How we help users and webmasters with duplicate content
We've designed algorithms to help prevent duplicate content from negatively affecting webmasters and the user experience.

1. When we detect duplicate content, such as through variations caused by URL parameters, we group the duplicate URLs into one cluster.

2. We select what we think is the "best" URL to represent the cluster in search results.

_3. We then consolidate properties of the URLs in the cluster, such as link popularity, to the representative URL._Consolidating properties from duplicates into one representative URL often provides users with more accurate search results.

If you find you have duplicate content as mentioned above, can you help search engines understand your site?
First, no worries, there are many sites on the web that utilize URL parameters and for valid reasons. But yes, you can help reduce potential problems for search engines by:

1. Removing unnecessary URL parameters -- keep the URL as clean as possible.

2. Submitting a Sitemap with the canonical (i.e. representative) version of each URL. While we can't guarantee that our algorithms will display the Sitemap's URL in search results, it's helpful to indicate the canonical preference.

Source

Hi Jorge,

If I am not mistaken the /product-page would receive link juice for the links with ?afl=XXXXXX at the end.  No need to worry.

Hi Joshua,

In my opinion I do not believe the read more button is a good idea, but not because of an SEO issue.  I don't think it's hurting you because GoogleBot can tell the difference between a div hidden for spam and a div hidden for valid reasons.  See this quote :

The goal of our guidelines against hidden text and cloaking are to ensure that a user gets the same information as the Googlebot. However, our definition of webspam is dependent on the webmaster's intent. For example, common sense tells us that not all hidden text means webspam--e.g. hidden DIV tags for drop-down menus are probably not webspam, whereas hidden DIVs stuffed full of unrelated keywords are more likely to indicate webspam.

Source

That being said, I do not think the "Read More" button is a good idea in your particular case for the following reasons :

1. Your pages are a bit lacking in content.  You should be trying to beefing them up a bit, you are on the right track but could definitely use some improvement.  In most cases it seems like the "Read More" button is only hiding one or two sentences.
2. If you want the photo section to always be in view I would recommend putting it in the sidebar or somehow off to the side.  I am running on a MacBook Pro at 1680x1050 and the "Read More" button is not even on my screen, much less the photos section.
3. I can't find any discernable call-to-action on the pages, as a user i'm sort of unsure of the purpose of the site is aside from information.  If this is what you intended then more power to you, but it's always good to give the users some kind of action to follow, whether that be contacting you for a brochure, or booking a reservation.  Ann Smarty has a great article on how to do this.

If I were in your position I would nix the read more button, go with a 2 column layout and put the call to action in a very obvious spot in a color that stands out.  Maybe a big button with text that says "Learn to surf for only $35" or something.

I hope this helped and sorry if my advice was not what you are expecting!

Ah I understand now.  SEOmoz does not have anything like this in their arsenal.  There are a number of tools that you can use to do this, the two i'm familiar with :

• Raven Tools
• Authority Labs

Of the two I found Raven Tools much better but Authority has some features Raven does not so it is a matter of preference.  Best of luck!

Could you provide some clarification on your question?  In my mind tracking the positions of multiple keywords over time is the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of your SEO efforts, along with :

• of Visitors (Broken down into Traffic Sources)

• of Conversions (Try to assign a dollar amount for this)

• Statistics on the amount of Indexed data

Follow this up with :

• A snapshot of this same data from last month (or last quarter, or last week) to highlight what you've done for the website with a particular emphasis on ROI.
• A plan for what you are doing next month (or next quarter, or next week)

Obviously if the client wants to get further into specifics you should be knowledgeable and prepared to do this.

Sam Crocker wrote a great YouMoz post on this just last week, it's a great read : Improving Reporting Efficiency and Relevance

This is my opinion and is not backed up by any concrete evidence.

Given the choice, I would opt for the cross-domain rel canonical.  Matt Cuts has said that google prioritizes the original page in search results (link references rel canonical within domain, not cross-domain) and based on todays whiteboard friday and this video from matt cuts, I think rel canonical is the way things are moving, particularly for content syndication.

Edit: It also just occurred to me that there is no reason you can't ask for both.  Rel canonical is helpful to GoogleBot determining who the original content creator is but offers absolutely nothing for the user.  It takes little more than the flick of a pen to require your syndication partners to include both rel canonical and a link back.

Edit #2 : Regarding your question about the difference between the Google Source Attribution tag vs. Cross-Domain rel canonical :

Update 2/11/11:

We've had a lot of interest in these meta tags, particularly in how the syndication-source tag relates to rel=canonical. After evaluating this feedback, we’ve updated our system to use rel=canonical instead of syndication-source, if both are specified.

If you know the full URL, rel=canonical is preferred, and you need not specify syndication-source.

If you know a partial URL, or just the domain name, continue using syndication-source.

We've also had people ask "why metatag instead of linktag"? We actually support both forms for the tag, and you can use either. However, we believe the linktag form is more in line with the spirit of the standard, and encourage new users to implement the linktag form rather than the metatag form we originally proposed.

Source