| 6:07 pm on Apr 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I'm inclined to favour method #2 above. Simply because it'd be easy to tuck your content into a CMS, or into plain *.html files, and loading the content wouldn't take much longer than loading other dependent files like images, *.js and *.css files.
However I suspect (without proof) that bots go trolling for any URLs found within scripts. For instance, if I happen to inject this script onto a page:
var dummy = "http://www.example.com/dummypage.html"
My theory is that Googlebot will visit that URL and try to index it. Even though it's just a string in a JS variable, never actually used for anything.
'Twould be a simple hypothesis to test...
| 6:10 pm on Apr 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A fifth option is to use iframes, the contents of which theoretically wouldn't "count" as being on the same URL as the page which contains it. Again, another untested hypothesis. There are people who specialize in this kind of myth debunking, I'm disappointed that none of them are contributing here...
| 5:26 am on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My natal language is spanish, not english... I don't understand if you are trying to put dup content but avoiding Google to see it?
| 10:24 am on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
So, you're suggesting good old cloacking... and possible penalties, number 2 has my vote.
| 11:11 am on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|use iframes, the contents of which theoretically wouldn't "count" as being on the same URL as the page which contains it |
using this method on a few sites.
iframes are treated similar to links from the host page to the one displayed. Content is indexed only for the URL in the frame. You can use the iframe on as many pages as you want to. it'll promote the importance of its target. on my sites it even has PageRank with no actual links to it.
and once separated this way, you can decide whether to add or not add noindex, nocache if you want to... I haven't done this but it only makes sense that it'd work as it should on any other URL.
| 12:20 pm on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I use method #5 - I don't have or use potential duplicate content on my site.
| 1:10 pm on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I guess the fact that I've never seen (or more accurately, never noticed) these in SERPs might be evidence to the contrary, but just because something doesn't rank well doesn't mean it wouldn't throw a wrench into my SEO.
| 2:30 pm on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If you had content in external JS files, could you exclude your js directory in robots.txt?
| 5:44 pm on Apr 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Where is the danger for dupe content when the bot cant even render pages?
| 12:43 pm on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
| 1:32 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Would invite comments from the experts..