Webwork - 2:26 pm on Oct 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Users approach structured search - directories - in ways that argue FOR a degree of duplication in how the "same data" is presented or is accessible.

I don't see the proposition as setting up a false dichotomy, especially in the realm of the "duplicate content dialogue". So much time has been invested in that dialogue that could be more fruitfully applied elsewhere.

First off, I'm never quite clear if people are clear about exactly what duplicate content is OR should be.

The only definition of duplicate content that a search engine should be concerned about is "content that duplicates content previously and originally published on another website".

Instead, I have read countless threads about people sweating about "duplicate content" on their own website - duplicate only by virtue that the content management system made the content accessible through a variety of ways of accessing that data. THAT type of "duplicate content" should never have been part of the Google duplicate content dialogue - but it was and still is - as evidenced by this thread and the OP's concern for duplicate content.

So, I respectfully say rubbish to your "false dichotomy", my dear Buckworks. ;)

In the case of duplicate content on one's own website, which duplication only reflects an attempt to facilitate user access, I say the problem is Google's to fix and one should not have to give it a second thought. Forget fretting about what to "no follow" and just devote your time to making the data accessible to users by offering boy taxonomic aides AND on site search.

I say it's a case of "OR" . . AND fiddlesticks to Google. :p