Implementation of rel="next" & rel="prev"
-
Hi All,
I'm looking to implement rel="next" & rel="prev", so I've been looking for examples. I looked at the source code for the MOZ.com forum, if anyone one is going to do it properly MOZ are.
I noticed that the rel="next" & rel="prev" tags have been implemented in the a href tags that link to the previous and next pages rather than in the head. I'm assuming this is fine with Google but in their documentation they state to put the tags in the . Does it matter?
Neil.
-
We have a good post on pagination right now on YouMoz at http://moz.com/ugc/seo-guide-to-google-webmaster-recommendations-for-pagination, which could be a good place to ask that quesiton.
-
Hi Ruth,
If we currently have rel=canonical tags on our pages but will be implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev”, should we remove the existing rel=canonical tags?
Thanks for your help
Freddy
-
Thanks Ruth.
Good to know I was on the right track.
-
You've stumbled into a test we were running! Yes, putting it in the is the methodology recommended by Google - we were testing to see if having it in the anchor would work as well (looks like no, it doesn't). We're often running tests of this type so just because you see us doing something, doesn't necessarily mean it's the 100% best way to do it! You're better off reading the blog and Learn SEO sections for best practices information. Good catch!
-
No problem!
I don't know exactly where Moz uses pagination, so can't really tell.
However, using rel=next/prev in the anchor tag is allowed as well as defined by w3.org, it's just that Google won't take those into consideration because, as Maile says, "we’re concerned that links in the section make it possible for spammers to find less secure user-generated content (UGC) sites and then inject irrelevant links totally unbeknownst to the webmaster".
-
Very Helpful,
Thanks Mihal,
That's what I thought, after reading and watching Maile's video. Does this mean I've spotted a mistake by MOZ??
Neil.
-
Hey Neil,
The pagination tags do have to be implemented in the section to be properly recognized by Google. Maile Ohye confirmed this aspect.
As for an example, here's one I gave to a previous related question: http://moz.com/community/q/pagination-for-product-page-reviews
Hope this helps!
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
-
"Cookies are required to access this site" in Google Serp?
One of my clients is having an issue where their Google search result title and description are just showing "Cookies are required to access this site." instead of the actual meta values. The problem is only in Google as Yahoo and Bing seem to be fine. You can see in the image below or by running a search your self for "be well bodyworks longmont" I've never seen anything like it and couldn't find any reference to anyone else having this issue... I would very much appreciate any insight as to what is going on. Thanks! c5PGL
Technical SEO | | CampfireDigital0 -
Google displaying "Items 1-9" before the description in the Search Results
We see our pages coming up in Google with the category page/product numbers in front of our descriptions. For example: Items 1 - 24 of 86 (and than the descriptions follows). Our website is magento based. Is there a fix for this that anyone knows of? Is there method of stopping Google from adding this on to the front of our Meta Description?
Technical SEO | | DutchG0 -
Mobile & desktop pages
I have a mobile site (m.example.com) and a desktop site (example.com). I want search engines to know that for every desktop page there is a mobile equivalent. To do this I insert a rel=alternate on the desktop pages to the mobile equivalent. On the mobile pages I insert a rel=canonical to it's equivalent desktop page. So far so good BUT: Almost every desktop page has 4 or 5 copies (duplicate content). I get rid of this issue by using the rel=canonical to the source page. Still no problem here. But what happens if I insert a rel=alternate to the mobile equivalent on every copy of the source page? I know it sounds stupid but the system doesn't allow me to insert a rel=alternate on just one page. It's all or nothing! My question: Does Google ignore the rel=alternate on the duplicate pages but keeps understanding the link between the desktop source page & mobile page ? Or should I avoid this scenario? Many Thanks Pieter
Technical SEO | | Humix0 -
Need suggestions on what might be causing rankings drop from top5 to "not in 50"?
Hi All, Below a list of 4 keywords & respective URLs which raked in top 3 to 5 till around 2 months back, now all these are "not in top 50", and I need help with finding the exact reason. Can you all please help with suggestions on what I should be looking for under the hood. Oticon Hearing Aids:http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/oticon-hearing-aids.aspx Phonak Hearing Aids:http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/phonak-hearing-aids.aspx Widex Hearing Aids: http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/widex-hearing-aids.aspx Resound Hearing Aids:http://www.leightonshearingcare.co.uk/hearing-aids/siemens-hearing-aids.aspx Thanks in advance, any help will be very much appreciated, checked all the basic stuff, and appreciate that there is scope for improvement in terms of page content, internal links etc etc, but cant figure out the reason for such a massive drop in such a short while given the fact, that the these URLs ranked in top 3 to 5 for a few years till 2 months back. Please help!!!
Technical SEO | | LolhcSEO0 -
Google caching the "cookie law message"
Hello! So i've been looking at the cached text version of our website. (Google Eyes is a great add on for this) One thing I've noticed is that, Google caches our EU Cookie Law message. The message appears on the top of the page and Google is caching this. The message is enclosed within and but it still is being cached. I'm going to ask the development mean to move the message at the bottom of the page and fix the position, but reviewing other websites with cookie messages, Google isn't caching them in their text only versions. Any tips or advice?
Technical SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation 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. Recommendation 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. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0 -
Honeypot Captcha - rated as "cloaked content"?
Hi guys, in order to get rid of our very old-school captcha on our contact form at troteclaser.com, we would like to use a honeypot captcha. The idea is to add a field that is hidden to human visitors but likely to be filled in by spam-bots. In this way we can sort our all those spam contact requests.
Technical SEO | | Troteclaser
More details on "honeypot captchas":
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/09/11/honeypot-captcha.aspx Any idea if this single cloaked field will have negative SEO-impacts? Or is there another alternative to keep out those spam-bots? Greets from Austria,
Thomas0