URL Parameters are NOT all created equal...#360

Many Many Many URL parameters (but not all!) do not AT ALL distinguish between pages for SEO, Ranking, Analysis, etc. So much so that it is generally easier to identify which are relevant than it is to identify which are irrelevant. SiteChecker’s current system including ALL parameters in URL’s is greatly reducing it’s effectiveness.

Irrelevant parameters include such as “utm=XXXXX”, which is ONLY used to match a click to a marketing campaign, or “phcursor=XXXXX” which is used by Google Tag Manager / Analytics to pass along click-location information. While these are important to the User Activity analytics, they do not matter AT ALL to page statistics.

Some relevant parameters are examples like “page=XXXXX”, which identifies unique pages of a particular list. A useful parameter for analytics BUT NOT PAGE IDENTIFICATION are parameters like “search=XXXXX” - useful for exploring search sources, but STILL does not distinguish between pages.

SiteChecker SHOULD INCLUDE the ability to set an array/list of RELEVEANT (include) parameters (set by user, with some possible defaults) - this needs to be project-specific, as different CMS systems use different parameters. Some level of wildcard/REGEX would be useful.

SiteChecker PROBABLY SHOULD INCLUDE the ability to set an array/list of IRELEVANT (exclude) parameters to override defaults, or over-broad REGEX usage in the “include” list.

Processing order SHOULD BE “include list” first, “exclude list” second.

Tracy Hall

Gentlemen, this is getting critical. ANOTHER new parameter has emerged (?com_cvv=) which is DISTORTING your reports. If you don’t get control on this, your reporting will become USELESS. The attached example perfectly exhibits this - YOUR report shows as THREE SEPARATE PAGES, even though they are OBVIOULSY the same page. Onlt the added com_cvv parameter differentiates them, WHICH IS NOT FROM MY SITE - it is a TRACKING parameter from another site.