Will this be hurting my SE ranking?

[handcrafteduk]

I am trying to get my site ranked better by Google and think i might have worked out what the problem is? I just wanted to see if others can confirm it?

Looking at the indexed pages in my site, I notice Google has indexed:

ww.handcrafteduk.com/products_new.html?zenid=55f7424c38f086c

and

ww.handcrafteduk.com/products_new.html?zenid=4e5ce213ab72aad27

I deliberately misspelt the links as they weren't showing up properly on webproworld!

Now, these are both the same page (I have since stopped Google indexing pages which include the zenid). Would this be classed as duplicate content? And, would it be having a negative effect on my ranking? If so, do you know how long it will take Google to 'forget' these zenid pages?

Thanks,

Gary

[crankydave]

If you've stopped the pages with zenid from being indexed, both the pages you listed above will not be indexed. Do you have a third page with identical content?

Dave

[handcrafteduk]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply. I've only just (within the last week) changed my site to prevent Google from indexing the zenid pages.

There are LOADS (at least 5) examples of the same page being indexed under different zenid's.

[wige]

As of a few months ago, robots exclusions (if you are using robots.txt to block indexing) were processed the next time the page was crawled, not when the robots file was checked. The rate at which the pages were removed from the index would depend then on how quickly Google crawls your pages. For your pages to rebound from negative effects may take longer, though. Google may have to pull your full site two or three times before a minor penalty gets re-assessed and removed.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by handcrafteduk

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply. I've only just (within the last week) changed my site to prevent Google from indexing the zenid pages.

There are LOADS (at least 5) examples of the same page being indexed under different zenid's.

Are there pages identical to the zenid pages without the zenid?

The reason I ask is because if there's not, then you will lose those pages altogether.

Dave

[handcrafteduk]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Are there pages identical to the zenid pages without the zenid?

The reason I ask is because if there's not, then you will lose those pages altogether.

Dave

Sorry Dave. Yes, there are pages identical to the ones with the zenid's but only one page in each case.

[crankydave]

It is *possible* that the duplicate pages were harming your rankings. It's also *possible* that they were simply being filtered. It is a good idea either way, to only allow the SE's to index one copy of the page.

As wige pointed out, give the SE's some time to visit your site a few times and "digest" the changes. In the mean time, continue to work on building and bettering your link profile.

Dave

[chowell]

Originally Posted by crankydave

It is *possible* that the duplicate pages were harming your rankings. It's also *possible* that they were simply being filtered. It is a good idea either way, to only allow the SE's to index one copy of the page.

As wige pointed out, give the SE's some time to visit your site a few times and "digest" the changes. In the mean time, continue to work on building and bettering your link profile.

Dave

I agree w/ Dave. Just give it more time... the engines will filter out the pages that they're not supposed to be seeing. Once they filter them out, they should no longer be a duplicate content penalty (risk).

[Clint1]

Even G and the G employees have said that URL's with "?" in them can be "problematic" to index. Dupe content or not, there's no way of knowing if any issues may be due to dupe content, or the "?" in them.

[davidweb]

I am trying to get my site ranked better by Google and think i might have worked out what the problem is? I just wanted to see if others can confirm it?

Looking at the indexed pages in my site, I notice Google has indexed:

ww.handcrafteduk.com/products_new.html?zenid=55f7424c38f086c

and

ww.handcrafteduk.com/products_new.html?zenid=4e5ce213ab72aad27

As far as Search Engines are concerned, it doesnt matter whether your page is

abc.asp?x=woof
abc.html?x=woof
or any other

Google will perceive both these following pages as different pages :-

Page 1 : abc.html?x=woof
Page 2 : abc.html?x=meow

"IF BOTH THESE PAGES CONSIST OF SAME CONTENT, ONLY THEN IT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM".

In your case both the pages have same content, which might rub Google the wrong way. You will end up loosing rankings for this particular page, because of duplicate content.

ADVICE: You just need to restore the original/First Crawled Page/Link. Discard the other link, or change the content of second link/page, EVERYTHING WILL BE BACK TO NORMAL

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by handcrafteduk

Now, these are both the same page (I have since stopped Google indexing pages which include the zenid). Would this be classed as duplicate content? And, would it be having a negative effect on my ranking? If so, do you know how long it will take Google to 'forget' these zenid pages?

