Query parameters for normalization in Bing
-
Almost everyday I get this-
Query parameters for normalization found on www.sitename.com
Site: www.sitename.comDate: 3/26/2013Priority: LowBing has detected new parameters in your URLsAnyone know why? We aren't changing anything. I have read it has to do with internal urls but I can find out what internal urls this is a problem with.
-
We see this too. We have canonicals in place, and we still see the error. And there's no insight into which parameters are causing issues.
-
Here's an answer straight from Duane Forrester of Bing:
"It means that those parameters may be causing Bing to think you have duplicate content issues. If your content can appear on two individual URLs, that can be an issue, as we don't know which one you want indexed, ranked, etc. So, the tools we offer allow you to control this by telling us to ignore a parameter. We can suggest parameters we find, but it's your choice on if you want to tell us to ignore them (and the attendant URLs) or not.
For example, if you have a /print/ folder on your site, you can tell us to ignore everything under the "print parameter". By entering "print" as the parameter to be ignored, we'll skip indexing the content held in the print folder on your site."
Duane doesn't say so in the article, but you can adjust your parameter settngs in Bing Webmaster Tools. Info here:
http://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/ignore-url-parameters-d7496c65
Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
How to stop URLs that include query strings from being indexed by Google
Hello Mozzers Would you use rel=canonical, robots.txt, or Google Webmaster Tools to stop the search engines indexing URLs that include query strings/parameters. Or perhaps a combination? I guess it would be a good idea to stop the search engines crawling these URLs because the content they display will tend to be duplicate content and of low value to users. I would be tempted to use a combination of canonicalization and robots.txt for every page I do not want crawled or indexed, yet perhaps Google Webmaster Tools is the best way to go / just as effective??? And I suppose some use meta robots tags too. Does Google take a position on being blocked from web pages. Thanks in advance, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
HUGELY different ranking for a keyword between Bing and Google. Looking for ideas.
We rank really well for a brand in Bing (#2 behind manufacturer, and it's a competitive name) but are in about 15th place in Google. Any suggestions on what could be hurting us in Google are welcome!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | absoauto1 -
Ecommerce - Go to Basket 302 query
Hi I have done a site crawl and there are a lot of 302's on the 'Go to Basket' link when customers go through to pay. Should these be updated to 301's? On just the first part of the link so nothing after the ? /OrderCalculation? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
How can I get Bing to index my subdomain correctly?
Hi guys, My website exists on a subdomain (i.e. https://website.subdomain.com) and is being indexed correctly on all search engines except Bing and Duck Duck Go, which list 'https://www.website.subdomain.com'. Unfortunately my subdomain isn't configured for www (the domain is out of my control), so searchers are seeing a server error when clicking on my homepage in the SERPs. I have verified the site successfully in Bing Webmaster Tools, but it still shows up incorrectly. Does anyone have any advice on how I could fix this issue? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cos20300 -
2015 Disavow Links on Bing?
In years past I was told not to disavow links in Bing unless the site had an issue. This was driven home when a site we were working on disavowed the links in google and saw the site recover after a few months, then when they disavowed the same links in Bing and the rankings dropped 20% over the next few months. The reasoning was that Bing was looking more at the qty of links, and didn't analyze links the way Google does. So even though you might disavow links in Google you might not want to disavow those same links in Bing. Does this still hold true in 2015? I want to get the community's opinion on this topic, should the same links be disavowed in Bing that are disavowed in Google? Why or why not?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K-WINTER1 -
Duplicate Content Pages - A Few Queries..
I am working through the latest Moz Crawl Report and focusing on the 'high priority' issues of Duplicate Page Content. There are some strange instances being flagged and so wondered whether anyone has any knowledge as to why this may be happening... Here is an example; This page; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/destinations/cruise-breaks-&-british-isles/bruges/ ...is apparently duplicated with these pages; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/guides/excursions http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/guides/cruises-from-the-uk http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/cruise-deals/norwegian-star-europe-cruise-deals Not sure why...? Also, pages that are on our 'Cruise Reviews' section such as this page; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/cruise-reviews/p&o-cruises/adonia/cruising/931 ...are being flagged as duplicated content with a page like this; http://www.bolsovercruiseclub.com/destinations/cruise-breaks-&-british-isles/bilbao/ Is this a 'thin content' issue i.e. 2 pages have 'thin content' and are therefore duplicated? If so, the 'destinations' page can (and will be) rewritten with more content (and images) but the 'cruise reviews' are written by customers and so we are unable to do anything there... Hope that all makes sense?! Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomKing0 -
Parameter Strings & Duplicate Page Content
I'm managing a site that has thousands of pages due to all of the dynamic parameter strings that are being generated. It's a real estate listing site that allows people to create a listing, and is generating lots of new listings everyday. The Moz crawl report is continually flagging A LOT (25k+) of the site pages for duplicate content due to all of these parameter string URLs. Example: sitename.com/listings & sitename.com/listings/?addr=street name Do I really need to do anything about those pages? I have researched the topic quite a bit, but can't seem to find anything too concrete as to what the best course of action is. My original thinking was to add the rel=canonical tag to each of the main URLs that have parameters attached. I have also read that you can bypass that by telling Google what parameters to ignore in Webmaster tools. We want these listings to show up in search results, though, so I don't know if either of these options is ideal, since each would cause the listing pages (pages with parameter strings) to stop being indexed, right? Which is why I'm wondering if doing nothing at all will hurt the site? I should also mention that I originally recommend the rel=canonical option to the web developer, who has pushed back in saying that "search engines ignore parameter strings." Naturally, he doesn't want the extra work load of setting up the canonical tags, which I can understand, but I want to make sure I'm both giving him the most feasible option for implementation as well as the best option to fix the issues.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | garrettkite0 -
BizaarVoice Cloud SEO: Canonical Query String
We've implemented BazaarVoice with the latest Cloud SEO. As an eComm site, BV helps us manage our own reviews along with currating reviews from vendors on product pages that don't have any. Only a maximum of 7 reviews are displayed at one time and any additional are on a "next" page. BV has asked to include a query string (?bvrrp=...) on our canonical tags that would allow SEs to read the additional reviews. For example, the current canoncial URL will go from this http://www.sitename.com/item/product-name/123456789 to http://www.sitename.com/item/product-name/123456789**?bvrrp=Main_Site/reviews/product/2/123456789.htm** Having more crawlable UGC is advantagous but I'm skeptical about adding this. Just looking for any guidance. Thanks! WMCA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WMCA0