Experiences with pagination rel=next and prev
-
I have read about people saying that using the rel next and prev tags did not take any positive effect on their sites...
In my case I do not have a typical pagination 1,2,3 but a site about tours in the amazon where each tour-description is divided into a page with
- an overview,
- itinerary,
- Dates & Prices
so instead of Site 1,2,3 Buttons I have the Btns: Tour Overview, Itinerary, Prices
So as all the of pages belong together I thought the rel=next & prev tags will be useful.
Also I want to avoid duplicate content when the page title of the three is pretty similar. Right now the Title is like this:
Amazon Tour XXX YYYY
Amazon Tour XXX - itinerary
Amazon Tour XXX - pricesThe description text is more different...
Is this the best practice in my case?
Thanks for all your opinions!
best regards,
Holger -
Hi Everett,
thanks a lot you your input!
Holger
-
Having looked at the site I can see that the content is more than unique and useful enough. Great job on that!
By using "rel next / prev" in this way you are giving Google the signal that you want the first page (i.e. rio-negro-amazonas-regenwald-expedition-uebersicht.php ) to rank higher than the other two pages for most searches, but that the other pages are unique and should stay indexed. If this is what you intend then I think it is a great plan. However, if all of the pages are equally important, and if each has its own search terms to target, it may be better to let the subsequent pages stand on their own.
It sounds like this is working for you at the moment. Thank you for sharing your findings with us!
-
Hi Everett,
yes you are right, the URLs have their own self-referencing rel canonical.
The URLs are:Rio Negro Expedition
Overview-Page:
http://www.amazonasabenteuer.de/amazonas-expeditionen/rio-negro-amazonas-regenwald-expedition-uebersicht.phpItinerary-Page:
http://www.amazonasabenteuer.de/amazonas-expeditionen/rio-negro-amazonas-regenwald-expedition-reiseablauf.phpDates & Prices Page:
http://www.amazonasabenteuer.de/amazonas-expeditionen/rio-negro-amazonas-regenwald-expedition-reisedaten-preise.php -
Thank you for sharing your direct experience with this strategy.
Do all of these URLs share the same rel canonical tag, or do they each have their own self-referencing rel canonical? I am assuming they each have their own if they are all showing up for searches.
It would really help if you could share the domain so we could have a look. However, as long as the content on each page is not "thin" and is mostly unique to that page I think this strategy would be fine.
-
Hi Everett,
thanks for answering. I also thought just using one page but each subject gets pretty long so using pagination with rel=next / prev as I also want to "indicate the relationship between component URLs" seems to be the best practice in this case.
I'm also using the canonical tag... so the otherway round, what could be a negative effect in my case? I put now one tour online and I can't see any negative effect. The pages have been indexed and google shows them up for my keywords.
I was hoping that somebody has done experiences and can talk about. At this moment I have no negative effects about this practice and a would recommend it.
-
Hello Holger,
I apologize for the wait on this. We rely on the community to help answer questions, but sometimes nobody is able to help out in a timely manner so we answer them ourselves as well.
I do not think rel next/prev is the best solution for the situation described. I think the best practice would be to have all of that content on one page. You could change the view of the content (such as when someone clicks the "itinerary" tab) by adding a hash symbol (#) to the URL (e.g. amazon-tour/#itinerary amazon-tour/#prices) to avoid duplicate content issues and make the landing page more robust and useful. You might combine this with the use of a rel canonical tag for that page.
Please let me know if you still need assistance with this question. Again, sorry about the wait!
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
-
Should you do on-page optimization for a page with rel=canonical tag?
If you ad a rel=canonical tag to a page, should you still optimize that page? I'm talking meta description, page title, etc.
On-Page Optimization | | marynau0 -
What is the correct code to write the rel=canonical in the HTML HEAD of the page?
is it like: html> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/" /> head> <body> ...<ref>sdfdfref> or like:
On-Page Optimization | | dubraverd0 -
Should you 301, 302, or rel=canonical private pages?
What should you do with private 'logged in' pages from a seo perspective? They're not visible to crawlers and shouldn't be indexed, so what is best practice? Believe it or not, we have found quite a few back links to private pages and want to get the ranking benefit from them without them being indexed. Eg: http://twiends.com/settings (Only logged in user can see the page) 302 them: We can redirect users/crawlers temporarily, but I believe this is not ideal from a seo perspective? Do we lose the link juice to this page? 301 them: We can do a permanent redirect with a short cache time. We preserve most link juice now, but we probably mess up the users browser. Users trying to reach a private page while logged out may have issues reaching it after logged in. **Serve another page with rel=canonical tag: **We could serve back the home page without changing the URL. We use a canonical tag to tell the crawlers that it's a duplicate of the home page. We keep most of the link juice, and the browser is unaffected. Yes, a user might share that different URL now, but its unlikely. We've been doing 302's up until now, now we're testing the third option. How do others solve this problem? Is there a problem with it? Any advice appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
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 -
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing?
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing? I had "twin" domains so I redirected my .com to www..com and now I have a lot of Rel Canonical Links.
On-Page Optimization | | Mike.Bean0 -
Is rel=canonical used only for duplicate content
Can the rel-canonical be used to tell the search engines which page is "preferred" when there are similar pages? For instance, I have an internal page that Google is showing on the first page of the SERPs that I would prefer the home page be ranked for. Both the home and internal page have been optimized for the same keyword. What is interesting is that the internal page has very few backlinks compared to the home page but Google seems to favor it since the keyword is in the URL. I am afraid a 301 will drop us from the first page of the SERPs.
On-Page Optimization | | surveygizmo0 -
My report also notes that I have 176 Rel Canonical. What does this mean and how do I fix it. Thanks
My report also notes that I have 176 Rel Canonical. What does this mean and how do I fix it. Thanks http://pro.seomoz.org/campaigns/95663/issues/18
On-Page Optimization | | cyaindc0