No, as one would be canonical, What you need to remember is are you doing this for the user or for Google? if your doing it for Google then don't.

This is a battle over useability and relevance. You have to decide who your audience is and what they would like to see. Wikipedia is very good on SEO as they use in text link (and just about everyone on the planet visits them!!).

However some users wouldn't still realise that the in text links could be pressed, so you may get more bounce or people may not feel comfortable trying to find things on your site, some people still like a logical journey to the things that interest them.

Dependent on your type of site I would use both!! however I would use canonical links in your text providing that the your structure is such that all your pages naturally already get spidered.

Also don't do this programmatically or you will get it wrong, i.e. if Wikipedia's page on Fury Seals linked to a Page on Industrial Seals Google would penalise the Fury Seals Page because of irrelevance.

The easiest way would be a permanent re-direct on the offending URLs.

Check the incoming variable i.e. vc and permanently re-direct if it's an offending using 301.Google when seeing the 301 will drop the URL from the index.

There is a URL removal tool in Google Web Master Tools if the URL contains any personal information.

I had a similar issue a few days ago, the index is already starting to clear up, from a corrupt XML site map.

A few years ago I added a location finder which then auto generated product content for ERIKS. This generated 1000's of URLs overnight, the problem was Google thought I was spamming it's indexes. Google does follow all links on a web page/sitemap however it's what it does with them that counts. The ERIKS Hose Technology Site http://www.eriks-hose-technology.com relies on this type of coding using Classic ASP.

I have a number of other sites which also rank highly on Google You'll find Revolvo by searching for 'Split Roller Bearings'. So it's also not as bad at ranking as some people may tend to think. I would agree however that English URLs are better than coded. The main issue here is to make sure that your main keyword is in the URI to ensure that Google knows what your page is about.

Thanks for the advice, we already create and submit the XML sitemap to Google, that wasn't the question. Would there be any benefit in creating the urllist.txt file?

I'm using a tool which generates urllist.txt and looking on the SEO Forums it seems that Yahoo used to use this. What I'd like to know is is it still used anywhere and should we have it on the site?