How To Implement Pagination Properly? Important and Urgent!
-
I have seen many instructions but I am still uncertain. Here is the situation
We will be implementing rel prev rel next on our paginted pages.
The question is:
- Do we implement self referencing canonical URL on the main page and each paginated page?
- Do we implement noindex/follow meta robots tag on each paginated page?
- Do we include the canonical URL for each paginated page in the sitemap if we do not add the meta robots tag?
- We have a view all but will not be using it due to page load capabilities...what do we do with the viewl all URL? Do we add meta robots to it?
- For website search results pages containing pagination should we just put a noindex/follow meta robots tag on them?
- We have seperate mobile URL's that also contain pagination. Do we need to consider these pages as a seperate pagination project? We already canonical all the mobile URL's to the main page of the desktop URL.
Thanks!
-
Hello SEO32,
I apologize for the delayed response. There are several good questions here. They're also complicated questions, which don't really always have a single "correct" answer. So much revolves around the specific situation, and without seeing your website it is difficult to say what is best for you. Also, much of what we think we know about this kind of stuff is either based on what Google tells us (which isn't always the truth) and what we've observed and deduced from our own experiences (which aren't always the same). True "testing" of this stuff one variable at a time isn't always possible so we rely on best practices and our own experience.
That said, I will attempt to answer your questions with what I would probably do in most situations, including links to more information when possible.
Do we implement self referencing canonical URL on the main page and each paginated page?
Here's what Rand says, and he's probably seen way more data than I have:
"Whatever you do, DO NOT:
- Put a rel=canonical directive on paginated results pointing back to the top page in an attempt to flow link juice to that URL. You'll either misdirect the engines into thinking you have only a single page of results or convince them that your directives aren't worth following (as they find clearly unique content on those pages).
- Add nofollow to the paginated links on the results pages. This tells the engines not to flow link juice/votes/authority down into the results pages that desperately need those votes to help them get indexed and pass value to the deeper pages.
- Create a conditional redirect so that when search engines request paginated results, they 301 redirect or meta refresh back to the top page of results."
Keep in mind that post is from 2010, and I think before Google said a "View All" canonical <a>was their preference</a>.
I have seen plenty of sites do well ranking the canonical category page, and with indexing most of the product pages, while all paginated pages had a rel canonical that referenced the first page in the series (i.e. .com/category/ or .com/categry1/category2/). It probably helps that they had good XML sitemaps for product pages, and plenty of internal linking, unique content on category pages, etc.
I have also seen sites do well using rel next/prev without rel canonical, or rel next/prev with self-referencing canonicals on paginated category pages.
I think where you run into problems is when you also allow the facet/filter/sort versions to have self-referencing rel canonical tags.
Here is what I advise in most cases:
Use rel next/prev (not because I think it works, but because Google says to and I don't think it hurts) along with self-referencing rel canonical tags, and "follow,noindex" robots meta tags on paginated pages.
Always include a followable link to the first page in the series from every subsequent page. For example:
<previous>first...1...25...26...27...last...</previous>
I recommend always having a first and last page link. The first is obvious because it means pagerank is going to flow into it from every other page in the set, giving it the most internal links of all. The last is more of a crawlability and usability thing. For users it helps us figure out how much further we have to go. It does the same thing for search engines. Instead of blindly following a path that may or may not have an end, a message is sent that tells a spider how much further it has to go. I don't know if Google takes advantage of that signal or not, but it just makes sense to include it. If you want to get fancy you can try making the 'last' link flash or javascript or something so it doesn't pass (as much?) page rank.
The category root pages usually have links from site-wide navigation, unlike the paginated versions, which further establishes it as the page that should be ranked highest.
Make sure the first page in each series is indexable, and has content that does not appear on the paginated versions. Also, make sure that ?p=1 doesn't have a self-referencing canonical tag, but references the root page for that series (e.g. /category1/category2/).
All subsequent variations (e.g. color, size) should rel canonical back to their root page. For example:
/category1/category2/?page=2&size=s&color=blue would have the following URL in the rel canonical tag:
/category1/category2/?page=2
Which happens to be followable, but not-indexable, and has a self-referencing rel canonical tag.In this way you give search engines a strong signal about which URL in the whole set is the strongest (i.e. /category1/category2/) because it is indexable, has its own content, has the most internal and external links, is the simplest version of this URL pattern, and is at the root of the directory. You're telling search engines which page is next in the series, and that this page is first in the series. You're telling search engines which page is last in the series, as well. Google usually does an awesome job figuring it out from there. There are always exceptions.
Do we implement noindex/follow meta robots tag on each paginated page?
