Pagination with parameter and rel prev rel next
-
Hi there:
I have a doubt about how using the pagination and rel prev | rel next, I will try to sum up this example of pagination:
the page number 1 is SEO friendly in order to index it, It also gets metarobots: index, follow.
The other ones (pagination), instead, have noindex, follow. In fact, these URLs are not SEO friendly because of they have the parameter "?" to set up pagination, so for this reason, in the past, It has been decided not to index them.
Would you suggest also to use rel="prev" rel="next" in this situation? Or would it be better to set up the others ones (pagination) in "SEO friendly" and then, to set up the rel prev | rel next?
Thanks a lot in advance for helping
Greetings
Francesca
-
Thank you very much!
Francesca
-
Ah... you're saying have a "View All" page but then not canonical to it? I guess my only concern about that is that then you've got another crawl path and possible duplicates. In that case, you might want to Noindex the "View All" and only have it available to users. It depends a lot on the scope of pages we're talking, as always.
-
I also agree with you, however if your view all page use more than acceptable time to load, I would still suggest having both a view all page and rel next/prev (but not the canonical aswell). By doing so you simply send your visitors hot your first page in the series, however maintaining the ability for users to view all the content.
-
Just one note here - I generally wouldn't use "View All" and rel=prev/next. It's a bit of a mixed signal. If you can create a friendly, fast-loading "View All" page, then rel=canonical the paginated URLs back to the "View All" page.
Agreed, though, that your Nofollow, Noindex is basically overriding the rel=prev/next. I've honestly heard mixed signals from people (including prominent SEOs who handle very large media sites) about how effective rel=prev/next is. I think Meta-robots is a stronger signal, so if you're really worried about duplicates, it's probably doing fine. If you want page 3 of 8 (for example) to rank for some reason, then rel=prev/next opens up that possibility, but it may also be a bit weaker cue in terms of duplication. It's a bit of a trade-off. If your currently approach is keeping pages out of the index, I'd probably leave it alone.
-
Hi Jørgen.
At the moment, I will apply rel ="prev" | rel="next" in order to set up pagination...currently pagination has "noindex, follow". I agree with you about "view all", I think it's the best option, in the future I'd like to set it up...
Thx for replying!!
Francesca
-
Hi @Red_educativa S.L.,
I would suggest using rel="prev/next" in this situation, yes.
When you are specifying a "rel" attribute you are specifying a relationship between the current document and the linked one. The value "prev" and "next" is specifying the relationship to be "The next [previous] document in a selection".
If you instead would use nofollow, google's spiders will not crawl the page. A nofollow value is "Links to an unendorsed document, like a paid link.".
However, this being said, it would be good for SEO to include a "view all" page. This will include all the content on a single page. You should then use rel="canonical" on the link to the view-all page (this will send users from search results to your view-all page. If you instead wish to use your first page in the series, you should only use rel next and prev (not rel canonical).
Have a look at this video from google for more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njn8uXTWiGg
I hope this helps.
--
Jørgen Juel
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
-
CTA first content next or Content first CTA next
We are a casino affiliations company, our website has a lot of the same casino offers. So is it beneficial to put the content over the casino offers, then do a CSS flex, reverse wrap, so the HTML has the page content first, but the visual of the page displays the casinos first and the content after? or just the usual i.e image the HTML as content first, and CSS makes offers come first?
On-Page Optimization | | JoelssonMedia0 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
On hover my links are with additional Parameters while links that are indexed are without additional parameters
On hover my links are with additional Parameters while links that are indexed are without additional parameters does it impact in a negative way. For ex: i have a site http://www.yoursite.com and Its internal pages that are linked to the site are in pattern of http://www.yoursite.com/jobs-in-india?xz=3_0_5 and these are the pages which are interlinked through out the site. When any user click the link they will land to the similar pages with additional parameter even on mouse hover any one can see the same link. while we have used Canonical, so pages that are getting indexed are http://www.yoursite.com/jobs-in-india. But my concern is: - To showing two different link as when Google crawler follow the site they will get the links with additional parameter while in its index its a URL without additional parameter so is there problem that we can encounter or is there any negative impact on ranking?
On-Page Optimization | | vivekrathore0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Canonical rel
I am having a few issues understanding the whole report card and canonical issue. I have a wordpress blog www.theseolab.com.au. When i created the blog i had setup http://theseolab.com.au and i thought that was my mistake. When i ran the on page report for www.theseolab.com.au . It said that my canonical was http://theseolab.com. So i changed it and my canonical points to http://www.theseolab.com.au. 5 days later i run the on page again and it still says that there are issues and it still shows that my website canonical is not pointing to the right link. Does it take time to update or am i missing something?
On-Page Optimization | | theseolab0 -
Rel=Publisher
Hi Since rel=publisher code should be added to the head tags of a website surely this means that would then show up on every main page of a site but i'm looking at a few sites using the rich snippet testing tool and its only showing for home page - how come ? Cheers Dan
On-Page Optimization | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Issue: Rel Canonical
My SEO Report shows issues: Rel Canonical I have a wordpress website each page has its content but I'm getting errors from my SEOMOZ report. I instaledl the yoast plug in to fix the issue but I'm still getting 29 errors. Wordpress 3.4.1
On-Page Optimization | | mobiledudes0 -
Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
When I'm checking my page on SEOmoz should I use http://www. or http:// or www. or just keyword.com? And I get this for my check Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>XXX</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> <dd>I have absolutely NO idea what this means 😞
On-Page Optimization | | 678648631264
</dd> </dl>0