How to solve JavaScript paginated content for SEO
-
In our blog listings page, we limit the number of blogs that can be seen on the page to 10. However, all of the blogs are loaded in the html of the page and page links are added to the bottom.
Example page: https://tulanehealthcare.com/about/newsroom/
When a user clicks the next page, it simply filters the content on the same page for the next group of postings and displays these to the user. Nothing in the html or URL change. This is all done via JavaScript.
So the question is, does Google consider this hidden content because all listings are in the html but the listings on page are limited to only a handful of them?
Or is Googlebot smart enough to know that the content is being filtered by JavaScript pagination?
If this is indeed a problem we have 2 possible solutions:
- not building the HTML for the next pages until you click on the 'next' page.
- adding parameters to the URL to show the content has changed.
Any other solutions that would be better for SEO?
-
thanks for the thorough response. I was leaning toward leaving it alone for the time being and this helps affirm my decision. I don't think we are going to see much benefit from tampering with it to make it more Googlebot-friendly
-
It will be strongly de-valued and the links may or may not even be noticed / seen at all. Googlebot can leverage headless browsers (something similar to Selenium or Windmill in Python, with targeting handled via XPath maybe). The only thing is, this takes ages longer than basic source-code scraping. To scrape the modified source with a headless browser can take, 5-10 seconds instead of less than 1 second
Since Google's mission is the 'index the web', you have to fathom that they wouldn't take this colossal efficiency hit all the time, or for everyone. Certainly looking at the results of many sites and their different builds, that's exactly what I see. Just because 'Google can' that doesn't mean that 'Google will' on all crawls and websites
Some very large websites rely on such technologies, but usually they're household name sites which offer a unique value-proposition of cultural trust signals for the specified audience. If you're not a titan of industry, then you're likely not one of the favoured few who gets such special treatment from Googlebot so regularly
This is an interesting post to read:
https://medium.com/@baphemot/whats-server-side-rendering-and-do-i-need-it-cb42dc059b38
... you may also have the option of building the HTML on the server side and then serving it in different URLs to the user. To me it sounds like a case where SSR might be the best option. That way you can still use your existing technologies (which are FAST) to render the modified HTML, but render it on the server side and then serve the static HTML (after the render) to users using SSR. That's personally what I would start looking at as it will keep the best of both worlds
Implementation could be costly though!
I don't think you'd get accused of cloaking but that doesn't change the fact, part of your site's architecture will 90% become invisible to Google 90% of the time which is not really very good for SEO (at all)
Another option, instead of building all the post listings on page-load (which will cause stutter between pages), just load all of them at once in the source code and use the JavaScript to handle the visual navigation (from page to page) only. Let JS handle the visual effect, but keep all listings in the HTML right from the get-go. That can work fine too, but maybe SSR would be better for you (I don't know)
...
after looking at your source code, it seems you have already done this. The only real problem would be if the links themselves were 'created' through the JS, which they are not (they all start visible in your non-modified source code). Yes, things which begin hidden, are slightly de-valued (but not completely). This might impact you slightly, but to be honest I don't think separating them out and making the pages load entirely separately would be much better. It would help architectural internal-indexation slightly, but likely would hamper content-loading speeds significantly
Maybe think about the SSR option. You might get the best of both worlds and you might be able to keep the JS intact whilst also allowing deep-linking of paginated content (which currently is impossible, can't link to page 2 of results)
Let me know if you have previously thought about SSR
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
-
Recommended SEO Companies
Looking for advice here.... We are a small business looking to secure/increase rankings in the search engines. What are some recommended SEO agencies/companies that are effective with today's search engine optimization standards. _ Thank you_
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wickerparadise0 -
Would you recommend content within Javascript links?
We are an ecommerce site and I have noticed sites like this - workplace-products.co.uk/premises/canteen-furniture.html with hidden content (click on the details link under the canteen image) My question is would this content be as good as content that is placed normally within the body of a website? Because content I place on our pages is more for SE rankings than it is for visitors. Good to get your thoughts Thank you Jon
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | imrubbish0 -
Scraped content ranking above the original source content in Google.
