Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Q Parameters

Technical SEO

909

DanSpeicher last edited by

I'm having several site issues and I want to see if the Q parameter in the URL is the issue.

Both of these index. Any capitalization combination brings up another indexed page:

http://www.website.com/index.php?q=contact-us.

and

http://www.website.com/index.php?q=cOntact-us

The other issue is Google crawl errors. The website has received increasingly more spam crawl errors. I've read that this is a common issue and most likely is a Google Bot problem. Would removing the q parameter fix this entirely?

Here is an example:

http://www.website/index.php?q=uk-cheap-chloe-bay-bag-wholesale-shoes
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
DanSpeicher last edited by

Thanks Ryan. I'm going to remove the parameters. I'm glad these issues are related.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
AdoptionHelp last edited by

Using a parameter to determine which page to bring up is problematic.

Search engines are getting better at crawling these types of URLs, but why leave anything to chance? And from the human perspective a traditional static URL is lightyears better.

Which is easier for you to tell a friend about?

coolsite.com/neat-article or coolsite.com/index.php?q=neat-article
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 1

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.

Start my free trial

Browse Questions

View

From

Sorted by

With category

Explore more categories

Related Questions

Why Google crawl parameter URLs?

Hi SEO Masters, Google is indexing this parameter URLs - 1- xyz.com/f1/f2/page?jewelry_styles=6165-4188-4184-4192-4180-6109-4191-6110&mode=li_23&p=2&filterable_stone_shapes=4114 2- xyz.com/f1/f2/page?jewelry_styles=6165-4188-4184-4192-4180-4169-4195&mode=li_23&p=2&filterable_stone_shapes=4115&filterable_metal_types=4163 I have handled by Google parameter like this - jewelry_styles= Narrows Let Googlebot decide mode= None Representative URL p= Paginates Let Googlebot decide filterable_stone_shapes= Narrows Let Googlebot decide filterable_metal_types= Narrows Let Googlebot decide and Canonical for both pages - xyz.com/f1/f2/page?p=2 So can you suggest me why Google indexed all related pages with this - xyz.com/f1/f2/page?p=2 But I have no issue with first page - xyz.com/f1/f2/page (with any parameter). Cononical of first page is working perfectly. Thanks
Rajesh
Technical SEO | | Rajesh.Prajapati

0
How to fix google index filled with redundant parameters

Hi All This follows on from a previous question (http://moz.com/community/q/how-to-fix-google-index-after-fixing-site-infected-with-malware) that on further investigation has become a much broader problem. I think this is an issue that may plague many sites following upgrades from CMS systems. First a little history. A new customer wanted to improve their site ranking and SEO. We discovered the site was running an old version of Joomla and had been hacked. URL's such as http://domain.com/index.php?vc=427&Buy_Pinnacle_Studio_14_Ultimate redirected users to other sites and the site was ranking for buy adobe or buy microsoft. There was no notification in webmaster tools that the site had been hacked. So an upgrade to a later version of Joomla was required and we implemented SEF URLs at the same time. This fixed the hacking problem, we now had SEF url's, fixed a lot of duplicate content and added new titles and descriptions. Problem is that after a couple of months things aren't really improving. The site is still ranking for adobe and microsoft and a lot of other rubbish and the urls like http://domain.com/index.php?vc=427&Buy_Pinnacle_Studio_14_Ultimate are still sending visitors but to the home page as are a lot of the old redundant urls with parameters in them. I think it is default behavior for a lot of CMS systems to ignore parameters it doesn't recognise so http://domain.com/index.php?vc=427&Buy_Pinnacle_Studio_14_Ultimate displays the home page and gives a 200 response code. My theory is that Google isn't removing these pages from the index because it's getting a 200 response code from old url's and possibly penalizing the site for duplicate content (which don't showing up in moz because there aren't any links on the site to these url's) The index in webmaster tools is showing over 1000 url's indexed when there are only around 300 actual url's. It also shows thousands of url's for each parameter type most of which aren't used. So my question is how to fix this, I don't think 404's or similar are the answer because there are so many and trying to find each combination of parameter would be impossible. Webmaster tools advises not to make changes to parameters but even so I don't think resetting or editing them individually is going to remove them and only change how google indexes them (if anyone knows different please let me know) Appreciate any assistance and also any comments or discussion on this matter. Regards, Ian
Technical SEO | | iragless

