Ecommerce internal search results pages
-
I'm working on a ecommerce site that allows product search results pages to be sorted a variety of ways (best selling, newest, by price). Each of these search filters creates a new url i.e. /all/best/1 and /all/best/2; /all/new/1 and /all/new/2; etc. These search results pages have been indexed and the site is receiving enough organic traffic from these pages that I don't want to add noindex,follow to them. I am planning on implementing rel=prev,rel=next for each filter, but I'm concerned about duplicate content considering I can't create unique meta data for each page. Should I canonical all pages to the first search results page without filters applied? Or any other ideas on how I should proceed?
-
Hi Angela,
Officially google recommend that for search results without filters you should use either a rel canonical to a 'view all' results pages OR rel prev/next (not both in other words). Now with filters that changes slightly and then you should implement rel prev/next as normal but also rel canonical each filtered page to its relevant NON filtered page.
So for example you have:
Page is /all/best/2** and **meta data is:
So you rel canonical not to the first non filtered page as you mention but to the relevant paginated non filtered page if you see what I mean. It can get a bit confusing, be sure to check the final results well to avoid unpleasant surprises.
Hope that 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
-
Will adding 1M (legitimate/correct) internal backlinks to an orphan page trip algo penalty?
We have a massive long tail user generated gamification strategy that has worked really well. Because of that success we haven't really been paying enough attention to SEO and in looking around caught some glaring issues. The section of our site that works as long tail goes from overview page > first classification > sub classification > specific long tail term page. Looks like we were relying on google to crawl/use forms to go from our overview page to the first classification BUT those resulting pages were orphaned - so www.mysite.com/product/category_1 defaulted back to the search page creating duplicate issues. www.mysite.com/product/category_1 and www.mysite.com/product/category_2 and www.mysite.com/product/category_3 all had duplicate content as they all reverted to the overview page. It's clear we need to make an actual breadcrumb trail and proper site taxonomy/linkage. I'm wanting to do this on just this one area first, but it's a big section with over 3M indexed "specific long tail term pages". I want to just add a simple breadcurmb trail in a sub navigation menu but doing so will literally create millions of new internal backlinks from specific term pages to their sub & parent category pages. Although we're missing the intermediary category breadcrumbs, we did have a breadcrumb coming back to the main overview page - that was tagged nofollow. So now I'm contemplating adding millions of (proper) backlinks and removing a nofollow tag from another million internal back links. All of this seems in line with "best practices" but what I have not been able to determine is if there is a proper/better way to roll these changes out so as to not trigger an algorithm penalty. I am also reticent about making too many changes too quickly but these are SEO 101 basics that need to be rectified. Is it a mistake to make good improvements too quickly? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | DrewProZ1 -
Renamed a page and created a 301, page lost its rankings.
We changed a page name to fall under the root of our site from domain.com/page1/page301d/ to domain.com/page301d/ and after 2 weeks it still is not back to its #3 position. Now it is on the bottom of page 3. I cant figure out what im doing wrong here. The original .com/page1/ that this page fell under was removed totally and redirected to antoher page that was more relevant. I went ahead and re-enabled this page and its contnent, because the page was linking out to the page we 301d. This page we re-enabled had about 150 links poitning to it and therefore i was thinking that maybe the link juice from this page (or relevancy) via an internal link was helping it rank. This was updated about 6 days ago and the internal link is back Any other ideas why this might not be working. Ive checked all the 301s, content has not changed on the page. We have updated the strcuture for many pages. Instead of having the pages in question fall under anotehr page, they all fall under the root and its sub content is now only 2 levels deep , instead of being 3. hope that makese sense.
On-Page Optimization | | waqid0 -
Is On Page SEO Dead?
Hey Guys, Search Engine Roundtable has published a short post about this a few days ago, quoting senior member at WebmasterWorld forums who said: "The way I see it, on-page text today is for the "relevance" part of the total algorithm. The whole algorithm is, in broad strokes, "relevance + connectedness + quality". After you've clearly stated the relevance of the page, then the rest of your ranking power comes from elsewhere. I've added on-page bold tags with no effect. I've added or changed h1 elements with no effect. Not too long ago, those might well have done something, but that's not the game anymore. And moving from a table layout to a CSS-P layout today might get you nowhere, too. It all depends how deeply complicated the table layout was, I think." http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4408395.htm Is it true? Is on-page SEO really dead? What do you think?
On-Page Optimization | | ShivaS0 -
Page Rank
I had just made a 301 re-direct on one of our product pages which had a PR of 4, now that Google has indexed the new page, it's now got a PR of 0, i'm struggling to understand why this could be, i know that you may see a drop of 1, which has happened in the past, but this drop just does not make sense. Any ideas of why this could be? Kind Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Paul780 -
Too many on page links
I'm having trouble interpreting this data. It says several of my blog pages have too many on page links, some as high as 140 and there is no example of a blog post that they are referring to. What am I missing? I never post more than a handful (5-7) in our 600-1000wd blogs. When I drill down, it doesn't give me very much information except "Found over 41 years ago" off to the right. When I click on the "too many on page links" URL, it provides a long list of website pages that are renamed with the blog name. huh? A lot of this stuff isn't very intuitive, SEOMoz.
On-Page Optimization | | amandahx20 -
Login Page Redirection
Hello, I have certain pages on my site which are login only. Am wondering if a user reaches that page, should I send him to a 301 redirect to a new login page? or some other form of redirection? Any suggestions on how to best tackle this situation? Update If I redirect to a login.php page, then what kind of redirection should I use? Thank you for your time, Anant
On-Page Optimization | | anantgarg0 -
On page links?
Hi all, Ive be going through the pages in my site getting rid of errors so i can the work of a clean slate and get the best for my site. However, i have a large amount of pages which is flagged up by seo moz pro tool as too many on page links. How bad is this in terms of seo rankings? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | wazza19850 -
Avoiding "Duplicate Page Title" and "Duplicate Page Content" - Best Practices?
We have a website with a searchable database of recipes. You can search the database using an online form with dropdown options for: Course (starter, main, salad, etc)
On-Page Optimization | | smaavie
Cooking Method (fry, bake, boil, steam, etc)
Preparation Time (Under 30 min, 30min to 1 hour, Over 1 hour) Here are some examples of how URLs may look when searching for a recipe: find-a-recipe.php?course=starter
find-a-recipe.php?course=main&preperation-time=30min+to+1+hour
find-a-recipe.php?cooking-method=fry&preperation-time=over+1+hour There is also pagination of search results, so the URL could also have the variable "start", e.g. find-a-recipe.php?course=salad&start=30 There can be any combination of these variables, meaning there are hundreds of possible search results URL variations. This all works well on the site, however it gives multiple "Duplicate Page Title" and "Duplicate Page Content" errors when crawled by SEOmoz. I've seached online and found several possible solutions for this, such as: Setting canonical tag Adding these URL variables to Google Webmasters to tell Google to ignore them Change the Title tag in the head dynamically based on what URL variables are present However I am not sure which of these would be best. As far as I can tell the canonical tag should be used when you have the same page available at two seperate URLs, but this isn't the case here as the search results are always different. Adding these URL variables to Google webmasters won't fix the problem in other search engines, and will presumably continue to get these errors in our SEOmoz crawl reports. Changing the title tag each time can lead to very long title tags, and it doesn't address the problem of duplicate page content. I had hoped there would be a standard solution for problems like this, as I imagine others will have come across this before, but I cannot find the ideal solution. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards5