php linking causing duplicate content?

[mirrornl]

maybe its a newbee question,
but i just wonder, i have a few links pointing to my sits like this:
www.example.com/out.php?ID=#*$!x
they are listed in google with their own url, but title and snippet is my site, is this not causing duplicate content?

[Quadrille]

like this one - sample URL to illustrate WebmasterWorld linking style [pubcon.com]

I just entered [www...] .pubcon.com/blog/ [no space], WebmasterWorld did the rest.

It's a form of indirect link, usually used to disincentivise spammers, but also by those who fear 'passing page rank' to anyone except their sister :)

I don't see why it should cause duplicate content, however.

[mirrornl]

thank you for answering Quadrille
but the url i mean is getting (high) rankings on his own

not cgi, but php
exactly as the example i mentioned above

[theBear]

A link via a script (any script) to another site _CAN_ cause all kinds of things to happen depending upon the script and what was done by the linking site to prevent any possible issues.

Please note I did not say would or does, the weasel word I used was can.

Remember it is all in the weasel words.

Could have, would have, should have, and did have could all be the same but they don't need to be ;-).

[theBear]

Cgi, php, xyz makes no difference.

It is what they do that counts, the bot knows not how just what they do.

Nothing more , nothing less.

[mirrornl]

thanks TheBear...can you give a percentage of CAN?
10% causing problems?

did you ever see duplicate content problems caused this way?

[theBear]

Do a Google site search on WebmasterWorld and nph-proxy or tracker.php or get.php or go.php or kproxy or ....

[Quadrille]

If you follow the link, is it your page?

Exactly?

Mouseover a few links - are they the same?

Maybe even look at the source code ... is it the same?

What URL shows in your browser? the whole address, or just your URL?

If everything is the same, and the URL is bringing people to your site, I don't think you should worry; someone has placed that link on a page instead of your direct link ... but it looks like no harm was done.

If anything is different, however ...

[mirrornl]

>If you follow the link, is it your page?
yes
>Exactly?
yes
>Mouseover a few links - are they the same?
yes
>Maybe even look at the source code ... is it the same?

>What URL shows in your browser? the whole address, or just your URL?
just my url

i feel much better now

Thanks a lot Quadrille and theBear!

[g1smd]

What HTTP status code does that other URL return?

If it is 200 or 302 then you potentially have a problem. If it is 301, then all is well.

The fact that those URLs are indexed, suggests that it is 302 or 200.

[mirrornl]

url itself 302
then "redirected" to mine : 200

[Quadrille]

you potentially have a problem

G1, surely them days is over?

[tedster]

Unfortunately, I've begun seeing an increase in 302 "hijacks" this month - mostly unintentional rather than malicious. I also thought that Google had this issue essentially licked.

Is there any scenario where a cross-domain 302 "should be" listed under the source url, rather than the target url? Heck, even within the same domain. I've never understood what challenges keep 302 handling from being just that simple for Google. But it's been years and years with no definitive fix, so there must be some complication that I'm not seeing.

One characteristic I noticed in almost all these 302 situations, is that the source url includes the "hijacked" domain's address - often in a query string or some end section of the source url.

[mirrornl]

in this case the source url does not include the target url

and target url has been banned

[g1smd]

>> If it is 200 or 302 then you potentially have a problem. <<

I should have said: If it is 200 then you really do have a big problem. If it is 302 then you potentially have a problem.

>> surely them days is over? <<

Errr. No.

[mirrornl]

thanks g1

[edited by: mirrornl at 12:02 pm (utc) on Jan. 15, 2007]

[g1smd]

Problem.

Read all the stuff about "302 redirect hijacks" on this forum some 18 to 30 months ago...

[mirrornl]

is it ok to have it removed as described here:
[webmasterworld.com...]

?

But it will be back after 6 months, sticked for a long time in the index.....

[g1smd]

Interesting comment at: [mattcutts.com...]

Another thing I picked up on is this:
www.google.com/search?q=allinurl:imdb.com/r/
These are 302 redirects that are being crawled and cached... the content is amazon.com’s, however.

[mirrornl]

lol, i would only have to remove 1 url

thx g1

[Martin40]

The fact that Google lists javascript links, suggests that Google doesn't (just) parse a document for anchor tags anymore, but that Googlebot clicks links.