Solving pagination issues for e-commerce
-
I would like to ask about a technical SEO issue that may cause duplicate content/crawling issues.
For pagination, how the rel=canonical, rel="prev" rel="next" and noindex tag should be implemented.
Should all three be within the same page source?
Say for example, for one particular category we may have 10 pages of products (product catalogues). So we should noindex page 2 onwards, rel canonical it back to the first page and also rel="prev" and rel="next" each page so Google can understand they contain multiple pages.
If we index these multiple pages it will cause duplicate content issues. But I'm not sure whether all 3 tags need adding.
It's also my understanding that the search results should be noindexed as it does not provide much value as an entry point in search engines.
-
I have found this useful in the past: https://www.ayima.com/guides/conquering-pagination-guide.html
-
Thanks for your advice, I will take a look at the Google webmaster video you've referenced. As we try to rank for specific search terms in our main categories, we put content in there so it can be indexed and it's great for user experience. That's why I was thinking to also implement the rel=canonical tag so the content wasn't duplicated over a series of 10 pages, but if we noindex and use the rel=prev and next tags, that should solve the issue. It's the same for filterable results really, as the content on the page can be duplicated when users choose to filter by specific options, such as size or colour.
-
Hi Joshua,
You will need all 3 of those tags to properly markup your pagination, just not all at the same time.
Page=1 should have a canonical to the base URL (no page=X), and a rel="next" for page 2. Page 2 will have prev tag for the base level URL, and next for page 3. And so on.
Google says they don't index paginated URLs anymore, but I prefer to play it safe and implement these tags anyway.
Regarding this comment: "It's also my understanding that the search results should be noindexed as it does not provide much value as an entry point in search engines." There is some validity to this, but honestly, it's your preference. I lean on the side of preventing indexing of search results. I don't see much value in those pages being indexed, and if you're doing SEO properly, you're already providing solid entry points. Those pages will also use up a lot of your crawl budget, so that's something to consider too. Chances are, there are better sections of your site that you'd prefer bots spend their time on.
-
You shouldn't use rel canonical for pagination - it's main use is to avoid duplicate content issues. It's possible to combine it with rel next/prev but in very specific cases - example can be found here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en :
rel="next" and rel="prev" are orthogonal concepts to rel="canonical". You can include both declarations. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain:
=> as you can see the canonical is used to strip the sessionid which could cause duplicate content issues - not to solve the pagination issue
With rel next/previous you indicate to google that the sequence of pages should be considered as one page - which makes sense if you have like 4/5 pages max. If you have a huge number of pages in a pagination this doesn't really make sense. In that case you could just decide to do nothing - or only have the first page indexed - and the other pages have a noindex/follow tag.
Hope this clarifies.
Dirk
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
-
Hreflang implementation issue
We are currently handling search for a global brand www.example.com which has presence in many countries worldwide. To help Google understand that there is an alternate version of the website available in another language, we have used “hreflang” tags. Also, there is a mother website (www.example.com/global) which is given the attribution of “x-default” in the “hreflang” tag. For Malaysia as a geolocation, the mother website is ranking instead of the local website (www.example.com/my) for majority of the products. The code used for “hreflang” tag execution, on a product page, being: These “hreflang” tags are also present in the XML sitemap of the website, mentioning them below: <loc>http://www.example.com/my/product_name</loc> <lastmod>2017-06-20</lastmod> Is this implementation of “hreflang” tags fine? As this implementation is true across all geo-locations, but the mother website is out-ranking me only in the Malaysia market. If the implementation is correct, what could be other reasons for the same ranking issue, as all other SEO elements have been thoroughly verified and they seem fine.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Starcom_Search0 -
URL Structure For E-commerce Sites
Hi Guys, I was wondering what would be the optimal and best URL structure for sub-categories on a E-commerce site for SEO purposes. Example if my category was dresses and I had multiple sub-categories within dresses would 1 or 2 below be the better URL structure? 1) Domain + Category + Sub-Category be the most suitable URL structure: Sleeveless Dresses URL: clothingstore.com/dresses/sleeveless-dresses Midi Dresses URL: clothingstore.com/dresses/midi-dresses 2) OR would excluding the category be better Domain + Sub-Category like: Sleeveless Dresses URL: clothingstore.com/sleeveless-dresses Midi Dresses URL: clothingstore.com/midi-dresses Do you think it makes much of a difference, is shorter better and more effective in this case? E.g. Rand discuses in this article: https://moz.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls that having the keyword in the URL serves as anchor text, so wouldn't having additional keywords dilute value in this case? Plus he mentions shorter URLs the better. Cheers, Chris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright1 -
Mass Product Page Upload - SEO Issue?
