Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Do you have feedback on my answer? I do believe it answers this question.

I think you are confused with local/business results and G+ pages appearing on the right rail.

I agree with Mike and like to add that its only black hat if your sites are not related.

The right hand side of the SERPs don't show company information immediately. Some sites that I've worked with that has had over 10 million visits a month and 60DA didn't get it until recently.

Also note that Google has stated they would not show rich snippets for sites that are new or have thin content. This was in the recent months and I think the number they stated was 15% less rich snippets to show up.

To get there you would need to be really active and have interactions with G+ users with your G+ page. The more interactions you have on G+ overall, the more likely your page would appear on the right rail.

Honestly, OSE can't really crawl all the pages on the web. Moz itself is not a provider of backlinks alone but a package service, tracking, crawling, monitoring.

For more accurate backlinks, I'd suggest using AHREFs, or Majestic. You will get much more accurate and updated data. I prefer to use AHREFS but to each his own.

I don't see a huge issue here if its changing. Cloaking would be providing something different then what an user is looking for.

I have a site that is extremely dynamic with new content being published all the time and purely white hat. This would not be considered cloaking. However, maybe it could have an indirect affect where bounce rates go up because the searcher didn't get what they were looking for.

To fix this as Lesley mentioned, you can easily just put a default meta description and it will never appear in the SERPs again...unless someone somehow specifically looks for those donation names/amounts.

I see, so you mean.

Title tag: SEO Tools @ Moz.com
Description Tag: SEO tools are awesome at Moz.com
SERP URL(Where the result actually points to): Moz.com/Tools

Nowadays Google includes your brand name automatically to the end of your title tag(if theres enough space), so it doesn't make any sense to include your URL in the title tag or description.

From an user POV it makes no sense to make a description or title not related to the actual URL. You want everything to relate to THAT URL, so Google ranks and prioritizes the correct one.

There is probably a better way, but I do know that BuzzStream has a search feature that gathers a bunch of sites for you and allows you to contact all of them with contact information. Of course you will have to filter them to get a higher response rate but that is one way to gather a bunch of sites quick.

A free method would be to search Google for .edu sites only with financial aid pages.

PR campaigns would be good as well.

I don't think your question is clear. How would a URL point to another page when they click through from the meta description? The description doesn't allow hyperlinks, so I don't see how putting a URL in there would result in any clicking through.

Also Penguin 2.1 and Penguin in general are link spamming tactics, what you mentioned seems to be about on page optimization, more likely Panda than Penguin.

Internal anchor text would most likely not dilute your anchor text profile for good or bad. I believe a Google employee did confirm internal anchor text would not be penalized by Penguin...external sources pointing to your site with anchor text could though. So that paints a picture for you.

I believe you are looking for

inpostauthor:"author name"

It is not working too great right now but was previously. I don't think author:"Author Name" works.

Its not cloaking.

However, I'd suggest adding a noindex, nofollow to that landing page, so there is no confusion between which is the original. The company I currently work for, we noindex, nofollow all of our testing pages that have different linking structure, and works well for us. Our test pages are activate under certain criterias like new user, 2nd time user etc.

You can use that in your robots.txt, which should work on crawls.

Or

you can also go into WMT and setup your parameters, in this case would be ?prodID.

I agree with Vadim.

Authorship is normally for articles while ratings are for reviews. Having a rating on an article is not as useful as having it for a review.

From previous experience and from what I've read, it is usually in affect within days. At most 2 weeks.

I'd be curious as well if anyone has seen any correlation between prices and rankings. I'd believe there would be no reason Google to rank an authoritative site lower just because a semi-authoritative site has a better price. Example would probably be Amazon and eBay, vice versa. The site's general authority would probably matter most and pricing would be a miniscule factor.

I'd disagree. This is obvious depending on where you release it. The new guideline does state optimized anchor text and if you are just linking to your homepage, that is fine.

As long as you are not optimizing the anchor text, it would be alright if you just link to your homepage with just the URL.

I was doing keyword research earlier today and now see the replaced landing page. This tool is garbage for SEO and more tailored for SEM.

The search volume for some terms are remarkably inaccurate. I really hope they start fine tuning this tool because it is definitely that great.

That is not the problem, Moz rank checker is often done at random times and at any given time a keyword could not be ranking.

I'm pretty sure Moz crawls pages with personalization off (pws=0). For instance I use to do freelance for http://www.canvaspaintings.com and they rank #1 for "canvas paintings", however sometimes they would not even appear in the top 100.

If Moz often gives the keyword the wrong ranking, you should follow up with them. If this happens maybe one or twice, it should not be a big problem. Just know that you are ranking.

Moz crawls and rank checks are all done at a specific point. And then fully updated on Mon/Wed I forgot what are the days now.

Basically it checks the rankings once or twice throughout the week and if your keyword is not ranking at the time...it state it was not ranking.

Best thing to do is to rank check certain unstable keywords by using firefox or chrome addons.

I partially agree with this.

The company I work for gets featured in lots of authoritative sites like MSN, Yahoo, NYTimes and etc. The problem here is that we get natural optimized anchor text and a lot of the times there are content partnerships with these sites where the same article is republished on their network.

So now you have 5-10 authoritative sites using the same article and followed anchor text AND you have 100 other low quality syndication sites/scrappers using the same article. This is all natural and part of how the business works in online publication. So penalizing this type of natural anchor text will become a problem in general if Google doesn't find the right way to classify this.

In no way, shape, or form are we trying to spam our anchor text, everything is natural. So this sucks a bit.

I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about this.