I would. Consider this from Google's perspective, or from that of a searcher. Someone types "Blue Flower Dress" into Google. Is the best page to return a deep category page full of blue dresses, one of which happens to have flowers? Or would it be the Blue Flower Dress product page? I can't think of any reason why I would want to land on page 3, where what I'm looking for is listed among dozens of other things, when I could just go straight to the thing I'm looking for.
Likewise, if someone searches for "Blue Dresses" is the best page /dresses/blue/?page=3 (paginated page in the Blue Dresses category), OR /dresses/blue/ (the very first page of the Blue Dresses category), which also has useful content about blue dresses?
Long story short, when it comes to transactional eCommerce queries, they're usually either looking for a product page or the first page of a specific category or sub-category. Or sometimes the home page. Therefore, I don't see any reason for allowing paginated URLs to be indexable in most cases. Non-transactional eCommerce content is different (e.g. buying guides, comparison charts, reviews...) but I still wouldn't allow paginated pages to be indexed in most cases.
Slightly Off Topic - Filters/Facets/Sorts
Or perhaps the category is "casual dresses" and "blue" is specified in the "color" attribute. In this case, would the best page be /dresses/casual/?color=blue , /dresses/casual/ or /dresses/casual/?color=blue&page=4 for someone who Googled "blue dresses"? I've bolded the one I'd prefer as a searcher.
Here again, as with the internal search results, there is an opportunity to use real data to inform your decision. Pay attention to the facet/filter/sort URLs most accessed by shoppers and consider turning those into category or collections pages with their own URL pattern (e.g. /dresses/casual/blue/). One example I come across all the time is when "Brand" is a filter instead of its own limb in the category structure. If people are shopping by brand, as they do with most consumer products, then you should have a brand subcategory under each major top-level category. If I search for Levi Jeans Google doesn't want to send me to a "pants" page where I have to set a filter to see only Levis. I should go to pants/brand/levi/ . If I Google Chefmate Pots I want to see cookware/pots/brands/chefmate so I don't have to set a filter after I get there.
This doesn't mean all filter pages should be turned into category pages either. Use your best judgement based on the pages most of your users are accessing from the navigation and filters.
Do we include the canonical URL for each paginated page in the sitemap if we do not add the meta robots tag?
I would add the robots meta tag. Please let me know if I've misunderstood the question.
We have a view all but will not be using it due to page load capabilities...what do we do with the view-all URL? Do we add meta robots to it?
I would add a meta robots "index,nofollow" tag, and would also use the canonical page's URL (e.g. /category1/category2) in the rel canonical tag.
For website search results pages containing pagination should we just put a noindex/follow meta robots tag on them?
This is one of those situations involving crawl budget potentially being eaten up by an infinite amount of pages. I would consider blocking the internal search result URLs in the robots.txt file. They are of no use to Google, as they consider a search engine returning search results with links to more search results somewhere else a bad user experience. This is also what Google recommends in their Webmaster Guidelines:
"Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto-generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search engines."
However, I would also make use of those pages internally. Rather than relying on a search result page for things people often look for, track what is being searched for and create static, indexable pages. For example, try "Collections" pages on eCommerce sites, as well as FAQ pages, or "Industries" or "Use Case"-type pages on lead generation sites. This is a much better user experience for someone arriving on that page from a search engine.
We have separate mobile URL's that also contain pagination. Do we need to consider these pages as a separate pagination project? We already canonical all the mobile URL's to the main page of the desktop URL.
I think you should if that's the way you're handling it. Here is a post I did on mobile best practices. It covers some other options. I would also add a rel=”alternate” tag in the HTML header of the desktop page, which alerts search engines to the corresponding mobile URL and helps define the relationship between the two pages.
The bottom line for me is to always think about what would be the best experience for someone searching from Google for something, and to try and use all of the various technical options to ensure that is the page I'm telling Google they should rank for that query, or those types of queries. The 'best practice' changes, depending on the situation.
I hope others will join the discussion with their own experiences and findings.
-
Hi,
Please check this moz article on this @ SEO Guide to Google Webmaster Recommendations for Pagination
Hope this helps you.
Thanks
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
-
Why is pagination SEO such a mystery in 2021?
