Welcome to the Q&A Forum

How similar/different are these products? Are they marketed to slightly different audiences? Do they have slightly different uses? Or are the essentially the same product but one is blue and the other is black? If they can be marketed to different groups or have a big enough difference that they should be separate pages then I'd consider doing some research and copywriting to add unique, relevant content to each to set them apart. If they're really too similar then determine whether they definitely need to be on separate pages still or if the could be merged. If they can be merged, choose which on stays live, update the page as needed and 301 the old page to the one still live. If they definitely need to stay on separate pages still despite being so similar, consider canonicalizing one to the other.

Like Kevin said... just because you sell blue widgets right now doesn't mean your site has to be blue-widgets.com or cheap-blue-widgets.com. But if you had a page specifically on blue widgets, it can help (to an extent) to have the url along the lines of example.com/blue-widget-info.php. Your homepage is your brand. If you work on natural linking, bookmarking and outreach which ties your brand to your most important keywords then the link equity will help you rank for those terms.

In the case of the wordpress trackback issue... its basically self-referential. Because their is a link to your blog post on your blog, wordpress creates a trackback to notify you their is a link to your blog post on a blog. Normally the reason for this is to notify you of when someone else on a blog posts a link to your site or posts on one of their posts. I.E. a Pingback or a trackback. 302s may not pass link equity but the trackback won't pass as much as the link that the trackback is notifying you of in the first place.

So ultimately, don't worry about the trackback 302s if you can't change the wp-trackback.php file. Its an easy fix if you can access the file but otherwise the seo benefit in this particular case is neglible.

Your old blog URLs 302ing is an issue though. Have you double-checked with the SEOBook tool that your URLs are redirecting improperly or is it just the trackbacks that you're being warned about?

One oddity I did notice, you have <meta property="<a class="attribute-value">og:locale</a>" content="<a class="attribute-value">en_US</a>" /> listed in the page source which i believe should be en_GB for a UK specific website.

I've never actually had any errors listed for non-indexable content in the HTML Improvements section of WMT. So I'm not 100% sure what would set off that notification. Though the sites I work on do have a number of pages that are NoIndex and/or NoFollow. So i guess the issue would be caused not by purposefully blocking the page but some other means that makes your page unable to be crawled properly.

I'm going to refer you back to the other two questions you asked today about the same thing with the same graphs that already have a bunch of answers in them.

http://moz.com/community/q/what-penalty-would-cause-this-traffic-drop-google-analytic-screenshot

http://moz.com/community/q/does-this-graph-look-like-a-panda-2-0-hit

Write for people, not for search engines. If it sounds unnatural then it is. There's no magic number for keyword density.

Most like to make sure their core term for the page is up front in the title, used in the H1, and used in the meta description. As far as in the content of the page itself, just make it sound good. Good content is better for you than potentially stuffing a keyword to hope to rank. Also, Google (likely) uses Latent Semantic Indexing or at least understands semantically related words... so you can mix it up a bit with related terms and synonyms without fear they won't understand.

Easy first step without even thinking... Blog post and/or outreach to well-known bloggers who specialize in star/celebrity news & gossip. Also shares of images & links to the related blog posts on every social media outlet we have an account/page on.

Nope, that wouldn't cause a blanket penalty on the term. Just didn't have the time that ImWaqas had to go over things in-depth but wanted to at least point that out since I had the chance. Take a look at all the things ImWaqas stated to help fix your major site issues.

The only potential value in blog tags is for the sake of usability. The SEO values are negligible at best and most wind up noindexing Tag archives anyway in order to save themselves from duplicate content issues. The value of relevant tags on a blog is that they help tie together other relevant articles on a subject to make them more easily accessible and tie all the posts together with something akin to an overarching theme. Use them for the sake of giving human users another way to find related content that may keep them on site longer.

This leads me to a problem then. As per Dave (the author of the article), "using canonical tags will result in duplicate errors being suppressed. If one page refers to another as a duplicate, than that pair will not be reported as duplicates. Also, if two pages both refer to the same third page as their canonical, then they will not be reported as duplicates of each other, either."

