Duplicate content penalty?

If internal linking is inconsistent

[geekay]

Could someone please confirm if there is or is not a Google dup content problem if the internal linking structure of a site is inconsistent?

Both links "http ://www.example.com/widget.html" and "widget.html" point at the page "widget.html", within the same folder. (NB. This is not the www and non-www problem, which is a known and real issue in external linking.)

[samwise]

I would hope that google would know that they are the same page. But I really don't know. It's an interesting question.

[Wizard]

Google remembers links as URLs, so as link "widget.html" leads to URL "www.example.com/widget.html" it will be the same link for Google, as will be "/widget.html" or "../widget.html" on a page one directory level deep.

[quixote]

I manage a site that uses frames, and we use a piece of javascript to force pages (esp. those that are found by search engines/external links) into their proper frame and load the framework, etc.

As an example, the URL

[domain.com...]

when clicked from an external link, is reloaded in it's frameset by calling the URL:

[domain.com...]
(note the? in the URL)

I have found both links indexed on Google, the normal one with proper description (and much higher rank) and the? one with just the overall site's meta description (only found after I "repeat search with omitted results included").

So my question is, does Google see these as 2 duplicate pages, 2 separate pages, or can it even index the? page at all? Would one link hurt the other?

[lbobke]

I think looking at the Google cache for both pages should clarify matters.
If the page with the "?" is a frame page, chances are you will see no content.

Laurenz

[quixote]

I think looking at the Google cache for both pages should clarify matters.
If the page with the "?" is a frame page, chances are you will see no content.

Thanks Laurenz, I checked Google's cache and sure enough, the ? link returned a blank page. Excellent!

[g1smd]

I also see some problems when you link to any index page that is within a folder and you have omitted the trailing / on the URL. That then forces an automatic redirect from folder to folder/ which is an uneccesary step. Always include the trailing / on the URL.

I have just helped re-code a dynamic site and have changed all of the links to inlude the trailing / as well as setting up a 301 redirect from non-www to www. The whole site has been reindexed within just a few days. All of the pages without www have been dropped. Additionally, any pages without the trailing / are being dropped, whether or not the URL includes the www. Only pages that begin www and include the / are now listed.