Originally Posted by crankydave

Are there pages identical to the zenid pages without the zenid? The reason I ask is because if there's not, then you will lose those pages altogether.

Originally Posted by handcrafteduk

Sorry Dave. Yes, there are pages identical to the ones with the zenid's but only one page in each case.

Originally Posted by crankydave

It is *possible* that the duplicate pages were harming your rankings. It's also *possible* that they were simply being filtered. It is a good idea either way, to only allow the SE's to index one copy of the page.

Originally Posted by chowell

I agree w/ Dave. Just give it more time... the engines will filter out the pages that they're not supposed to be seeing. Once they filter them out, they should no longer be a duplicate content penalty (risk).

There is no duplicate content "penalty". There is a duplicate content filter - what that means is Google will genrally index one page and ignore the others. To ensure that Google chooses the one you want indexed, block the others using robots.txt, as handcrafteduk has done with the ?zend pages.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Even G and the G employees have said that URL's with "?" in them can be "problematic" to index. Dupe content or not, there's no way of knowing if any issues may be due to dupe content, or the "?" in them.

That's incorrect and has been for quite some time now.

Google and Dynamic Pages

If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few.

Allow search bots to crawl your sites without session IDs or arguments that track their path through the site. These techniques are useful for tracking individual user behavior, but the access pattern of bots is entirely different. Using these techniques may result in incomplete indexing of your site, as bots may not be able to eliminate URLs that look different but actually point to the same page.

Update to our webmaster guidelines
By Vanessa Fox
Wed, Oct 25 2006

As the web continues to change and evolve, our algorithms change right along with it. Recently, as a result of one of those algorithmic changes, we've modified our webmaster guidelines. Previously, these stated:

However, we've recently removed that technical guideline, and now index URLs that contain that parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is. Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

The Duplicate Content Penalty Myth
Mar. 15, 2007
Jill Whalen

One of the most prevalent misnomers being bandied about is the phrase "duplicate content penalty." I'm here to tell you that there is no such thing as a search engine penalty for duplicate content... Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that the search engines like and appreciate duplicate content -- they don't. But they don't specifically penalize websites that happen to have some duplicate content.

Duplicate content has been and always will be a natural part of the Web. It's nothing to be afraid of. If your site has some dupe content for whatever reason, you don't have to lose sleep every night worrying about the wrath of the Google gods. They're not going to shoot lightning bolts at your site from the sky, nor are they going to banish your entire website from ever showing up when someone searches for what you offer. The duplicate content probably won't show up in searches, but that's not the same thing as a penalty.

...

In order to supply its users with a variety of information on their search query, search engines have created duplicate content "filters" (not penalties) that attempt to weed out the information they already know about. Certainly, if your page is one of those that is filtered, it may very well feel like a penalty to you, but it's not -- it's a filter.

Search engine penalties are reserved for pages and sites that are purposely attempting to trick the search engines in one form or another. Penalties can be meted out algorithmically when obvious deceptions exist on a page, or they can be personally handed out by a search engineer who discovers an infraction through spam reports and other means. To many people's surprise, penalties rarely happen to the average website. Most that receive a penalty know exactly what they did to deserve it.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by minstrel

There is no duplicate content "penalty". There is a duplicate content filter - what that means is Google will genrally index one page and ignore the others. To ensure that Google chooses the one you want indexed, block the others using robots.txt, as handcrafteduk has done with the ?zend pages.

While I agree that there is no "duplicate content penalty" per se, it is *possible* for duplicate content to harm rankings. If Google happens to filter out the most desirable page, the one they choose to display *may* not rank as high. Also, since the duplicate pages are probably found via links, each one of them diminish the value of all the other links on the page, making it *possible* to harm rankings for other terms as well in a variety of ways.

Dave

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by crankydave

While I agree that there is no "duplicate content penalty" per se, it is *possible* for duplicate content to harm rankings. If Google happens to filter out the most desirable page, the one they choose to display *may* not rank as high.

