Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'll 80% agree with Alan, although I've found that, in practice, the self-referencing canonical tag is usually fine. It wasn't the original intent, but at worst the search engines ignore it. For something like a session_ID, it can be pretty effective.

I would generally avoid Robots.txt blocking, as Alan said. If you can do a selective META NOINDEX, that's a safer bet here (for all 3 cases). You're unlikely to have inbound links to these versions of your pages, so you don't have to worry too much about link-juice. I just find that Robots.txt can be unpredictable, and if you block tons of pages, the search engines get crabby.

The other option for session_ID is to capture that ID as a cookie or server session, then 301-redirect to the URL with no session_ID. This one gets tricky fast, though, as it depends a lot on your implementation.

Unless you're seeing serious problems (like a Panda smackdown), I'd strongly suggest tackling one at a time, so that you can measure the changes. Large-scale blocking and indexation changes are always tricky, and it's good to keep a close eye on the data. If you try to remove everything at once, you won't know which changes accomplished what (good or bad). It all comes down to risk/reward. If you aren't having trouble and are being proactive, take it one step at a time. If you're having serious problems, you may have to take the plunge all at once.

I'm endorsing Stephen's idea, because if you really have no choice, I think it's a good potential alternative. THB's comments (which I thumbed up) are very important, though.

If you really have no choice, I do think the 302 is safer here - the canonical tag should override it. There is some risk, though, and it's definitely not ideal.

I'm not clear on the problem, but could you return a 503? It basically says "We've got a temporary problem - come back later" and, if it really is temporary, Google won't de-index the pages. If you're talking a couple of days, this may be a better solution. If you're talking a few weeks, you may have to take Stephen's advice. You might want to pull in expert help, though, because my gut reaction is that there's a better way to fix what's broken here.

No worries - I know we're looking to add to the history functionality, but I'm not sure if you can control the date-range yet. I pinged the product team, so they'll chime in if they can tell you something I can't.

I think we only collect data from when the campaigns are first created, so it might vary depending on the account age, but I'll check that with the product team and get back to you. That graph was just the default for me.

Well, even the Moz staff/associates don't seem to be agreeing on this one - it's definitely an unusual situation. There were some calls to try a .ca domain, but since you see so many .com's ranking, we're not sure that's going to have much of an impact.

Part of the problem is that real estate is a really competitive market for SEO, and many of the agents targeting Phoenix-related properties will also be local. My guts says that, if your client can only take on Canadian customers, then push the Canadian "local" signals hard, and don't worry about the Phoenix signals as much (except for content and keyword targeting).