Just read Travis Loncar's YouMoz post and I have a question about Pagination
-
This was a brilliant post.
I have a question about Pagination on sites that are opting to use Google Custom Search. Here is an example of a search results page from one of the sites I work on:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman
I notice in the source code of sequential pages that the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags are not used. I also noticed that the URL does not change when clicking on the numbers for the subsequent pages of the search results.
Also, the canonical tag of every subsequent page looks like this:
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? All of our Google Custom Search pages have the same canonical tag....Something's telling me this just can't be good.
Questions:
1. Is this creating a duplicate content issue?
2. If we need to include rel="prev" and rel="next" on Google Custom Search pages as well as make the canonical tag accurate, what is the best way to implement this?
Given that searchers type in such a huge range of search terms, it seems that the canonical tags would have to be somehow dynamically generated.
Or, (best case scenario!) am I completely over-thinking this and it just doesn't matter on dynamically driven search results pages?
Thanks in advance for any comments, help, etc.
-
-
Considering that the larger of the two sites I work on is on a platform from 1996, I might actually be living "back in the day!" lol - Thanks again Jared!
-
This would all depend on what the site was built on, and the flexibility. There's no questions that this can be done. "Back in the day" we had a few sites that had tens of thousands of page due to sorting, and we had everything generated including:
Title, meta d, meta k, breadcrmb, H1 and short description.
Those were the days!!!
-
For the most part, I would choose to use rel=prev/next for pagination, including both pagination with dynamic urls and static URLs. There are some cases (as with this original thread question) where you should use canonical, but as a whole you should use rel=prev/next.
The best way to explain it is:
Rel Prev/Next:
Your site: Hi Google, I have all of these pages that very similar so I'm just letting you know that I only have duplicate content here for usability reasons and am in no way inferring that you should index all of these pages and rank them #1!
Google: Ok great, thanks for letting us know. We'll index the pages we feel are appropriate, but you wont get penalized for duplicate content. We may only index and serve one page, "page 1", or we may index multiple pages. Thanks for letting us know.
Canonical:
Your site: Hi Google, I have all these paginated pages that look like duplicate content, please do not include any of them in your index, and don't penalize me for duplicate content. For the record, the page you should index is Page 1 and no other pages.Any links that point to the paginated pages should be counted towards Page 1*.
Google: Great, no matter what we will not index any pagination and only Page 1.
With rel=next you are simply letting Google know, but not dictating how Google should act on the situation. If fact with ecomm sites, youll find that a lot of timees when you use rel=next, Google will actually index the 'view all' page if you have "view all" as an option around your pagination links
*many articles suggest that link juice is passed to the canonical URL - I'm have not seen any direct evidence of this but is worth a different discussion.
-
Yes, Jared, this is a great answer. I understand completed. It looks like we are ok then with Google Custom Search as it is. Thanks so much for your thoughtful answer. Now, if we can only get our paginated category pages sorted out, we'll be on the right track!
-
Hi Gerd,
Yes, this is a separate issue we are also struggling with on the site. I believe Travis' YouMoz post from yesterday made a pretty good case for using multiple paginated URLs, and he even illustrated how to accomplish this with sorting parameters like "color" and "price"
You raise a very good point about duplicate titles and descriptions potentially being a problem in this scenario.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to handle that? Could the backend be programmed to dynamically create unique titles and descriiptions based on some rules for naming conventions? (assuming you have access to that level of the code of course)
Really interested to know some points of view on this!
Dana
-
I raised a similar question in the following Q&A - http://www.seomoz.org/q/duplicate-title-tags-with-pagination-and-canonical
My concern or question (we have rel=prev/next) would be more towards what the canoncial should be. There seems to be different opinions:
1. Use the current paginated page as the canonical - in our case GWMT reports duplicate titles (I suppose appending a page-number should sort this out)
2. Use the base search URL as the canonical - perhaps not a bad choice if your site's content changes and Google indexes page 50, but over time you only have results for 40 pages (resulting in an empty result page)
I currently only can conclude that having the prev/next implemented is a good thing as it will hint Google in pagination (in addition to setup the URL parameters in GWMT). I do plan to change the canoncial to the base search URL (and not having multiple paginated URLs) and see how this will affect indexing and SERPs.
-
Dana
Great and informative question,
Jared
Great Answer
-
Hi Dana - Let me see if I understand this correctly:
In question 1 you asked if this would be a duplicate content issue. The canonical tag retains the exact same URL regardless of the search parameter (and resulting search results). Therefore, regardless of the search being made, Google and other crawlers will not index page with a search parameter since the canonical references to the original url (http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return). This means that when Google accidentally lands here http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman it sees the canonical tag and understands that it should not index this page as it is only a variation of the core page.
This would of course be a problem if you actually wanted Google to index every query page. Alternate methods could be to disclude the query parameter in WMT or Robots. But the canonical is built in for you so that you dont have to.
In situations like this I also like to add site search to analytics and block the query parameter so no query pages show up as landing pages.
-
I understand exactly what you are saying Jared. However, here's the problem, the canonical tag is exactly the same....for every single subsequent page in a series across the entire site.
No matter what is searched. The canonical tag remains:
Wouldn't that mean that all search results pages, regardless of search term, are viewed as the same page?
I have heard this discussed before come to think of it. In this case, wouldn't it be proper to block all dynamic search results pages from being crawled or indexed by Google via the htaccess file or robots.txt file?