Yes. That's why I said

To ensure that Google chooses the one you want indexed, block the others using robots.txt

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by minstrel

That's incorrect and has been for quite some time now.

Not according to G employees at the G forums. In fact it even says this on the page you quoted. "If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few." You even mentioned that yourself. That article by Fox is from 10-2006, yet long after that, the G employees in the forums are saying dynamic URL's are not a good idea because they can be problematic.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Not according to G employees at the G forums. In fact it even says this on the page you quoted. "If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few." You even mentioned that yourself. That article by Fox is from 10-2006, yet long after that, the G employees in the forums are saying dynamic URL's are not a good idea because they can be problematic.

The key there is the highlighted part above - "not every search engine". The major players - Google, Yahoo, and MSN Search - don't have any difficulty as long as there are not too many parameters and you don't include session IDs which rely on cookies.

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Update to our webmaster guidelines

From Vanessa, a Google employee:

if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is... If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

[Clint1]

That's exactly what you said before, and I'll say the same thing again. Not according to G employees at the G forums.

That article by Fox is from 10-2006, yet long after that, the G employees in the forums are saying dynamic URL's are not a good idea because they can be problematic.

Information from G is always flaky. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. If posts by G employees at the G forums are saying they are problematic and can cause some issues, I wouldn't take the risk and gamble with it.

[ctabuk]

Clint1 - when you say Google Forums -do you mean Google Community

If so - it has no relationship with Google Inc

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Clint1 - when you say Google Forums -do you mean Google Community

If so - it has no relationship with Google Inc

No, Google Groups . I couldn't tell you where any of the threads or posts are because I had no reason to mark or save them, because I only use plain static URL's. Going from memory, some of the posts were in threads about supplemental index, but the main thread was deleted. Apparently G wanted to cover up some negative facts being discussed.

[ctabuk]

Well thank you for the explanation -but being unable to collaborate something posted as 'being factual' means very little in terms of being from an 'authoritive source' - always be able to support statements. Thanks.

When I clicked that link - I had even forgotten that I am a member and I've never seen a google official in there.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Well thank you for the explanation -but being unable to collaborate something posted as 'being factual' means very little in terms of being from an 'authoritive source' - always be able to support statements. Thanks.

Take it for whatever its worth. I'm only stating what google employees have said there. If you don't believe them, then that's your prerogative, the same as it's your prerogative to use URL's that can potentially cause problems (if you choose to do that). Are they lying? I guess anything is possible, but if they were I would be more inclined to believe they would lie about things NOT causing problems.

When I clicked that link - I had even forgotten that I am a member and I've never seen a google official in there.

Adam and "Thu" are the only ones I can recall by name, but there's a few others. You can tell G employees posts by a square blue "G" icon next to their name. (The past few weeks there's been very few if any, which has caused some chatter among the members as to where they've been. They just don't have any explanations as to most problems so they don't post).

[crankydave]

In this case, I don't think the SE's are having a problem with the dynamic URL's since the same content is being indexed for several different ones.

It still remains a good idea not to allow multiple URL's to be indexed with identical content but as was mentioned in another thread, I suspect that the weak link profile has far more to do with the rankings, or lack thereof, than what the duplicate pages *may* be causing.

Dave

[ctabuk]

Dave just following up on that - if you were the webmaster with a few 'dynamic URL's' with similar content - would using a variety of servers assist?

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Clint1

That's exactly what you said before, and I'll say the same thing again. Not according to G employees at the G forums.

That article by Fox is from 10-2006, yet long after that, the G employees in the forums are saying dynamic URL's are not a good idea because they can be problematic.

And in response I'll say this again: As an unqualified statement, the claim that "dynamic URL's are not a good idea because they can be problematic" is meaningless and just plain wrong.

Dynamic URL's may or may not be problematic. It depends on how they are constructed, and most especially on whether it contains a lot of parameters (i.e., more than teo) or session IDs. If neither of those applies (e.g., out-of-the-box vBulletin URLs), then dynamic URLs are just fine.

