Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'd like to know the answer too...

Our page is an e-commerce site, and Google sometimes gives the duplicate content reports for pages that don't match, but haven't got much of unique content. Thought maybe you solved the problem?

Don't you get any duplicate content messages at Google webmaster tools?

But rel=canonical is offered only for search engines to learn whether the page is a duplicate or an original.

Maybe there's someone else that could tell their experience about this topic?

We thought about using rel=next/prev and rel=canonical. But would html paginated webpages showing that all the same products are on category main page (where Google bot can't expand to see them) would lie to Google.

And it would be like showing that all my stuff is one some page that bots can't see them. Isn't it called cloaking?

I have seen Matt Cutts video about links per page and know that too many links "may" harm the flow of link juice. But what should e-commerce sites do?

We have category pages with more than a few thousands products in each of them. So linking to each of them dilutes the PR flow?

We could use pagination, but doesn't it give a disadvantage in user experience when he needs to go 10 links deep to reach a product? And Google robots won't update the information frequently because it will be on the lowest part of our site?

Now our goal is to make all our products appear like Facebook scroll down page. We know that Google doesn't use Ajax to see more links so robots and all the users that don't have JavaScript could see the paginated results. Is it a good way to put all products and links like this?

Everyone says don't dilute the PR, but what is the approximate numbers?

As for now we have an e-commerce site, with many products. We want our page to be easy slide (as on Facebook scroll down), and it would put like 5000+ links on one page, would this dilute?

Isn't this information not too old?

This video was made since panda, penguin and all other big G's animals came

As I have seen somewhere that underscore "_" unites the names and Google looks at it like one word with no spaces.

Wouldn't it be bad for long product names?

example.com/2010_chrysler_grand_voyager_2l would be the same as write example.com/2010chryslergrandvoyager2l ?

Just trying to get the best out of everything

In this case, doesn't product-name-111 is all keywords for a page? My product if my product page doesn't consist of 111 it would make a mess for Google.

I can give one example that could messes up:
example.com/cars-1963

And 1963 isn't a year nor it's a model number of a car, it's the ID of a catalog.

Hello,

My company is going to change URLs to example.com/category or example.com/product.

When we will change the URLs to product or category pages somehow we have to check whether the requested page is from category table in DB or from products table (this gives much speed to page load time).

So we have to choose how to make the different product and category pages.
Programmers said that we need to insert id to URL.

So the question is: Which is the better way to place an id to an URL?

example.com/product-name?id=111

example.com/product-name/111

example.com/product_name-111

Or maybe we should use some other punctuation mark to separate id from product name?

p.s. I have read Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs by Google and it still didn't answered which is the best for all of the pages.

Somehow others solve this problem by typing only the names to the URL, but could anyone tell what that technology should be?

I'd like to know the answer too...

Our page is an e-commerce site, and Google sometimes gives the duplicate content reports for pages that don't match, but haven't got much of unique content. Thought maybe you solved the problem?

I have seen Matt Cutts video about links per page and know that too many links "may" harm the flow of link juice. But what should e-commerce sites do?

We have category pages with more than a few thousands products in each of them. So linking to each of them dilutes the PR flow?

We could use pagination, but doesn't it give a disadvantage in user experience when he needs to go 10 links deep to reach a product? And Google robots won't update the information frequently because it will be on the lowest part of our site?

Now our goal is to make all our products appear like Facebook scroll down page. We know that Google doesn't use Ajax to see more links so robots and all the users that don't have JavaScript could see the paginated results. Is it a good way to put all products and links like this?