Canonical url with pagination
-
I would like to find out what is the standard approach for sections of the site with large number of records being displayed using pagination. They don't really contain the same content, but if title tag isn't changed it seem to process it as duplicate content where the parameter in the url indicating the next page is used.
For the time being I've added ' : Page 1' etc. at the end of the title tag for each separate page with the results, but is there a better way of doing it? Should I use the canonical url here pointing to the main page before pagination shows up in the url?
-
Moz crawls paginated pages even if you have added the rel="next" and rel="prev".
-
Does Moz manage crawling through Wordpress paginated posts (with tags rel="next" / "prev") ?
Since I divided long posts in two posts (page 1 and page 2) using "nextpage" feature in Wordpress, Moz shows duplicate title between page 1 and page 2. For example : https://captaincontrat.com/guide/societe-en-cours-de-formation/ and https://captaincontrat.com/guide/societe-en-cours-de-formation/2/
Thanks a lot
-
Thanks.
-
It does, although Google seems to be slightly less fond of it over time. Since I wrote my reply in March, rel=prev/next are actually beginning to be more effective. I've never seen any major issues with NOINDEX'ing pages 2+, though. In many cases, it's just a lot easier to implement.
The big issue this year is that Google sometimes just ignores deindexation signals. So, you really have to try it and see.
I'd also add that I'm talking about search pagination here, not article pagination. Rel=prev/next is a much better choice for article pagination, because the content is unique across pages. Indexing page 11 of search results isn't much of a benefit, in most cases.
-
Anyone use "no-index" and "follow" for page 2 , page 3 etc? Does this work?
-
So, I have to say that I'm actually upset about Google's recent recommendations, because they've presented them as if their simple and definitive, whereas they're actually very complicated to implement and don't always work very well. A couple of problems:
(1) Rel=prev/next is a fairly weak signal. If you're just trying to help the crawlers, it's fine. If you have issues with large-scale duplication (or have been hit with Panda), it's not a good fix, in my experience.
(2) Rel=prev/next isn't honored at all by Bing.
(3) It's actually really tough to code, especially their proposed Rel=prev/next + Rel=canonical solution.
There are a couple of other options:
(a) If you have a "View All" page (or if that's feasible without it being huge), you can rel-canonical to it from all of the paginated pages.
(b) You can META NOINDEX, FOLLOW pages 2+. I find that's a lot easier and usually more effective. Again, it depends on the severity of the problem and scope of the paginated content.
If you're not having problems and can manage the implementation, Rel=prev/next is a decent first step.
I should add that this is assuming you mean internal search results, and not content pagination (like paginated articles). With paginated search, the additional pages usually aren't a good search-user experience (Google visitors don't need to land on Page 11 of 17 of your search results), so I find that proactively managing them is a good thing. It really does depend a lot on the scope and the size of your index, though. This is a very complex issue that tends to get oversimplified.
-
These pages obviously contain different items and each page only shares the same title and meta tags.
Marcin - do you think that if I add the rel attribute that will solve the problem? Will the Moz reports actually pick it and won't mark it as Duplicate Content and Title?
-
Hi Sebastian,
actually, there's a very clean solution which is fully supported by Google - just use rel="next" and rel="prev" in your paginated links to indicate relationships between pages.
Here's a recent discussion of the best practices from Google itself, and here's another comment by Yoast (famous for his Wordpress SEO plugin).
Hope it helps.
-
I think this is going to depend on two things: 1. Your Site Structure and If you want those pages indexed.
Rand Fishkin - recommends for paginated results not to put the canonical tag pointing back to the top page, which I agree.
Site Structure
If the final pages can only be found by going through the paginated structure, you'll definitely want them followed. You'd only want to no-follow to prioritize your crawl rate, but not recommended unless you have multiple formats (see the article above).
Indexed
If the content is unique (usually blog content) and you are getting traffic to those pages from searches then it may be worthwhile to keep them indexed.
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93710
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
-
Okay to have additional attributes in canonical tag?
Hello! I'm helping a Client with a platform migration from an SEO standpoint. They are working to implement canonical tags, but I've noticed that each of the ones they are implementing are including a "data-rdm" attribute: data-rdm=""> I'm not sure the Client has a way to suppress this before the launch date. Do we think this will be an issue for Google?