The Google citations I posted before ARE directly from Google. Google groups isn't an official arm of Google - it's a forum. Even Matt Cutts blog, despite his disclaimer, is a lot more official in terms of statements about Google policies, etc.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Information from G is always flaky. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. If posts by G employees at the G forums are saying they are problematic and can cause some issues, I wouldn't take the risk and gamble with it.

See above. I would like to see the specific reference for your claims. Otherwise, I've already posted specific references from Google employees discounting and/or limiting the claim and I'd put my money on those.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by minstrel

And in response I'll say this again: As an unqualified statement, the claim that "dynamic URL's are not a good idea because they can be problematic" is meaningless and just plain wrong.

Then tell that to google, not me.

The Google citations I posted before ARE directly from Google.

And what I commented on is also directly from google (employees).

Google groups isn't an official arm of Google - it's a forum. Even Matt Cutts blog, despite his disclaimer, is a lot more official in terms of statements about Google policies, etc.

"Official" or not, irrelevant. It's as "official" as you can get, but regardless of the forum it's coming directly from G employees.

See above. I would like to see the specific reference for your claims. Otherwise, I've already posted specific references from Google employees discounting and/or limiting the claim and I'd put my money on those.

As I stated, it's no concern of mine: "I couldn't tell you where any of the threads or posts are because I had no reason to mark or save them, because I only use plain static URL's. Going from memory, some of the posts were in threads about supplemental index, but the main thread was deleted. Apparently G wanted to cover up some negative facts being discussed."

"Put your money" where you choose. I'm more inclined to believe personal posts than a blog. Either way, as I also stated, why take the risk and gamble on it? This happens all the time: If someone from a drug company says their drug is totally safe, yet another person from the same company says it can cause sudden death, why take it and gamble?

It's up to you if YOU want to take the risk, or up to anyone else if they want to gamble with it. But if I used those types of URL's, I personally would fix them, that's just me.

I've read the posts, and I've read the blog(s). They contradict one another which is nothing new. Take the risk, or don't take the risk. It's up to the site owner. Simple as that.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Then tell that to google, not me.

Google already knows, as noted in my post above:

Google Webmaster Guidleines: Dynamic Pages

If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few.

Allow search bots to crawl your sites without session IDs or arguments that track their path through the site. These techniques are useful for tracking individual user behavior, but the access pattern of bots is entirely different. Using these techniques may result in incomplete indexing of your site, as bots may not be able to eliminate URLs that look different but actually point to the same page.

Google Webmaster Central: Update to our webmaster guidelines

As the web continues to change and evolve, our algorithms change right along with it. Recently, as a result of one of those algorithmic changes, we've modified our webmaster guidelines. Previously, these stated:

However, we've recently removed that technical guideline, and now index URLs that contain that parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is. Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

Originally Posted by Clint1

And what I commented on is also directly from google (employees).

Perhaps. We have no way of knowing that. I posted my sources so you can read them for yourself. You didn't so we're expected to just take your word for it.

[wige]

But you just restated the main point in the last two sentences of your last quote:

Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

Search engines can and may hang on these complex URLs. The bots try to process them as accurately as possible, but the more complexity, the greater the risk of problems.

Search engines also prefer clean URLs. They try to present users with the cleanest possible URL, in the case of duplicate URLs, they try to give the user the version with the least parameters. In the case of (302, internal, on-site, same domain) redirects, they do the same thing. Matt Cutts has mentioned this in his blog, and the last update of the webmaster guidlines also addressed it.

Additionally, having session IDs available in a URL presents a significant security risk. For example, if you click a link to a web site from a search engine which contains a session id, and then log in and conduct a sale, then I click the same link after you leave but before the session expires, I might have access to your account on the site, as well as your transaction information.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by wige

But you just restated the main point in the last two sentences of your last quote:

Yes, and I've repeated that several times:

"dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers"

So it's clear that it is NOT dynamic URLs per se that create a problem - it's long parameter strings and session IDs.

To get specific, I use mod_rewrite on WordPress and on my directory scripts, because the native URLs are clumsy and may (possibly) create a problem.

I would not use mod_rewrite on vBulletin because (1) the standard URLs are spidered just fine by Google, and (2) mod_rewrite does exact some additonal sever toll so I don't use it unless I think I need it.