But now that this change has gone into effect I have 2000+ more duplicate content errors appearing and they are all pages with rel="canonical" pointing to the original page. So, as he stated earlier in the post this has caused "the most negative customer experience we anticipate: having a behind-the-scenes change of our duplicate detection heuristic causing a sudden rash of incorrect "duplicate page" errors to appear for no apparent good reason."

Is this something that will eventually correct itself or is this something that will need tweaking of the new detection method?

Sounds like you need to set up 301 redirects from your old URLs to the the new relevant ones.

So do it surreptitiously and/or creatively. A paparazzi snapping a photo and then selling it to magazines or a widely available photo online is likely too wide spread for someone to have it easily removed. If you happen to reach out to a Celebrity Blogger and they mention "Looks like Jay-Z is out on the town looking good in what appears to be a {Insert clothing company} brand sweatshirt." Do you think they're going to stop the publicity? Even a facebook share of "Hey, is Jay-Z wearing one of our shirts?" without any link to your product page, just asking people what they think about it, could work. Now if you blatantly plastered photos with links saying "OMG Buy Our Sweatshirt Cause Jay-Z is wearing it!!!" then he'd probably have his people file something asking you to take it down.

I saw more volatility and fluctuations earlier in the month on some of my clients than I did on the "official" rollout day & weekend.

Most people NoIndex their blog archives to stop duplicate content errors. So tag archives, month and year archives, etc. should be set to NoIndex,Follow.

As for pagination issues, rel="next" and rel="prev" were created to show pages in a series so those might need implementation if they haven't been already.

The meta robots tag set to NoIndex means that the page is blocked by Meta Robots. Not really an error to be worried about. Due to Wordpress creating duplicate content thanks to the ?replytocom= parameter you likely set it in the backend to noindex those pages.

So the actual page "http://www.fateyes.com/the-effect-of-social-media-on-the-serps-social-signals-seo/" is lacking a robots tag as far as i can see and will therefore technically be indexable but the ?replytocom= created by the comments is correctly noindex.

Your full title, Security systems | wireless | battery powered | Police Approved | CSS, winds up truncated because its 69 characters with spaces and features a few wide letters (like those W's) that make it too long pixel-wise (as William pointed out).

The problem, as stated by Logan and Don, is that if each of the 25 different locations are too similar then none of those are going to do well in the SERPs. You need to determine how much of each site is going to be too similar and/or duplicate content and consolidate that. One way to do that, as stated by Don, is a single site with local options.

Some achieve this by using geolocation or entering in postal codes &  either choosing their local store or having site parameters alter product availability. The content is then restricted by the offerings at the visitor's local store instead of showing all available options from the overarching corporation. So the product pages still exist and are crawlable but some color options may be grayed out where they aren't available or "Out of Stock" warnings will appear where applicable.

One other option i've seen is using differing subdomains to offer up the same basic idea as geolocation/postal code but could help with local organic search. e.g. NewYork.Webstore.xyz vs. London.Webstore.xyz This would allow each location to essentially have its own mini-site that is on the company's main site (like a halfway point between one big single site and 25 duplicate content sites). Now with the single site altered by location data, you only need one version of a product page but you would need to write up some great localized landing pages for each individual store. For the subdomain idea, you'll want to canonicalize all the duplicates to a main version... so the page for NewYork.Webstore.xyz/ProductA/ and London.Webstore.xyz/ProductA/ would have rel="canonical" pointing at your main site's page Webstore.xyz/ProductA/ so authority is passed to the root domain and you don't get penalized for duplicate content.

Based off of what I can see... your page titles look spammy and keyword stuffed, your meta descriptions tend to be too long and are spammy, and meta keywords are not used by Google anymore (and yours are spammy and stuffed).

I'd suggest looking over all of your pages and trying to follow best practices for naming conventions and content.

Have you submitted a new sitemap to Webmaster Tools? Also, you could consider 301 redirecting the pages to relevant new pages to capitalize on any link equity or ranking power they may have had before. Otherwise Google should eventually stop crawling them because they are 404. I've had a touch of success getting them to stop crawling quicker (or at least it seems quicker) by changing some 404s to 410s.