-
Hi Dana -
I think in the case of Google Custom Search, there is no need to worry about duplication. The reason is that although the rel="prev" etc tags are not being used, a blanket solution already exists: the canonical tag. As you mentioned, the canonical tag never changes, regardless of the search - therefore the crawlers only ever see the Custom Search page as a single page regardless of the queries being made. Thus there is no duplicate issue.
-
I use Google custom search on my site and love it. I would say you have some valid concerns. At first it was a bit of a pain because some of the images didn't line up with the products after a few weeks it worked itself out. We had a 47% increase in conversion from using Google custom search, I use an out of the box type web service so I cannot help you with a few of the questions. There is a lot of customization you can do to fix that you described. Bringing our blog and recipe section was the purpose for trying it and the revenue proved it to be a wise decision.
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
-
Paypal instead of Merchant's account and will the site still move up?
Hello, Will an Ecommerce site still move up in a niche if it only accepts PayPal and doesn't have a merchant's account on it? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | BobGW0 -
Joomla creating duplicate pages, then the duplicate page's canonical points to itself - help!
Using Joomla, every time I create an article a subsequent duplicate page is create, such as: /latest-news/218-image-stabilization-task-used-to-develop-robot-brain-interface and /component/content/article?id=218:image-stabilization-task-used-to-develop-robot-brain-interface The latter being the duplicate. This wouldn't be too much of a problem, but the canonical tag on the duplicate is pointing to itself.. creating mayhem in Moz and Webmaster tools. We have hundreds of duplicates across our website and I'm very concerned with the impact this is having on our SEO! I've tried plugins such as sh404SEF and Styleware extensions, however to no avail. Can anyone help or know of any plugins to fix the canonicals?
Technical SEO | | JamesPearce0 -
My blog post for a specific keyword is in the 'omitted results'. Why might this be, and how to overcome it?
My website Homepage: http://kulraj.org Here is the page I am working to rank for:** http://kulraj.org/2014/07/15/hedonic-treadmill/** When I search specifically for 'kulraj hedonic treadmill' just to test it, the first result is this: kulraj.org_/tag/_hedonic-treadmill. It shows the shortened version of the article that is within the Tag page. [I'm new to SEO and Moz, please keep in mind] Moz has told me I have duplicate content, which is regarding my main Blog page and Tags page, which is true the content is duplicate. However, the actual blog post itself is not displayed anywhere else on the website, or anywhere else on the web. Moz confirms this, and reports no duplicate content warning. My questions, therefore, are: 1. How do I actually go about installing a rel canonical tag within a standard WordPress dashboard (I'm using Genesis Framework) - I'm finding great difficulty finding instructions on this anywhere on the web. I clearly need to fix the issue with Blog page and Tags Page. 2. Why would my blog post be omitted, and are there any suggestions I could implement to bring it into the main search results. Other things I've noticed: 1. If I type this URL in: kulraj.org/hedonic-treadmill, it automatically redirects to http://kulraj.org/2014/07/15/hedonic-treadmill/ 2. Inside Google Webmaster Tools it says: No new messages or recent critical issues. 3. Regarding the above, when I click 'Labs > author stats' within Webmaster Tools, it shows nil stats, so something there is not quite right either, even though Google+ Authorship is confirmed.
Technical SEO | | Kulraj0 -
Schema.org implementation for physician's office vs physician herself?
Hi, Regarding schema.org microdata, which page(s) should have the microdata? 1) http://schema.org/Physician -- appears to be about the office. Since we have all of the contact/address info in the footer on each page, should we do the same with microdata? I can't seem to find a suggested implementation on schema.org Assuming an office has multiple MDs, how should the docs be listed since the physician schema appears to be for the office, not for the individual doctors? Thanks for any insight!
Technical SEO | | Titan5520 -
Hard-working newbie question: benefit of moving my blog to my online store's domain?
Hi all, I've been running an online wine store in Switzerland for a month and have been working hard on SEO (I love learning about it). Anyway, for a couple of years prior to launching the store, I had been running a wine blog whose articles are ranking well in Google. I now want to link the two. My questions are: A) will the addition of the blog (store.com/blog) contribute to the store's domain authority (currently, the blog authority is higher than the site authority)? B) technically, can I 301 the whole blog to store.com/blog? Any help and tips would be appreciated. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | fkupfer0 -
Back Link Question
Hi Folks, Our domain (www.alabu.com) has been around since 2000. We've accumulated a lot of back links over the years, many of which I don't recognize and didn't ask for. I've been reading on here recently about "cleaning up" back links. I do see a lot of ours that just aren't relevant and I don't know why they decided to link to us. We haven't gotten a warning from google or anything like that, but I wonder, how do I know if we could benefit from cleaning up our back links? Is there a benefit to it even if google hasn't warned us? Thanks! Hal
Technical SEO | | AlabuSkinCare0 -
Has Google stopped rendering author snippets on SERP pages if the author's G+ page is not actively updated?
Working with a site that has multiple authors and author microformat enabled. The image is rendering for some authors on SERP page and not for others. Difference seems to be having an updated G+ page and not having a constantly updating G+ page. any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | irvingw0 -
Unnatural Link Warning Removed - WMT's
Hi, just a quick one. We had an unnatural link warning for one of our test sites, the message appeared on the WMT's dashboard. The message is no longer there, has it simply expired or could this mean that Google no longer sees an unatural backlink profile? Hoping it's the latter but doubtful as we haven't tried to remove any links.. as I say it's just a test site. Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Webpresence0