Originally Posted by wige

Search engines can and may hang on these complex URLs. The bots try to process them as accurately as possible, but the more complexity, the greater the risk of problems.

Yes. See above.

Originally Posted by wige

Search engines also prefer clean URLs. They try to present users with the cleanest possible URL, in the case of duplicate URLs, they try to give the user the version with the least parameters. In the case of (302, internal, on-site, same domain) redirects, they do the same thing. Matt Cutts has mentioned this in his blog, and the last update of the webmaster guidlines also addressed it.

You're not saying anything I haven't already said: Avoid long parameter strings and session IDs for spiders. But that does NOT mean you have to avoid dynamic URLs and convert eberything to statis HTML links. That hasn't been true for any major search engine since about 2004.

Originally Posted by wige

Additionally, having session IDs available in a URL presents a significant security risk.

I have said repeatedly, "Don't present spiders with session IDs", following what Google has been saying for years now. Again, this does NOT mean don't use dynamic URLs. It means look carefully at how they are constructed.

[crankydave]

I think we're getting hung up a bit on semantics here and from what I'm reading in the posts, most of you seem to be in general agreement...

Long and complex URL's, containing a large number of parameters, *can/may/could/might* be problematic. If you wish to continue to "discuss" this in particular, please start a new thread.

Back to the OP's original question, it certainly appears to me that the SE's are NOT having a problem with the dynamic URL's since they ARE being followed and indexed.

David... No, different servers aren't the solution. What handcrafteduk has already implemented is. Namely, using the robots.txt to prevent the SE's from indexing the duplicate pages. Using a URL rewrite may not be an option and even if it was, they'd have the same problem with identical content being indexed on several pages only they'd have "pretty" URL's. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say it's something to do with their cart.

Dave

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by minstrel

Perhaps. We have no way of knowing that. I posted my sources so you can read them for yourself. You didn't so we're expected to just take your word for it.

Look, someone came here asking for help. I HELPED, as you did. I didn't bash your post or comment, and I expect the same in return. I don't even have the time to come here and post, yet I DID, and I didn't post what I saw to be called a liar. If you don't believe it, then tuff.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Look, someone came here asking for help. I HELPED, as you did. I didn't bash your post or comment, and I expect the same in return. I don't even have the time to come here and post, yet I DID, and I didn't post what I saw to be called a liar. If you don't believe it, then tuff.

I didn't call you a liar. Not anywhere.

I do think you are mistaken and/or misinformed.

You offered an opinion in the thread but failed to back it up with anything except "I saw it some where on the Google Forum".

I offered a dissenting opinion and backed it up with official statements from Google.

That's all.

Make of it what you will.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by minstrel

I didn't call you a liar. Not anywhere.

"I posted my sources so you can read them for yourself. You didn't so we're expected to just take your word for it." IS calling someone a liar.

I do think you are mistaken and/or misinformed.

Then it is not I that is misinformed, it's the google employees at the forum!!

You offered an opinion in the thread but failed to back it up with anything except "I saw it some where on the Google Forum".

And I assume everything you post, all comments, speculation, etc., you can always back up with proof from somewhere on the web? I don't think so.

I offered a dissenting opinion and backed it up with official statements from Google.

And I did the same, and if you want to go to the G forums and SEARCH for the info posted by the G employees, be my guest.

That's all.

No, that is not all you did. You copped some attitude with me, just because it happened to be contrary to what you said, then you apparently somehow felt your reputation was "threatened" by it; hence you alluded to me being a liar. No matter how you want to sugar coat it, telling someone "so we're expected to just take your word for it" is rude, condescending, and calling them a liar no matter how you look it. You could have chosen your words MUCH more carefully, diplomatically, and friendly. It's too late now.

What's wrong with: "I believe that you saw that, but the info I have seen is different from yours". Polite, friendly, and not insulting.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Clint1

"I posted my sources so you can read them for yourself. You didn't so we're expected to just take your word for it." IS calling someone a liar.

Not in my world. When I want to call someone a liar, I just say "You're a liar". And I didn't do that.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Then it is not I that is misinformed, it's the google employees at the forum!!