0
How can I best handle parameters?

Thank you for your help in advance! I've read a ton of posts on this forum on this subject and while they've been super helpful I still don't feel entirely confident in what the right approach I should take it. Forgive my very obvious noob questions - I'm still learning! The problem: I am launching a site (coursereport.com) which will feature a directory of schools. The directory can be filtered by a handful of fields listed below. The URL for the schools directory will be coursereport.com/schools. The directory can be filtered by a number of fields listed here: Focus (ex: “Data Science”) Cost (ex: “$<5000”) City (ex: “Chicago”) State/Province (ex: “Illinois”) Country (ex: “Canada”) When a filter is applied to the directories page the CMS produces a new page with URLs like these: coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago coursereport.com/schools?cost=$>5000&city=buffalo&state=newyork My questions: 1) Is the above parameter-based approach appropriate? I’ve seen other directory sites that take a different approach (below) that would transform my examples into more “normal” urls. coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago VERSUS coursereport.com/schools/focus/datascience/cost/$<5000/city/chicago (no params at all) 2) Assuming I use either approach above isn't it likely that I will have duplicative content issues? Each filter does change on page content but there could be instance where 2 different URLs with different filters applied could produce identical content (ex: focus=datascience&city=chicago OR focus=datascience&state=illinois). Do I need to specify a canonical URL to solve for that case? I understand at a high level how rel=canonical works, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around what versions of the filtered results ought to be specified as the preferred versions. For example, would I just take all of the /schools?focus=X combinations and call that the canonical version within any filtered page that contained other additional parameters like cost or city? Should I be changing page titles for the unique filtered URLs? I read through a few google resources to try to better understand the how to best configure url params via webmaster tools. Is my best bet just to follow the advice on the article below and define the rules for each parameter there and not worry about using rel=canonical ? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687 An assortment of the other stuff I’ve read for reference: http://www.wordtracker.com/academy/seo-clean-urls http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/3857-SEO-When-Product-Facets-and-Filters-Fail http://www.searchenginejournal.com/five-steps-to-seo-friendly-site-url-structure/59813/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
Technical SEO | | alovallo

0
20 000 duplicates in Moz crawl due to Joomla URL parameters. How to fix?

We have a problem of massive duplicate content in Joomla. Here is an example of the "base" URL: http://www.binary-options.biz/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html For some reason Joomla creates many versions of this URL, for example: http://www.binary-options.biz/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html or http://www.binary-options.biz/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html?q=/index.php/Web-Pages/binary-options-platforms.html So it lists the URL parameter ?q= and then repeats part of the beforegoing URL. This leads to tens of thousands duplicate pages in our content heavy site. Any ideas how to fix this? Thanks so much!
Technical SEO | | Xmanic

0
Why is google webmaster tools ignoring my url parameter settings

I have set up several url parameters in webmaster tools that do things like select a specific products colour or size. I have set the parameter in google to "narrows" the page and selected to crawl no urls but in the duplicate content section each of these are still shown as being 2 pages with the same content. Is this just normal, i.e. showing me that they are the same anyway or is google deliberately ignoring my settings (which I assume it does when they are sure they know better or think I have made a mistake)?
Technical SEO | | mark_baird

0
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT

Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat

0
How to handle lots of URL parameters

Howdy mozzers I'm hoping you can lend some advice. I'm dealing with a site now with loads of URL parameters. It's a vehicle dealership group which hosts its entire inventory from multiple locations on one page, sorted by parameters. Example inventory URL: www.dealership.com/car-inventory.asp?pa=&ns=10&so=m&sor=DESC&ma=&mod=&mt=&yr=&bs=&pr=&t=used&ln= Where pa (page no.); ns (number of vehicles shown); so (sort by condition); sor (sort order); ma (make); mod (model); yr (year); bs (body style); pr (price range); t (type - new, used, etc.); ln (location no.). As you can imagine this generates a gazillion URLs (or slightly less). Any thoughts on best canonicalization options? Thanks as always
Technical SEO | | jamesm5i

0
NoIndex/NoFollow pages showing up when doing a Google search using "Site:" parameter

We recently launched a beta version of our new website in a subdomain of our existing site. The existing site is www.fonts.com with the beta living at new.fonts.com. We do not want Google to crawl the new site until it's out of beta so we have added the following on all pages: However, one of our team members noticed that google is displaying results from new.fonts.com when doing an "site:new.fonts.com" search (see attached screenshot). Is it possible that Google is indexing the content despite the noindex, nofollow tags? We have double checked the syntax and it seems correct except the trailing "/". I know Google still crawls noindexed pages, however, the fact that they're showing up in search results using the site search syntax is unsettling. Any thoughts would be appreciated! DyWRP.png
Technical SEO | | ChrisRoberts-MTI

0