I need insights on how “scraped” content (exact copy-pasted version) rank above the original content in Google. 4 original, in-depth articles published by my client (an online publisher) are republished by another company (which happens to be briefly mentioned in all four of those articles). We reckon the articles were re-published at least a day or two after the original articles were published (exact gap is not known). We find that all four of the “copied” articles rank at the top of Google search results whereas the original content i.e. my client website does not show up in the even in the top 50 or 60 results. We have looked at numerous factors such as Domain authority, Page authority, in-bound links to both the original source as well as the URLs of the copied pages, social metrics etc. All of the metrics, as shown by tools like Moz, are better for the source website than for the re-publisher. We have also compared results in different geographies to see if any geographical bias was affecting results, reason being our client’s website is hosted in the UK and the ‘re-publisher’ is from another country--- but we found the same results. We are also not aware of any manual actions taken against our client website (at least based on messages on Search Console). Any other factors that can explain this serious anomaly--- which seems to be a disincentive for somebody creating highly relevant original content. We recognize that our client has the option to submit a ‘Scraper Content’ form to Google--- but we are less keen to go down that route and more keen to understand why this problem could arise in the first place. Please suggest.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ontarget-media0 -
Interlinking from unique content page to limited content page
I have a page (page 1) with a lot of unique content which may rank for "Example for sale". On this page I Interlink to a page (page 2) with very limited unique content, but a page I believe is better for the user with anchor "See all Example for sale". In other words, the 1st page is more like a guide with items for sale mixed, whereas the 2nd page is purely a "for sale" page with almost no unique content, but very engaging for users. Questions: Is it risky that I interlink with "Example for sale" to a page with limited unique content, as I risk not being able to rank for either of these 2 pages Would it make sense to "no index, follow" page 2 as there is limited unique content, and is actually a page that exist across the web on other websites in different formats (it is real estate MLS listings), but I can still keep the "Example for sale" link leading to page 2 without risking losing ranking of page 1 for "Example for sale"keyword phrase I am basically trying to work out best solution to rank for "Keyword for sale" and dilemma is page 2 is best for users, but is not a very unique page and page 2 is very unique and OK for users but mixed up writing, pictures and more with properties for sale.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Moving some content to a new domain - best practices to avoid duplicate content?
Hi We are setting up a new domain to focus on a specific product and want to use some of the content from the original domain on the new site and remove it from the original. The content is appropriate for the new domain and will be irrelevant for the original domain and we want to avoid creating completely new content. There will be a link between the two domains. What is the best practice for this to avoid duplicate content and a potential Panda penalty?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Citybase0 -
Redirection - Seo trick?
Hi, After analyzing the site I found several Redirections of exact match domains. With different domain name extensions. Is Seo trick? Is the second website which i fond that is using this technique. Can anyone gives more details? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nyanainc0 -
What is the best way to allow content to be used on other sites for syndication without taking the chance of duplicate content filters
Cookstr appears to be syndicating content to shape.com and mensfitness.com a) They integrate their data into partner sites with an attribution back to their site and skinned it with the partners look. b) they link the image back to their image hosted on cookstr c) The page does not have microformats or as much data as their own page does so their own page is better SEO. Is this the best strategy or is there something better they could be doing to safely allow others to use our content, we don't want to share the content if we're going to get hit for a duplicate content filter or have another site out rank us with our own data. Thanks for your help in advance! their original content page: http://www.cookstr.com/recipes/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta their syndicated content pages: http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta0 -
Duplicate Content
Hi everyone, I have a TLD in the UK with a .co.uk and also the same site in Ireland (.ie). The only differences are the prices and different banners maybe. The .ie site pulls all of the content from the .co.uk domain. Is this classed as content duplication? I've had problems in the past in which Google struggles to index the website. At the moment the site appears completely fine in the UK SERPs but for Ireland I just have the Title and domain appearing in the SERPs, with no extended title or description because of the confusion I caused Google last time. Does anybody know a fix for this? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | royb0