Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I don't believe it's on the current roadmap, but you can check and add this and/or any feature request here: https://seomoz.zendesk.com/forums/293194-Moz-Feature-Requests

A good and reputable site would be: http://www.majesticseo.com/reports/bulk-backlink-checker There are other sites but other sites also have spam on it

I looked at the sitemap, and they are including the http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-story-of-seomoz but not the canonical page - http://www.masternewmedia.org/entrepreneurship-the-full-story-of-seomoz-told-by-rand-fishkin/ So based on this example, the page on SEOMoz is still included in the sitemap, regardless if it has a canonical or not. This seems to make sense, since canonical links are used only as a hint and not an absolute directive. I also noticed that Google is choosing to index and rank both pages, on Page 1. SEOMoz  is ranking higher on my browser for "the full story of seomoz".  A few things going on here. Why is google choosing to rank SEOMoz higher than Mastermedia.org for this page?  There's a canonical setup, but google is choosing not to follow it.  (again its a hint not an absolute)  this doesn't always work. I would think Google would be able to filter out the duplicate content easy.  In this example, they are clearly not.   SEOMoz is ranking #4 and Masternewmedia.org is ranking #5 for query "the full story of seomoz"

Ryan Kent is #1 on the users board, and his answers that I've read in the pro Q&A are always right on.  He's the director at Vitopian, and it sounds like they've been helping out sites with Panda and Penguin issues (he wrote a great Penguin-related post here). He'd be the first person I'd look to for advice.

Hi, Those sites are correctly serving a 200 page. Think of it this way - if you were searching for 'sdagasdgasdgasg' in SEOmoz (as in above URL), this term is not found yet on any page on site. But, it may be contained on a page that is published in the future (highly unlikely for that term I know, but you get what I mean). Hence they serve a 200 page. In terms of usability, if you were on a site and you searched for something and were presented with a generic 404 page, you'd probably think that something had gone amiss with the search functionality. However, if you were presented with a 200 page with "Sorry, no results found" you would be more likely to assume the search functionality had in fact worked, there was just nothing to return.

Thanks for your responses. @EGOL - I would agree that merging the sites would be ideal given that they share such a large database. Unfortunately, this isn't an option for our company (at this point-in-time). Acquiring new content for our product pages has been tossed around, but would be a HUGE undertaking, so its on the "back burner" for the moment. @Ben Fox - We came to the conclusion that it was content because it was the only clear "offender" on the list of potential problems. However, the fact that only 3 of our sites got penalized perplexes me as well. It would have made more sense had all of our sites suffered a penalty (luckily only 3 did). One response I got from another forum was: since google removed enough duplicate content (3 sites in our case) it deemed that the others were "original". We didn't point canonicals to any one site (like 9 going to 1). We only added the rel=canonical to our manufacturer category pages (a small percentage of pages). Since some of our domains sell products that aren't "niche specific" we told these pages to send preference to their proper niche domain (hope that made sense). For discussion purposes, here is a response I got from another forum: Why has only one site recovered?I suspect/assume the other sites will bounce back the same way after their own 30 day penalties expire.>Why would only 3 of our sites be affected by this "filter"/Panda if many of them share the same content????? maybe removing the first site allowed the scoring penalty applied to the other sites to shrink in size.  as each site was removed, the penalty applied to the others correspondingly shrunk.  ?????>Is it a coincidence that it was an exact 30 day "filter"?No.  30 day is a common penalty.Does anyone agree with these? I've heard of the 30 day penalty before. If this is the case, then a warning from Google would be nice.