Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Since only your organic traffic dropped and the reported time frame corresponds to some Google algorithm updates an explanation for this may be that your website lost some rankings for keywords that were bringing you good amount of traffic.
After changes to Google algorithm settled you probably regain the rankings.
I repeat, this is my presumptions in case only your organic traffic dropped.

If all your traffic dropped it may be because you have some website downtime...

Or it may be that your traffic didn't drop, just your tracking tool had difficulties (maybe someone  in your team accidentally uninstalled tracking code from some of the pages)

Casey,

In your case the transaction value is 0 (zero). You only have the goal value.
The Total Goal Value is the number of goal competitions multiplied by the goal value. So if you have 20 goal competitions for your goal that is set up with the $10 value, then you have a total goal value of 20 x $10 = $200.

As for page value:
Let's say a visitor visits 5 different pages of your website when he completes the Goal you set up as having $10 value.
That means Google Analytics will assign to each of these pages a $10/5 = $2 value for this visit.

Please note the above example is just a simple one I thought will help you better understand the concept.

Are you sure it is negative SEO or is your site actually containing these keywords? 
Your website may contain that keywords if you were hacked.

Go to Google Webmaster Tools and check if there, under Optimization -> Content Keywords these strange keywords appear. If they do, check your website'c source code, someone may have injected strange text/links in your code.

As for Negative SEO use opensiteexplorer.org to find those bad links and use the Disavowal Tool to block them.

In those articles the backlinks to your website are the only ones?

If there are also other backlinks maybe the one posting the article put those links to your site without any intention to cause you harm, maybe he just wanted to add other backlinks too, to make the article look more natural.

I'm not a big fan of the Disavow Links Tool. In the official release Google said this tool should be used just in case you receive the Unnatural links warning. My advice is to always think twice before using this tool.

Google will see this as duplicate content because it is exactly the same content....correct?

If you need to have this just to facilitate a vendor, use rel="canonical" on the duplicate page to specify the original source. Rel canonical also works cross-domain, for more info see this official post on Google Webmaster central blog: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ro/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html

Casey, here is the exact quote from Google Analytics' blog on the Page Value topic:

Now there are a couple of things to be aware of. The calculation does not include all transaction and goal revenue for the entire visit. It’s only the goal conversions and transactions that happen after the page is viewed, not before the page is viewed. 
Source: http://analytics.blogspot.ro/2012/07/understanding-and-using-page-value.html

So in your case the number of Unique Page Views you have, 2345 - also includes Page Views that happened after the goal was completed, and these are not taken into consideration when calculating the Page Value.

Let me give you an example: someone lands on your website on an internal page, completes the Goal without going to your homepage and after the goal is completed he is redirected to the homepage.

The visit to the homepage is taken into consideration for the "Unique Page Views" metrics, but is not taken into consideration in the unique page views used when calculating the Page Value.

In some cases Google rewrites the title of web pages in its search results pages. Here is the exact answer from a Google Employee about this issue:

In general, when we run across titles that appear to be sub-optimal, we may choose to rewrite them in the search results. This could happen when the titles are particularly short, shared across large parts of your site or appear to be mostly a collection of keywords. One thing you can do to help prevent this is to make sure that your titles and descriptions are relevant, unique and compelling, without being "stuffed" with too much boilerplate text across your site.

(source: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/GxPvar_uSwE/ARAsgZ5Rt0kJ)

In your case I believe Google decided that your page is also relevant for the keyword "CCTV Cameras" and added that to the page title.

Link building is not only about branded and generic anchor texts, of course you should try to get some links with keyword rich anchor text. There are a lot of useful resources on the MOZ blog about this, here is a recent one: http://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-links-to-your-blog-a-case-study

Also you should make sure you have good on-page optimization for each of the pages on your website, after doing good keyword research.

Yes and no.

Yes you can add websites that you don't own to your SEOmoz campaigns.

No, you can't see those keywords because they are taken from Google Analytics, and if you don't own the website you probably won't be able to link the Analytics account with your SEOMoz campaign.

But if you want you can try this free tool to see some of the keywords a website is rankings for: rankpanel.com - it shows keywords even for websites that you don't own.

I personally use as canonical the URL of the page that was already indexed, that Google already knows of.

So in your case on ask.charter.com I would put 
.

But if you want to use it the other way around I don't think it's a mistake, because on Google Webmaster Support they define a canonical page as:

A canonical page is the preferred version of a set of pages with highly similar content. (source here)

So, the canonical page is the preferred one, not the original/first indexed one.

With the help of a designer. The slides in the example you pointed are images. You need someone creative with decedent skills in a graphics editing program like Photoshop and after the images are made you use any slideshow creation software to transform them into a presentation.

The Moz data is not erroneous.
But Moz can't know if your rel canonical setting are OK or not, because these settings depend on your own website particularities.

You shouldn't ignore these notices, what you should do is check them, and when the rel canonical URL doesn't match the actual URL of the page verify that the setting is correct, that you don't want the actual URL to rank but instead you want the canonical URL to rank because the actual page is duplicate content of the canonical page.

I looked at the html code and saw the big amount of text content that was not visible on the page.

Bruce, you are not disagreeing with me...
I said good design alone will not get many links if it doesn't come with good content.
You are saying you are not linking to good content if it resides on a website with bad design. 
Your affirmation doesn't oppose yo mine.

And I agree that maybe the term of Page Rank was probably not clear, that's why when I noticed nobody was pointing out crystal clear the fact that PR comes from links I added my comment.

For example I liked a lot Keri Morgret's witty answer, but I felt like it was not totally "newbie friendly".

I'm not sure if this is really what you need, but you can try with siteliner.com (free service from Copyscape). Their reports show page averages - size in Kb and number of words - and also details for each of the pages checked.

Unfortunately this service is limited to 500 pages per site and I found no way to export reports.
But if no one comes up with a better suggestion maybe this can help.

As I previously said, since this content is not on your website I don't think it will cause you problems. But since I assume you are using this strategy to get backlinks, I don't think is really effective. I repeat: You may get some boost for a week or two when these links are indexed, but later, when they are flagged as coming from pages with duplicate content they will be worthless.

Hi William,

From what I see this in not really a SEO problem, is a CMS problem. Have you tried contacting SiteFinity support or related forums?

As for duplicate content issues, you need to find a way to use rel=canonical on the site, take a look here to see if this helps: http://www.sitefinitywatch.com/blog/09-03-11/Specifying_a_Preferred_URL_the_Google_way.aspx

I sometimes put noindex on category pages too, because I have the manual excerpts also present on the blog index pages (the pages that list all blog posts in chronological order).

But is really a decision I make based on the type of website. There are websites where category pages present much interest then the chronological post listing. On these I don't use noindex, but I also do something to prevent duplicate content - I add some static text to the category pages so that they don't contain only the post excerpts.

From what I saw Google makes efforts in identifying sneaky domain redirection techniques, so I believe when you do a legit one like you described above there are no risks.

As for domain redirects/301 redirects - these aren't different redirect types, just different way of saying it. What a consider a "domain redirect" must be a 301 redirect in order to pass link juice. If you have doubts about how these work, contact your hosting provider to make sure what they call "domain redirect" is actually a 301 http responce status code that the server sends out for that domain.

For websites that have their content not publicly available there is a solution from Google to index it, is called "First Click Free" and consists on providing to the visitors that arrived to your site via Google search the entire piece of content ranked in the search  results for free.

In Google Support they explain it better and in more detail, so you should read this: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=74536 and also the technical requirements.