Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Tom, there is undoubtedly a difference, speaking broadly in terms of the use of query strings - at the SEO level - and at the usability / customer retention level.

URLs that are easy to read are easier to remember and easier to copy-paste too - meaning more robust - less likely to break or get corrupted when run through text parsers.

Google is explicit about their preference for clean urls, and a clean url structure for your site as a whole. I'm not sure if this is relevant to where you're at with your particular project, but I always try build a site with a url schema that exposes the information architecture and content priority as much as possible, usually with important pages close to the site root.

If you have to use query strings - and of course they are sometimes unavoidable, or actually just the best tool for the job at hand - Google Webmaster Tools allows you to provide explicit classifications for each parameter. Personally I thought this was a great addition to their suite of tools.

Thanks EGOL, this is an interesting piece of anecdotal evidence for me.

I have been wondering along the same lines as the OP - specifically because I'm a little concerned that Google is parsing javascript now (in some cases) and may be iffy about javascript copy truncation. However, I would view this in my own case, as a user experience improvement.

For example : I sometimes use javascript to truncate my copy where I feel it may push other content too far down the page. Some users will want to read the whole passage, but others will be scanning for the content further down.

Is this the type of 'hidden text' you are referring to? The full content is easily accessible at the click of a 'show more' link. The content is hidden by the javascript, so will be available to user agents that do not execute javascript.