Welcome to the Q&A Forum

The report cards are generated for your keywords (the ones associated with your campaign) that rank in the top 50 positions in the SERPs; the page that is graded is the page that resulted in that term being in that position.

In other words, the fact that you have a report card for a page means that page is already ranking in the top 50 for the term associated with the report.

So if you got a report card for the page that you are optimizing for the phrase "outdoor wedding venues in Las Vegas" and it was associated with the phrase "Las Vegas wedding venues" it means that page is currently ranking in the top 50 for "Las Vegas wedding venues". Even if that isn't the phrase you are specifically trying for, it can be a good thing when a page can rank for multiple variants.

What I like about these reports is that they enable me to see which pages are actually performing for my keywords (sometimes, not the ones I'd expect).

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

Yes. Once you get to the cached page, on the bottom right of the grey bar at the top is a link that says "text-only version". Click on that, and there you have it.

Is there some particular reason you want to do it that way?

If you use the URL you are interested in as a search term, you can just click on the little green down arrow next to the green URL in the SERP and choose cache; this will show you what Google has cached and when it was cached.

Yes I have done it and yes it seems to be working.

The daughter of the owner of the company I work for published an article on her site which we reprinted on ours, using the rel=canonical tag to indicate that her site had the original.

When I search for a string from the article, her site comes up and ours does not.

In your question, you wrote searoundus.org and www.seaaroundus.org as the two URLs you were comparing.

The first one is written with one "a" and the second with two. If those are actually the versions you were comparing, that would make a big difference.

If it's  seaaroundus.org vs www.seaaroundus.org, the vast majority of the links are to www.seaaroundus.org and that is the form Google is preferring in the search results. (It does still need a redirect.)

This might not be anything you are doing; Google is having a little stormy weather right now. You can take a look at Google's volatility here: http://mozcast.com/

My overlay in Firefox is back. Thank you!

Hopefully someone in SEOMoz technical support will notice this question and comment...

That is not the picture I see (I see a street view) but if you go into your Google places account (I am assuming this is your site) you can upload pictures and make other changes.

Google doesn't guarantee that the author picture will show up and whether or not the picture shows up varies, depending on the searcher's search term.

Writing more under a particular byline seems to help.

I tried restarting Firefox, rebooting my computer (Mac), uninstalling and reinstalling the Mozbar, still nothing. I use that data a lot, so I'd love to get it back...

Supposedly, once you have verified authorship, Google should take it from there.

I have tried adding direct links on posts to Google+: "Joakim Westman can be found on Google Plus" (which then links to the author's Google+ profile).

The author biography pages on my site almost always come up in the serps with pictures, and I link those back to their Google+ pages as well.

But really, my best indicator has been the more the author writes, the more they show up.

As far as Google not trusting you, I'd look at the overall picture, not display in serps. Google is always messing around with display, for their own reasons.

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.

It turns out we own a few exact match domains that are relevant to our business. Is it worth doing anything other than just redirecting? (We have owned these sites for a long time, over 15 years.)

The keywords are moderate to low in traffic and moderate to high in competitiveness. (Right now they 301 to our main site.)

I know exact match is not as valuable as it used to be and that there are mixed opinions about microsites...

Thank you for your responses!

I have a corollary question- if the blog is on a different domain does that make links from the blog to the main site more valuable (because they are not internal links) or is it a negative (seen as unnatural link building), assuming the blog ranks decently on its own?

And if the answer is still that it's best that the blog be on the parent domain, what would be the best way to move an existing outside blog in?

Is it better to have a blog under your main website's domain or should the company's blog have its own domain?

And if the blog is on its own domain, do links to the main site look good or bad to Google?

Thanks! (And please feel free to add any other related advice you might have...)

They need it if they are exact duplicates or highly similar. It is not used for pages that just have the same keyword but are otherwise different.

It looked like I had lost about 80% of my links, but they are back now. The "Links to Your Site" summary page still shows the lower number but if I download a list of links, I see that they are there. (A couple of days ago, the downloaded list also had the lower number.)