Duplicate content - or is google smarter?

Discussion in 'Google' started by princet, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. #1
    I run a php review script, and it creates multiple url's for the same product.
    Example:
    /showproduct.php/product/190/cat/32
    /showproduct.php/product/190/
    /showproduct.php/product/190/cat/all

    I could probably find even more url's for the same product.
    The site is brand new and is starting to get indexed by google, and I notice that some products get listed twice with different url's

    I talked to the author of the script, and he told me not to worry, because google was smart and would only list one of the url's in the end.

    I'm thinking that I'm risking a penalty, and after working several weeks setting up the script, adding products and promoting I would be devastated to see my project get a google penalty.

    Should I worry or will google figure this out?
     
    princet, Dec 19, 2006 IP
  2. hhheng

    hhheng Banned

    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    Duplicate content are 2 different domains have same contents. And for you it's same dynamic pages under same domain. Google will not penalize you for this, because it's dynamic generated urls. But google will not list one of the urls, it will list the 3.
     
    hhheng, Dec 19, 2006 IP
  3. princet

    princet Peon

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Well that's both good and bad news then.
    It would be better for my ranking if google only gave value to one of the url's.

    Thanks for your input.
     
    princet, Dec 19, 2006 IP
  4. hooperman

    hooperman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #4
    There is no penalty as such. Duplicate content merely gets filtered out of the SERPS. Unfortunately, you don't get to choose which duplicate content stays (it's not always the original).
     
    hooperman, Dec 19, 2006 IP