Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree with what Miriam stated, but to play Devil's advocate, it would be interesting to do a study to see if things changed up (unique descriptions for each) would improve local rankings.  I get that it could be on the IYP/directory to make the changes to better their site, but wouldn't it be on the business owner to have unique content there to ensure their listing ranks higher than others that are using duplicate descriptions? For example, I work with an eCommerce company that sells over 50,000 products, most of which are on other affiliate marketing channels.  Currently, our team members that run those channels pull the generic content that we're given from the manufacturer.  As we're going through updating our content to be unique for our individual product pages, I've asked them NOT to pull that content through the feed (our developers have helped them manage this part).  One of our team members, who's interested in SEO, asked me what would be the best way to help improve his listings on Amazon.  In my opinion, he could keep the generic content that hundreds of other competitors are using (they also pulled it from the manufacturer) or he could write unique content for Amazon and maybe, just maybe, have a better chance of those pages ranking higher than competitors because it is unique content, i.e. it's the business taking the initiative here. To take this back to local SEO, that unique description for top players in the IYP/directoy realm could potentially bring in better results.  Again, this is only theoretical, I don't have solid proof around this, hence the reason for a study, but the person/company that does the study needs to think objectively here. Great question by the way, I was wondering what others thought about this too, which is how I stumbled upon it.

Unless I'm missing something in the question I'm pretty confident that it's just the different browsers interpretation of the CSS used to format the page!? Some CSS elements are supported in most browsers but not necessarily all of them....

I would like to report that it is now accessible via http://ranktracker.moz.com/, my bad for the panic mode, I am under gun here with a major contract and report I need to compile and this was just so unexpected as I have very little office time left to wrap it up but thanks so much for a rapid response and clarification, hope I can get the most of this remaining hour or so.

Hey Omid, I've taken a good look through various websites built with Adobe Muse. These were ones featured in "Site of the Day" on the Adobe website, and so I imagine are considered the best of the best. I'm not impressed by the quality of the code. Perhaps the most worrying thing for me is that things that are clearly semantically headers are being rendered in tags. Additionally there doesn't seem to be any alt text applied to any images on sites I've found running Muse. They also seem to rely on a large number of HTTP requests and many resource seem to be poorly compressed. Without knowing too much about the tool, everything I mentioned could be down to individual designers - but the trend is there. I wouldn't rank their markup too highly, and there's some pretty unoptimised elements on those sites. I think that if your site does well on SERPs with those sites it's probably in spite of your markup. Andrew