Hi folks. I would like to discuss pagination. I use WordPress (Genesis, specifically). I ran my site through a site scan and it flagged an error which told me that my blog was producing duplicate meta descriptions because the blog is paginated - the same meta description from the blog page is being used on Page 2, Page 3 etc. I looked into this and the Internet is awash with many other people scratching around for a solution. My understanding is that using a canonical link on the first page is not a good idea, because it says to Google that only Page 1 of the blog is important. I also read an article that states Google no longer reads the Rel=Prev/Next code that could be used to tell Google to ignore the issue. So, what's the solution? Do I even need one? As a side-thought, it seems to me that pagination is, well, pretty useless. I mean, if my blog has 20 pages and I've worked hard to create content, who is going to click through to anywhere near page 20? Nobody. There has to be a smarter way for people on-site to access content. I would love your thoughts on all of this. Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nobody16165422281340 -
Site Migration - Pagination
Hi, We are migrating our website and an issue we are facing is how to handle paginated content in our categories. Our new website will have the same structure but with different urls. Should we 301 redirect all the paginated content (if crawled by Google) to the url of the main category? To put this into an example: Old urls: www.example.com/technology/tvs (main category of TVs & also page 1) ** www.example.com/technology/tvs?v=0&page=2 ** ( page 2 of TVs) New urls: **www.example.com/soundvision/tvs **(main category of TVs & also page 1) **www.example.com/soundvision/tvs?page=2 **(page 2 of tvs) Should we redirect all of the old TV urls (also the paginated) to www.example.com/soundvision/tvs ? The is no rel next, prev tag in our site and no canonicals. Also there is a view all products page in each category, BUT it doesn't contain all the products(max. is 100 per page - yes the view all page is also paginated). The same view all products page (paginated) will exist in the new website also. I checked google search console, and Google has decided to treat as canonical page the first page www.example.com/technology/tvs . Also, all the organic traffic of our categories goes to these pages (main category page - 1st page). I would appreciate any thoughts on this.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HellasSITES0 -
Please... Help me convince my boss that Keyword Density is not-important / damaging.
If you can, please provide any and all talking points that I can use in this argument. It seems that no matter what I show him, including Matt Cutts' video debunking Keyword Density back in 2011, it doesn't seem to stick. He is fully, 100% convinced that keyword density is hugely important and we need to focus our time and energy on it. Any sources you might have to help me show him that this is a myth would be hugely appreciated. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TaylorRHawkins2 -
Homepage keeps disappearing and reappearing for important keywords every few days
My homepage keeps disappearing from the SERPS for my most important keywords. My home page has been in number 2 position for years. When the home page disappears it will not even show in a Google search for my business name although it is still indexed. When the home page is not showing an internal page shows instead but in position 6. When the home page is back the internal page does not show. There are no issues being reported in Google Webmaster. When I realise that it's down I do a fetch as Google and request reindexing. No idea if this is bringing it back or not? We are so worried about this and totally at a loss. As are the three SEO companies I've called. Would really appreciate it if someone could give some advice. NSFW https://goo.gl/dwA8YB
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GemmaApril1 -
HTTPS - implementation question
Hello, I am looking at a site on which they haven't 301'd http to https, so each URL is there whether you have http or https at the beginning. Why would a site owner not 301 to https? Is there any logical reason not to use 301? This particular website is simply using a canonical tag to point to the https version of each URL.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Pagination, Javascript & SEO
Hi I need some help identifying whether we need to rethink the way we paginated product pages, On this page http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches when clicking page 1,2, etc - we have javascript to sort the results, the URL displayed and the URL linked to are different. e.g. The URL for these paginated pages is for example: page2 http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches#productBeginIndex:30&orderBy:5&pageView:list& Then the arrows either side of pagination, link to the paginated landing page e.g. http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches?page=3 - this is where the rel/prev details are - done for Google However - when clicking on this arrow, the URL loaded is different again - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches#productBeginIndex:60&orderBy:5&pageView:list& & doesn't take you http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches?page=3 I did not set this up, but I am concerned that the URL http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches?page=3 never actually loads, but it's linked to Google can crawl it. Is this a problem? I am looking to implement a view all option. Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Ecommerce, SEO & Pagination
Hi I'm trying to workout if there's something wrong with our pagination. We include the rel="next" and "prev" on our pages. When clicking on page 2 on a product page, the URL will show as something like - /lockers#productBeginIndex:30&orderBy:5&pageView:list& However, if I search site:http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/lockers in Google, it seems to find paginated pages: http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/lockers?page=2 I have a feeling something is going wrong here, but haven't worked massively on Pagination before. Can anyone help?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Two pages on same domain - Is this a proper use of the canonical tag?
I have a domain with two pages in question--one is an article with 2,000 words and the other is a FAQ with 300 words. The 300 word FAQ is copied, word-for-word and pasted inside of the 2,000 word article. Would it be a proper use of the canonical tag to point the smaller, 300 word FAQ at the 2,000 word article? Since the 300 word article is identical to a portion of the 2,000 word article, will Google see this as duplicate content? Thanks in advance for any helpful insight.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0