" material more weight.

The number of links can be looked at as the total number of links, the number of links from a domain (one domain can have many links to your site) or the number of C Blocks (which suggest whether IP addresses are linked). Make sure you are comparing the same unit of measurement.

Another good backlink resource besides the ones you are using is MajesticSeo (they have a free tool you can try).

Links are very important, but there is no set value (at least that Google will tell).  Moz and SearchMetrics have recently released ranking factors; you might be interested in taking a look at those.

G+ results have been seen in the results pages on page 1, though I can't say I've seen much of this. Google+ Profile PageRank: The Real AuthorRank? - SMX Advanced 2013 

Moz and SearchMetrics have both reported that a URL's number of Google +1s is very highly correlated with search rankings. Matt Cutts has said Google doesn't use that as a ranking factor.  (And correlation doesn't equal causation, as we know.)

I don't know of a good metric (though I'd be very interested in hearing if anyone does) but at least for now, I consider Google+ an important factor.

As a news portal, duplicate content is unavoidable (unless you make up your own news, which actually has been known to do well...)

If you are selling articles, the buyers will tag them for their websites. If they leave them index, follow and put their own canonical on them (common, in my experience) be aware that they can outrank you for your own content if their site has more authority. And having the same content on many sites with conflicting canonicals probably is not going to be worth much SEO-wise for any of them.

As far as articles that are given to you, you should use the canonical of the originating site to give them credit for creating the material. This won't get you search traffic, but readers on your site would have the content right there at their fingertips, and would not have to go to another site to read it. I tend to think that noindex-nofollowing a substantial fraction of your site might raise some red flags.

The assumption here is that the content duplication is being made simply as a convenience to the readers. If you are doing it to increase your rankings, it probably won't work. Excellent, original content should stay on your own site and not be sold.

If you look at your source, there are a lot of @import and javascript urls; perhaps this is what is being picked up.

It might not matter what you do.

We had been using rel=author on pages that were articles written by specific people, but not on information pages such as contributor biographies. However Google started showing the contributors' pictures in the results when the bio pages came up in search.

After some head-scratching, I noticed that in the bios that were affected, the phrase "by [Author Name]" was in the body of the text. That is to say, the sentence, "A number of wonderful articles have been written on various subjects by John Doe, a really great guy," would cause John Doe's picture to appear in the serps next to his bio result, even without rel=author being on the page or "by [Author Name]" being an actual byline.

Google plays by its own rules.

We received a cold call from a company called Division-D. They make a lot of promises which sound good (but that's what marketers do ). Advertising on a non-Google network probably would have fewer restrictions than an Adwords campaign and they say that they are fully transparent. Would it be worth it to listen to their whole pitch?

Bing's keyword tool is of course based on Bing searches, so not directly correlated with Google search. (Though I imagine there would be some similarity.) I too really like Bing's webmaster interfaces.

The last Mozscape index update was 7/11/2013. In August, they put this up:

"Dreadfully sorry, but we've decided to not release our most recent Mozscape Index, since it was not up to our quality standards which we measure with index correlations.

Why did this happen?

Our scheduling algorithm always tries to add new URLs to the schedule to make sure we expand our coverage over time. Unfortunately it seems to have hit a new section of the internet that we never crawled before. This resulted in a huge set of new URLs that seem to be of low quality, and the this has skewed the rankings slightly (a little more than we are comfortable with). Large domains seemed to be most impacted and showed a marked decrease in external links.

What do we plan to do now?

We are attacking this from multiple angles:

1. We are removing the new "section" and emphasizing the crawl of high-quality domains.
2. We've added additional monitoring to alert the BigData team when the schedule becomes imbalanced and does not display its normal characteristics.
3. We moved a quality check to earlier in the index generation cycle so we can discover problems quicker.
4. Finally, we created a new schedule of high quality and are re-crawling.

When can you anticipate the next index release?

August 26, 2013"

The h1 tag belongs in the body. It defines the most important heading, the main topic of the page. The h2 tag is for subheads, h3 for sub-subheads and so forth.

What you see in the head is probably the CSS styling for this tag. It describes what the content within that tag will look like.

Yes! I am having multiple problems, including values that would change when I sorted my columns.

I contacted Adwords support and was told, "Unfortunately the information in the Keyword Planner Tool is currently not the best source of data for your analysis."

She went on to say that she would get back to me when the tool was usable. I have not heard back yet, so I am not using it.

At the very least, they should say that this is in beta and have it on the side, rather than as the primary resource that someone who wasn't paying attention might use, and end up spending  money based on bad data.

The on-page optimization reports (aka report cards) do this for the keywords you have in your campaigns.

Your report cards show which page ranked for your keyword and how well optimized that page is for that keyword (according to some basic on-page guidelines).

Web MD which ranks at the top for both dog allergies and cat allergies (the plural form seems to be more popular) has them on separate pages. The content on the pages is similar, but not identical. (For example only the cat page talks about allergic symptoms from being licked or scratched.)

I would be amazed if it were. On my website (and many others) authors will often have a picture of themselves on articles they write, and these go on many, many pages. One image is such a small part of the content of the page, in and of itself it would not cause a duplicate content issue.