Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You may want to look at using the proper markup, here is a link to schema.org - http://schema.org/VideoObject

I have found backlinks from decent quality websites with content that is relevant to my niche much more helpful than .gov and .edu sites. However, I am not saying obtaining links from edu and gov is a bad thing by any means. I recently had a guest post with follow link on a local subdomain of the BBB and didn't seem to do too much. Seems like an ideal link is from a site with a high domain rank and high quality content relevant to your industry.

For the most part, it borders dangeriously close to cloaking, and also runs the risk of IPs being very failable in terms of determining a location. On the otherhand, some very minor text changes, with a default, would probably be fine if they improve the user experiance. Remember that google will only see the default version, so you're not getting any potential location based ranking. If it's on a larger scale, I wouldn't bother and would work on loaction specific landing pages instead.

It's true that Google can't read the actual content of a video - but they are getting there slowly but surely. First they'll be able to match audio wave forms, then pick out frames as essentially a selection of image sequences. What Google can do however, is work out when there is a video on page, what size the frame is, how long the content is and how it's encoded/embedded. For additional information - like you say, transcripts, Schema and video sitemaps can be used. Therefore, to a certain extent, you can get away with putting duplicate video content across your site and showing different meta elements in the video sitemap - but only if you don't host with YouTube. Google  can work out, using the aforementioned methods, whether or not YouTube videos are direct duplicates and prevent you from uploading them. Nonetheless - videos are always "good" content, by virtue of being a rich media type.

Looks to me like lots of ebay search results are indexed in Google... Search google for "baseball cards for sale" No panda problem there. If you know how to get rid of these I would really enjoy it. 

Me too.  It was that video that helped to clear things up for me.  Then I could see when to use robots.txt vs the noindex meta tag.  It has made a big difference in how I manage sites that have large amounts of content that can be sorted in a huge number of ways.

It may be true that a devalued page on a high quality site may have more value than a develaued site on a low quaility site. but only one copy of duplicate contnet will not be devalued. i have not seen anything from google to sugest anything different. nothing about high value sites or manual or auto posting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtbNpeYP_OM

first a 301 redirect is only going to help if you have links pointing to the page, if not then I would 404. if you 301, remeber that the page you redirect to, does not have to be relevant to the old page, but needs to be relevant to the link text and the page the link is comming from. so link text, linking page and linked page should be relevant, the old page no longer counts for anything,

looks weird and i would fix personally,  but if you leave off http:  a URL does resolve. look at the indexing on the site and see if the canonical rules are being followed since they are already implemented on the site.

Unfortunately, it is very situational and tough to tell without seeing the sites. I tend to agree with Marcus that it generally makes me a little nervous, but Zachary is right - sitewide links aren't necessarily bad. They just tend to be associated with quality issues, especially on large scale. Still, one site is one site. Worst case, those links are probably just being devalued (in other words, Google is turning down the volume on them). If you're sharing content across the two sites, you might want to try a cross-domain canonical tag instead. It really depends on the degree of the duplication. Still, a link bank from each piece of content to the original content is generally a good idea. Any sitewide links, like footer links, on top of that, are probably very low value. Whether I'd remove, nofollow, or leave them alone, though, really depends a lot on the quality and the relationship between the two sites.

Thanks Russ, It is set up wtih #, so users can easily link to & navigate to a specific page. It is quite a undertaking to transition, so we are primarily looking for business reasons for why it may help us.

Sorry, do you mean titles ?

If you do a noindex,follow meta tag, that'll essentially do the same thing as canonicalizing them as far as the effect in the SERPS is concerned. These tag pages will be deindexed. The noindex tag will just de-index them. The canonical tag will de-index them as well, but will work more like a 301 redirect for the search engines. So if you think you have link juice to these tag pages that you'd like to redirect to a category page, you can canonicalize them other noindex,follow is fine. The pages will still work as is in either case.

I would say it might not hurt you in the short run but my belief is you never want to put all your eggs in one basket. What happens if that site goes down or out of business. What if Google decides their site is of low value and demotes them which can imapct their link juice. What if they get deindexed or decide to remove your links? It is best to get links from a variety of sources that way if one site goes down you still have links on other sites. I hope this helps and good luck.

Are they internal missing links or external missing links? If internal, then that would be a big problem.You can click on the link that will show you three options. Error details, in sitemap or linked from. Make sure none are from sitemap. If external, not so much a problem because it would be beyond your control as to who is trying to link to your site. My webmaster tools show missing links all the time from outside sources we have nothing to do with. I usually just contact the source and ask them to remove the link, or if its from a semi quality site Ill ask them to fix the link and give them the accurate url. I would make sure you have a 404 error page setup for any bad urls linking to your site. Hope this helps.

We've used all of these. I must say....YEXT scares me sometimes....I'm not sure why...but kinda like how YP.com scares me. We are a partner with YEXT and Localeze....and I worry about dupes/overlaps between the two trying to figure out which content to use. Anyone else use the two together and have any concerns? I think WhiteSpark is also a great tool.... Thanks for the insight! Great stuff.

Hi Michelle, Numbers are needed in the URL if you do not have a proper site map for Google News. In step 5 of the first link, Cyrus mentions that SEOmoz created that site map, and has since been getting referrals from Google News without the need for numbers in the URL. The numbers are usually not included in the URL on purpose, they're just there if two posts have the same title, and can especially happen in YouMoz if someone submits an article, it's rejected, and then they submit an updated article with the same title. Cyrus noticed that it was those posts that did well in Google News, then made it such that all of the blog posts are in the Google News sitemap.