Welcome to the Q&A Forum

As the thread discusses, a while back we started using Screaming Frog and love it.  Recommended.

Hi Moz Community,

We have a client who is legitimately repurposing, or scraping, content from site A to site B. I looked into it and Google recommends the cross-domain rel=canonical tag below:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html

The issue is it is not a one to one situation. In fact site B will have several pages of content from site A all on one URL. Below is an example of what they are trying to accomplish.

EX - www.siteB.com/apples-and-oranges is made up of content from www.siteA.com/apples & www.siteB.com/oranges

So with that said, are we still in fear of getting hit for duplicate content? Should we add multiple rel=canonical tags to reflect both pages? What should be our course of action.

if you already haven't, make sure you look at adding a homepage canonical tag too

I would also consider adding a noindex tag if you want the urls removed.

A client of ours has experienced a large drop in traffic (per GA) from apps.facebook.com referral source in the last 30 days. After a lot of searching, its apparent that there is not a lot of chatter on this topic. So this is a twofold topic.....

1. has anyone observed a drop in apps.facebook.com referrals lately as well?

2. does anyone have any best practices learning on optimizing these pages? Facebook guidance and content in general on the topic is virtually not existent. Google is still clearly indexing the url structure so its visible in search at least.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22apps.facebook.com

Syndicating a product feed to a Facebook app is no different than syndicating a product feed to Google Product or Shopzilla or Shopping.com. The Shoptab app points to the native site content similar to any other product feed on the web.  Assuming worst case scenario that somehow you did trip a duplicate content algorithm, duplicate content is really a filter, not a penalty (except under circumstances where you are blatantly trying to spam the index), and Google is most likely to show your original site content under almost any circumstances like this.

Full Disclosure: Our firm works with Shoptab on digital marketing optimization.

If your page content supports using UGC (reviews, comments, etc), this is an excellent way to get different spellings and vernacular of users into content organically. If it is written by users, then it's a very natural part of your content. As a member of the Bazaarvoice Advisory board, I see evidence of the great organic lift from reviews/customer posts over and over related to words and spellings that only UGC generates. Through this content, you optimize easily and have a chance to rank on numerous variations.

Hi Anthony - we found Screaming Frog a few weeks ago. Definitely a solid tool.

so far no luck!

Has anyone demonstrated measurable value from routinely tagging your posts? I am of the mindset that what is good for a user/reader is good for SEO and therefore the posts should be tagged. I wanted to see if anyone else had specific experience to the positive or negative.

If your page content supports using UGC (reviews, comments, etc), this is an excellent way to get different spellings and vernacular of users into content organically. If it is written by users, then it's a very natural part of your content. As a member of the Bazaarvoice Advisory board, I see evidence of the great organic lift from reviews/customer posts over and over related to words and spellings that only UGC generates. Through this content, you optimize easily and have a chance to rank on numerous variations.