I think there are a few possibilities:

1. you read something some time ago and misinterpreted it

2. you read something some time ago and now remember it incorrectly

3. you read something some time ago and now are attributing incorrectly to a Google employee

4. you read something some time ago by a Google employee that may have been correct in a narrow context or was qualified - but as paraphrased here is incorrect

Originally Posted by Clint1

And I assume everything you post, all comments, speculation, etc., you can always back up with proof from somewhere on the web? I don't think so.

Well, let's see. What have I said in this thread that I didn't back up?

Originally Posted by Clint1

No, that is not all you did. You copped some attitude with me, just because it happened to be contrary to what you said, then you apparently somehow felt your reputation was "threatened" by it; hence you alluded to me being a liar. No matter how you want to sugar coat it, telling someone "so we're expected to just take your word for it" is rude, condescending, and calling them a liar no matter how you look it. You could have chosen your words MUCH more carefully, diplomatically, and friendly. It's too late now.

You chose to get in a snit. You could have chosen not to do that.

Originally Posted by Clint1

What's wrong with: "I believe that you saw that, but the info I have seen is different from yours". Polite, friendly, and not insulting.

How about this? "I believe that you think you read something somewhere and {choose options 1, 2, 3, or 4 above}."

Polite, friendly, and not insulting.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by minstrel

I think there are a few possibilities:

1. you read something some time ago and misinterpreted it

2. you read something some time ago and now remember it incorrectly

3. you read something some time ago and now are attributing incorrectly to a Google employee

4. you read something some time ago by a Google employee that may have been correct in a narrow context or was qualified - but as paraphrased here is incorrect

Nope, no to all 4. It was about 2-3 months ago, and was quite clear.

Well, let's see. What have I said in this thread that I didn't back up?

I'm not talking about JUST THIS thread, I'm talking about ALL of you posts.

You chose to get in a snit. You could have chosen not to do that.

No, I chose to stand up for myself and not have you walk on me. This never would have happened if you would not have been plain rude about it.

How about this? "I believe that you think you read something somewhere and {choose options 1, 2, 3, or 4 above}."
Polite, friendly, and not insulting.

That may have originally worked, but like I said too late for that now.

I think if someone would have said to you, "so we're expected to just take your word for it" would get a rise out of you as well. And a simple "sorry, I didn't mean it that way" would have sufficed.

Again, I'm a very busy person as I'm sure many here are as well, with their work that does NOT involve "professional forum posters", or "SEO services" or the like. When those types take the time to reply to someone's post, is out of kindness and wanting to try and help, and we DO NOT need someone giving rude condescending remarks to our posts. Just because you (or anyone else) may have X number of posts, is meaningless and does not indicate someone is a "genius" or an "idiot". I can show you a forum or two where I have 5000+ posts, and I don't for a second feel I know more or should be treated any differently that someone there with 10 posts.

[wige]

I must have missed something... I know we are debating some point, but everyone seems to be saying the same thing, and just phrasing it differently...

Are we all in agreement that having query strings is something that should be avoided because of the security risk of session ids, because strings with numerous parameters may be too long or confusing for some, but not all, spiders and because if the parameters are in a different order they may be seen by some engines as different pages, and that this added complexity adds to the risk (however slight) of pages being indexed improperly?

Further, are we in agreement that in response to the original post that this session id could have triggered a duplicate content filter? (To the OP, I would suggest that, if possible, you turn off the display of session IDs in your URLs, to prevent other possible issues... for example, if you block URLs that have session IDs, but all your links to that page have the session ID, you may not get credit for the link. The same applies to external links that contain a session id.)

As far as citing references, I can see why they are important, especially when discussing issues like this because in addition to who the poster is and the context of the cited information, the way SEs handle these issues is changing rapidly, and one thing that can help sort out the contradictory information is how recent it was posted, as well as how reliable the source is, or whether the information is likely to be theory or fact. That said, there is no reason for attacking someone for posting about something that they read but no longer have the link to, and he did make that fact clear in his post.

[crankydave]

Clint and Minstrel...

Take your discussion to PM please. No more in this thread about it.

Thank you.

Dave