Web Design | | PattyAMG1 -
Have Your Thoughts Changed Regarding Canonical Tag Best Practice for Pagination? - Google Ignoring rel= Next/Prev Tagging
Hi there, We have a good-sized eCommerce client that is gearing up for a relaunch. At this point, the staging site follows the previous best practice for pagination (self-referencing canonical tags on each page; rel=next & prev tags referencing the last and next page within the category). Knowing that Google does not support rel=next/prev tags, does that change your thoughts for how to set up canonical tags within a paginated product category? We have some categories that have 500-600 products so creating and canonicalizing to a 'view all' page is not ideal for us. That leaves us with the following options (feel it is worth noting that we are leaving rel=next / prev tags in place): Leave canonical tags as-is, page 2 of the product category will have a canonical tag referencing ?page=2 URL Reference Page 1 of product category on all pages within the category series, page 2 of product category would have canonical tag referencing page 1 (/category/) - this is admittedly what I am leaning toward. Any and all thoughts are appreciated! If this were in relation to an existing website that is not experiencing indexing issues, I wouldn't worry about these. Given we are launching a new site, now is the time to make such a change. Thank you! Joe
Web Design | | Joe_Stoffel1 -
301 Redirect Issue for URL with # and !
Hi All, We had a WIX website and now moved to Wordpress. I m having issue while doing redirecting from old URL to new URL. Example: Old Url: http://www.firsttraffic.com.au/#!traffic-management/ccfn New Url: http://www.firsttraffic.com.au/our-services/traffic-management/ I tried different wordpress plugin but nothing works. I m thinking its due to the # . But How can I to redirection for URL like this . Thanks
Web Design | | emarketexperts0 -
URL Re-Mapping Question ?. Do I need to the theme of my business in my url struture even though GWT knows what my site is about
Hi All, I have currently planning to do some url remapping on my Hire Website as alot of most important pages are far to many levels deep from the root domain. This is also making my sitemap not tidy etc. In GWT, Google knows that the theme is my website is Hire as it's the top word. Therefore do I still need to use the word hire in all my new url categories / structures or not ? Examples http://goo.gl/BFmvk2 I was thinking of remapping to www.xxxxxxx.xco.uk/tool-hire-birmingham http://goo.gl/pC9Bdp I was thinking of remapping to www.xxxxxx.co.uk/cleaning-equipment Notice in the later example , I do not have the word rent in the url. Any advice is much appreciated thanks peter
Web Design | | PeteC120 -
Were our URLs setup correctly?
The person who build our site setup a lot of the pages like: domain/location/city/title tag For example: http://www.kempruge.com/location/tampa/tampa-personal-injury-legal-attorneys/ I know the length is too long and it seems entirely unnecessary to me. Many of the pages I have created since I got here are just domain/title tag (which is almost always city-field of law-attorneys-lawyers). However, when I compare the original pages with the new ones, they both rank similarly. Given what a pain it is to change urls, I'm not sure if it would be worth it to shorten them all or not. However, I would like to know if the way there were setup originally makes sense for some reason I don't understand. Thanks, Ruben
Web Design | | KempRugeLawGroup1 -
How to find internal pages linking to a URL?
Hey, I had an issue where a client found a bad link on their site then I went to fix it and couldn't figure out where on earth it was. I tried using different software which would find the link, but not tell me where it was linked from. I asked for some help from someone in my office and they found it in about 15 seconds. Their strategy was "think like a client - just click everywhere". Is there a way to quickly find what URLs are pointing to a specific URL? Cheers
Web Design | | renegadeempire0 -
Has Anyone Had Issues With ASP.NET 4.0 URL Routing?
I'm seeing some odd results in my SEOMOZ results with a new site I just released that is using the ASP.NET 4.0 URL routing. I am seeing thousands(!) of duplicate results, for instance, because the crawl has uncovered something like this: http://www.mysite.com/
Web Design | | TroyCarlson
http://www.mysite.com/default.aspx (so far, so good, though I wish it wouldn't show both)
http://www.mysite.com/default.aspx/about/ (what the heck -?)
http://www.mysite.com/default.aspx/about/about/ (WTF!?)
http://www.mysite.com/default.aspx/about/about/products/ (and on and on ad infinitum) I'm also seeing problems pop up in my sitemap because extensionless urls have an odd "eurl.axd/abunchofnumbersgohere" appended to the end of every address which is breaking links. sigh Buyer beware. I've found articles that discuss the "eurl.axd" issue here and there (this one seems very good), but nothing about the weird crawl issue I outlined above. Any advice?0 -
Are slimmed down mobile versions of a canonical page considered cloaking?
We are developing our mobile site right now and we are using a user agent sniffer to figure out what kind of device the visitor is using. Once the server knows whether it is a desktop or mobile browser it will deliver the appropriate template. We decided to use the same URL for both versions of the page rather than using m.websiteurl.com or www.websiteurl.mobi so that traffic to either version of these pages would register as a visit to the page. Will search engines consider this cloaking or is mobile "versioning" an acceptable practice? The pages in essence are the same, the mobile version will just leave out extraneous scripts and unnecessary resources to better display on a mobile device.
Web Design | | TahoeMountain400