Welcome to the Q&A Forum

One of our blog posts was just linked to from a paper.li site; the post on the site was then tweeted by the site's owner. From what I was able to determine, paper.li is little more than an aggregator, and the tweet was most likely automated. So, this is my two-part question: 1) Is the paper.li platform one that Penguin disapproves of, and 2) if so, should I prepare to disavow?

Say you've got a Magento e-commerce site and you want to add Schema.org Microdata to it to take advantage of Google's Rich Snippets feature. Would the markup be part of the page's HTML TITLE . . . or somewhere in the bare-bones description (usually wrought by inputting data into separate fields in the CMS), e.g., Item: Something
Price: $00.00
Short Description: blah, blah, blah Or, hidden somewhere in the header? Or, can it be marked-up somewhere beneath my lengthy (and Panda-friendly) content and subsequently extracted by Google and highlighted in the SERPs? Admittedly, I'm more than a bit late to the Schema.org party and I'm a content-guy anyway; and not much good at under-the-hood stuff. I figure I'd better get my chops together, now. I've searched Moz.com's Q&A as well as Google's and Schema.org's and haven't come up with an answer yet that doesn't require that I learn a whole new vocabulary.

I've been following various threads having to do with URL length and Google's happiness therewith and have yet to find an answer to the question posed in the title. Some answers and discussions have come close, but none I've found have addressed this with any specificity. Here are four hypothetical URLs of varying lengths and configurations: EXAMPLE ONE:
my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (115 characters) EXAMPLE TWO: sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (126 characters) EXAMPLE THREE: www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (130 characters) EXAMPLE FOUR: http://www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (137 characters) Assuming the examples contain appropriate keywords and are linked to appropriate anchor text (etc.,) how would Google look upon each? All I've been able to garner thus far is that URLs should be as short as possible while still containing and contextualizing keywords. I have 500+ URLs to review for the company I work for and could use some guidance; yes, I know I should test, but testing is problematical to the extreme; I look to the collective/accumulated wisdom of the MOZVerse for help. Thanks.

I've been tasked with writing scripts for upward of 100 YouTube videos describing my company's products. In more than a few cases, the products are so similar as to be almost identical; unfortunately, they aren't and will require their own videos. If I create a "template" script, I would save hours and hours of tedium. For example: Video 1: (VOICEOVER) Buy the  ABC widget today! Video 2: (VOICEOVER) Buy the XYZ widget today! So, my question is: Would I be looking at a duplicate content issue? Jeff McRichie's terrific Whiteboard Friday about YouTube Ranking Factors mentioned that YouTube has an auto-transcription feature that might expose my self-plagiarism, and I don't want to get dinged. BTW, this isn't a matter of my being too lazy to write individualized content; it's more that 1) the products are almost identical, and 2) I have just about a week to write, produce, and act(!) in all of them.

A few months ago, in hopes of a) helping new customers navigate the sometimes-arcane language used in the precious metals industry and b) earning some props from Google for making the site more user friendly, I talked the Powers-That-Be into allowing me to create a glossary with links from some unfamiliar terms in each product description and added appropriate <title>tages for each term.</p> <p>My question is: <strong>In the opinion of SEOMoz was this endeavor a brilliant, transformative SEO brainstorm—or just a waste of my time?</strong></p> <p>We haven't been running analytics, so we are flying blind.</p> <p>Here's the 411:<br /> <br />Website: www.goldmart.com<br />Glossary: www.goldmart.com/glossary</p> <p>A sample description: http://www.goldmart.com/1-oz-pamp-suisse-lunar-snake-gold-bar-9999-fine-in-assay.html</p></title>

I believe this has been addresses and answered previously, but despite searching the Q&A archives, I was unable to find the question and answer. So, please be gentle and patient: We have an eCommerce site with several hundred products, most of which use the structure: www.mysite.com/subcategory/itemA.html. We wish to feature itemA as a "daily special" item, and our Magento developer has recommended: www.mysite.com/internet-daily-special/**itemA.html ** Because itemA.html is the same page—albeit following a different path—will Google see this as duplicate content? Thanks.

Does anybody know of a tool that can "grade" content for Panda compliance. For example, it might look at: • the total number of words on the page • the average number of words in sentences • grammar • spelling • repetitious words and/or phrases • Readability—using algorithms such as: Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Flesch Kincaid Grade Level Gunning Fog Score Coleman Liau Index Automated Readability Index (ARI) For the last 5 months I've been writing and rewriting literally 100s of catalog descriptions—adhering to the "no duplicate content" and "adding value" rubrics—but in an extremely informal style. I would like to know if I'm at least meeting Google Panda's minimum standards.

Two questions regarding the META KEYWORDS tag: Does Google actually penalize you for using the KEYWORD META tag, or does it just ignore it? On a related matter, I've noticed that when I use the On-Page Optimization Tool, it indicates that my header includes the KEYWORD tag, although I've taken great pains to remove keywords from pages that had been optimized by a previous SEO. I'm using Magento - Could it be a legacy issue? Would that make a difference?

For the last few months I've been rewriting website descriptions for the company I work for, trying to comply with the Panda algorithm as best I could. There are about 400 items. Today I am going to begin working on titles and descriptions. Question: Once I'm finished and have run the site through SEOMoz's pro tools, I would like to have Google look at the site _**in toto  **_once the changes have been made so that maybe we can procure some decent organic rankings. Can the site be resubmitted, and what is the procedure? Ps. Today I am asking my fellow employees to help me proofread each description for grammar, spelling, accuracy, and keyword placement. I am also asking for suggestions from them.

I'm optimizing a Magento site and have a question regarding duplicate content. Currently, you can dig down to an individual product listings with URLs similar to this: (1) http://www.foo.com/category/sub-category/sub-sub-category/item.html However, we also have a "Top 50" area, with a link to the same page; however, the URL for that page is: (2) http://www.foo.com/item.html Both are dynamic, so a static page for (2) with different content is out of the question. I asked IT to have both (1)  and (2) point to exactly the same page, within the same categor(ies), but they said I would have choose one or the other So, here are my questions: Will Google consider the pages to be duplicates of each other, and thus incur a penalty; If I were to choose one structure, which would be the "friendliest?" I've think I've come across questions similar to this in Q&A, but haven't been able to locate them; so, I'm sorry to be posting a "duplicate question." I've been busy writing completely different product descriptions, nice and deep and value-rich, for more than 300 items and categories and am only now starting to look at current SEO protocols; I'm hoping to ask Google for a site reevaluation in another 2 weeks or so. Thanks.