Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I believe you are playing with fire here... to me this looks like you are trying to manipulate search engines.

If you read the article About rel="canonical" on Google Webmasters Support, you will see they say rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive

Also in the same article they specify that rel="canonical" should be used on pages with identical content. Are you sure in your case the pages have identical content (per total) or just identical articles?

I searched for your page and looked at the code.

You have in line 6:

<title>visbymäklarna - Ditt förstahandsval på gotland.</title>

This is the title of the page, and this is correctly reported by SEOMoz.

On line 9 you also have:

This is a metatag that I'm not sure search engines take into consideration, because I personaly can't find any official documentation about this.

What matters is what you put in the <title>...</title> tag, that is considered the title of the page.

If you defined the redirect rules correctly and some works and some don't check if these new defined rules don't conflict with others previously declared. What errors do you get?

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.

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

It doesn't work because you are not doing it correctly

The Redirect command has 3 parameters:
1. The redirect type (in your case 301)
2. The location of the file/directory you want redirected relative to the root of your site
3. the full URL of the location you want that request sent to

You are mistaken the third parameter, because you are not putting there the full path. You should put something like this:

Redirect 301 /analyseverktoy/ http://www.yoursite.com/webanalyse
Redirect 301 /index.php/ledige-stillinger/ http://www.yoursite.com/
Redirect 301 /?page_id=352/ http://www.yoursite.com/

Every page you have graded also has a detailed Report Card, where all the factors are underlined and explained.

On the "On-page" section of your campaign, scroll down, under the overview of your grades and you will see the keywords associated with urls from your website. Click on those urls and you will see the detailed report.

I checked on my Android and the titles look the same, with "- Pure Mobile" at the end.

Have you tried cleaning your cache?

I don't see any "unlocked cell phone" in page titles when doing a site:puremobile.ca search on Google, they have been updated. You now have "- Pure Mobile" at the end of your titles

If you are getting a Fail in Critical factors that means the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL then the one you are trying to grade/optimize.

Are you looking at the report card of the page http://www.hometheatercooling.com/Audio-Fan.html?

To be more clear, the Pass in optional Factors means that yes, you use a canonical tag, the Fail in Critical factors means your canonical tag doesn't correspond to your page url.

Hi Eitan and thank you for your answer.

These lines are taken exactly from the Google Webmasters Help:

--begin quote:

Some examples of cloaking include:

• Serving a page of HTML text to search engines, while showing a page of images or Flash to users
• Inserting text or keywords into a page only when the User-agent requesting the page is a search engine, not a human visitor

-- end quote - source here

When they refer to serve the bots their own version of the content they mean it on the same page, through image alts, noscript tags, etc. They don't talk about creating other pages just for search engines.

Hi Eitan,

I quote you here: "Wix came up with the solution of auto-generating HTML versions for each Flash site and serving the Html version to the search engines bots on the server side."

Isn't this cloacking (presenting different content or URLs to human users and search engines)? That's a violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines!

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.

Here are my answers:

1. Blog comments are worthy, but not in the way most cheap link building providers want you to believe.
   Most are nofollow links, and if they are dofollow the actual page will have many comments, so the link juice is divided in many, and few goes to your own website.
   Links from blog commenting are worthy because they can bring referral traffic if you comment on blogs related to your niche and your comments are interesting.

2, 3 and 4) Many so called SEO companies offer the blog comments services because they are cheap and easy to do - they use software that automatically posts spun comments in list of blogs. In minutes they can post thousands of blog comments. Even if only 1% of those pass spam filters or are approved by mistake, or get on blogs that are not moderated they have something to show to the clients. 
If you want to rephrase my answer in fewer words I can put it like this: Because spam is cheap.

There are also good SEO companies that include these in their offer even if they know blog comments don't help much. They manage to get some great links by legit means, but they can't charge the client for - let's say - 10 links. Because clients want to see numbers. Wants to see "how many", not "how good".  
So to have better numbers  they add a few hundreds links from blog comments to the final bill, even if they now the real results will come from those only 10 good links that are not from blog comments.

How about Tarot websites? Animated gifs still rock on those ones.

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".

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.

Page Rank has nothing to do with themes. Page Rank is a value calculated based on links only.

Personally I believe you will not get many links because you have a design or another... It's the content that gets you links and eventually PR, not the theme.

If that website is added in a campaign, you can see other keywords apart from the monitored ones in Manage Keywords -> Find new keywords.

There is the list of top 200 keywords that bring the biggest number of organic visits to the website.

We do 301 redirects from URLs that return 404 errors for 2 reasons: 1) To not lose traffic 2) To not lose link juice So in your case I would do the following: To not lose traffic - I would check the stats of the website to see which of these pages received visits - if they are any I would do 301 redirects to pages that can provide the information the visitor was looking for in the first pace. To not lose link juice - For the remaining pages, I would check the value of the backlinks and see if they are worth it. If they are, I would do 301 redirect to the home. I personally don’t jump too easy in using Google disavowal tool. As they say on their official blog:

If you’ve been notified of a manual spam action based on “unnatural links” pointing to your site, this tool can help you address the issue. If you haven’t gotten this notification, this tool generally isn’t something you need to worry about. I’m not talking from experience here, but just from logic - if a bad link points to a page that doesn't exist on my site I don’t believe it can get me penalized.