Hi We will be adding a lot of products to our site, in a mass referencing exercise, not all in one go, but 10,000 split into a few loads. This product content won't be duplicate, but the quality of the information may be sparse and not very high. My question is, whether adding a bulk of these pages will reduce the pverall domain authority on our site? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
E-commerce store, in need of protecting our own content
Dear other Moz fans, We have an E-commerce store in Norway. Our main conversion to sale still happens in our physical store, but do to the description and information we provide online.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Monica_Flirt
To warn you before you click; Our store is a boutique for "erotic items". A nice one how ever, made buy woman for woman and their man. We use enormous time writing descriptions and information for (almost) every item online.
We really want to protect our content (text information). What is the best practice to mark up "protection" of our hard work content? Thank you for your time.
Regards form the Flirt girls in Norway.0 -
Hey guys i have this issues on my crawling report what should i do to exlude the pages? are d
Overly-Dynamic URL Overly-Dynamic URL Although search engines can crawl dynamic URLs, search engine representatives have warned against using over 2 parameters in a given URL. Search engines may also see dynamic versions of the same URL as unique URLs, creating duplicate content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adulter0 -
Mobile Sitemap Issue
Hi there, I am having some difficulty with an error on Webmaster Tools. I'm concerned with a possible duplicate content penalty following the launch of my mobile site. I have attempted to update my sitemap to inform Google that a different mobile page exists in addition to the desktop page. I have followed Google's guidelines as outlined here:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DBC01
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34648 I'm having problems with my sitemap.xml file. Webmaster tools is reporting that it is not able to read the file and when I validate it I am getting an error stating that the 'Namespace prefix xhtml on link is not defined'. All I am trying to do is to create a sitemap that uses the rel="alternate" to inform Google that their is a mobile version of that specific page in addition to the desktop version. An instance of the code I am using is below: xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="gss.xsl"?> <urlset< span="">xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap/0.84 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd"> http://www.mydomain/info/detail/ <xhtml:link< span="">rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="http://m.mydomain.com/info/detail.html"/> <lastmod></lastmod>2013-02-01T16:03:48+00:00<changefreq></changefreq>daily0.50</xhtml:link<></urlset<> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks0 -
Randomly Displayed Text: Hidden text issue?
I want to add some script to my site so that a given page publishes a different paragraph of text every time the page loads. Something like randomly displayed testimonials (but with more text). So, when you look at the page source, you would see all the text (e.g testimonial-1, testimonial-2, etc.), but the user would only see one paragraph randomly. Would this be considered hidden text (one code for search engine, one for use)? Is there a safe number of words you can do this with without setting off red flags? I appreciate the help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Canonicalization issue? - URLs with and without trailing slashes showing up as unique
For some reason, our urls are set to change from “www.apprenda.com/ANYTHING" to “apprenda.com/ANYTHING” These register as different pages though? We have rankings in SEOMoz Pro for terms where our homepage shows up 6th on google, but SEOMoz says it's not on the first page because it's checking against apprenda.com and not www.apprenda.com Also, it seems like for some reason pages with trailing slashes also register differently than those without. Should we be doing something for that? Something to make sure all pages get rewritten to having the trailing slash or not? For instance, this url: http://apprenda.com/saasgrid/features/multi-tenancy/ and this url” http://apprenda.com/saasgrid/features/multi-tenancy are really the same page. Yet in our analytics, they register as different pages with their own stats, etc. What should we do in our particular case, and how can we get this fixed? I really appreciate the help, and thanks in advance! Jesse
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ApprendaPlatform0