Pagination with parameter and rel prev rel next
-
Hi there:
I have a doubt about how using the pagination and rel prev | rel next, I will try to sum up this example of pagination:
the page number 1 is SEO friendly in order to index it, It also gets metarobots: index, follow.
The other ones (pagination), instead, have noindex, follow. In fact, these URLs are not SEO friendly because of they have the parameter "?" to set up pagination, so for this reason, in the past, It has been decided not to index them.
Would you suggest also to use rel="prev" rel="next" in this situation? Or would it be better to set up the others ones (pagination) in "SEO friendly" and then, to set up the rel prev | rel next?
Thanks a lot in advance for helping
Greetings
Francesca
-
Thank you very much!
Francesca
-
Ah... you're saying have a "View All" page but then not canonical to it? I guess my only concern about that is that then you've got another crawl path and possible duplicates. In that case, you might want to Noindex the "View All" and only have it available to users. It depends a lot on the scope of pages we're talking, as always.
-
I also agree with you, however if your view all page use more than acceptable time to load, I would still suggest having both a view all page and rel next/prev (but not the canonical aswell). By doing so you simply send your visitors hot your first page in the series, however maintaining the ability for users to view all the content.
-
Just one note here - I generally wouldn't use "View All" and rel=prev/next. It's a bit of a mixed signal. If you can create a friendly, fast-loading "View All" page, then rel=canonical the paginated URLs back to the "View All" page.
Agreed, though, that your Nofollow, Noindex is basically overriding the rel=prev/next. I've honestly heard mixed signals from people (including prominent SEOs who handle very large media sites) about how effective rel=prev/next is. I think Meta-robots is a stronger signal, so if you're really worried about duplicates, it's probably doing fine. If you want page 3 of 8 (for example) to rank for some reason, then rel=prev/next opens up that possibility, but it may also be a bit weaker cue in terms of duplication. It's a bit of a trade-off. If your currently approach is keeping pages out of the index, I'd probably leave it alone.
-
Hi Jørgen.
At the moment, I will apply rel ="prev" | rel="next" in order to set up pagination...currently pagination has "noindex, follow". I agree with you about "view all", I think it's the best option, in the future I'd like to set it up...
Thx for replying!!
Francesca
-
Hi @Red_educativa S.L.,
I would suggest using rel="prev/next" in this situation, yes.
When you are specifying a "rel" attribute you are specifying a relationship between the current document and the linked one. The value "prev" and "next" is specifying the relationship to be "The next [previous] document in a selection".
If you instead would use nofollow, google's spiders will not crawl the page. A nofollow value is "Links to an unendorsed document, like a paid link.".
However, this being said, it would be good for SEO to include a "view all" page. This will include all the content on a single page. You should then use rel="canonical" on the link to the view-all page (this will send users from search results to your view-all page. If you instead wish to use your first page in the series, you should only use rel next and prev (not rel canonical).
Have a look at this video from google for more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njn8uXTWiGg
I hope this helps.
--
Jørgen Juel
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
-
One more question about rel=canonical
I'm still trying to wrap my head around rel=canonical and its importance. Thanks to the community, I've been able to understand most of it. Still, I have a couple of very specific questions: I share certain blog posts on the Huffington Post. Here's an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cedric-lizotte/munich-travel-guide_b_13438956.html - Of course I post these on my blog as well. Here: http://www.continentscondiments.com/things-munich-classics/ - Obviously the HuffPo has a huge DA, and I'll never match it. However the original post is mine, on my blog, and not on the HuffPo. They wont - obviously - add a rel=canonical just for me and for the sake of it, they have a million other things to do. QUESTION: Should I add a rel=canonical to my own site pointing to the post on the HuffPost? What would be the advantage? Should I just leave this alone? I share blog posts on Go4TravelBlog too. Example: http://www.go4travelblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-munich/ - but, once again, the original post is on one of my blogs. In this case, it's on another blog of mine: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-in-munich/ QUESTION: Well it's pretty much the same! Should I beg Go4TravelBlog to add a rel=canonical pointing to mine? If they refuse, what do I do? Would it be better to add a rel=canonical from my site to theirs, or do I fight it out and have a rel=canonical pointing to my own post? Why? Thanks a million for your help!
On-Page Optimization | | cedriklizotte0 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
What Next after Weekly Crawl Errors Fixed?
Hi MoZ Community! Moz weekly crawl used to report following errors : I have fixed them all over the time. Can somebody give an idea what to do next with the help of Moz or away from Moz to improve my optimization practices. I believe this is just start of the SEO. Or how is it if I focus link building efforts and start fighting for keywords. Also any suggestions about the web? Tanveer | Duplicate Page Content 4XX (Client Error) Title Missing or Empty 5XX (Server Error) Missing Meta Description Tag Duplicate Page Title Title Element Too Long (> 70 Characters) Title Element Too Short Meta Refresh Temporary Redirect |
On-Page Optimization | | Sequelmed0 -
What is the danger of adding rel="prev" and rel="next"...
Our search results pages are, unfortunately, heavily indexed by Google. While the long term plan is to replace these somehow with our product pages, in the short term we are doing all we can to improve things. One of our issues is that we don't have a canonical link or rel="next" or rel="prev" on these pages. Would like to add these to consolidate duplicate content as well as help Google drill down within these pages to crawl the links within them. The concern is... If ten people arrive at our site via: http://www.oursite.com/?goodstuff=puppies&page=1 and 10 people also arrive at our site via: http://www.oursite.com/?goodstuff=puppies&page=2 Would adding rel="next" and rel="prev" potentially have a damaging effect on us by removing one of these entry points and therefore removing 10 potential visitors? Or would it still show both links, but instead would show the canonical in both locations? In short, could adding these tags actually backfire? Thanks very much! Craig
On-Page Optimization | | TheCraig0 -
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 -
Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
I have encountered problems regarding rel canonical. When I ran On-Page Report Card it says **Error: ** Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Canonical URL: "http://www.sourcedental.createmyid.net/teeth-whitening/" 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." I just don't know how to fix this. I am using Wordpress SEO by Yoast but I haven't change any settings regarding rel canonical. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | projectassistant0 -
Rel Canonical
I will be quick and to the point. I am clearly a novice. I received a notice on my seomoz account that I had 12 pages with a Rel Canonical issue. It seems serious. Can this be a quick fix? Any thoughts? Below is the site address. petbarnpdx.com Thanks in advance for any input on this! Dave
On-Page Optimization | | APICDA0 -
Rel="canonical"
Can you tell me if we've implemented rel="canonical" properly? We want this to be our primary: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- while this would be duplicate and refer robots back to the URL above: http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6054284 We've added the following to both pages: <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.autopartstomorrow.com/parts/6052317-r-econ-semi-met-brake-pads- "/> Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | jonesatl0