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
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
-
Rel-canonical
Hi, I am a bit confused. A potential clients website has three versions: http://www. http:// http://dev. In each version they have used the rel=canonical back to each base version. So http://www." http://" http://dev." I would have expected duplicate content but I see only one version of the content when I check using "....." in Google. Using the site: tool I see that all three versions are indexed. When moving through the navigation on them, they all redirect to the one home page - the www version. Any idea what is going on and what should be recommended?Redirecting all versions to the www. version? Is it a problem?
On-Page Optimization | | AL123al0 -
Is it convinient to use No-Index, Follow to my Paginated Pages?
I have a website http://www.naukrigulf.com and it has a lot of Paginated pages on its SERP and most of paginated pages are getting indexed in Google SERP. Is it beneficial to use No-Index, Follow to keep the link equity to main (first page), although we have already used rel=next and rel=prev. If Answer is "yes" is their any harm by using no-index, follow with rel=next, rel=prev.
On-Page Optimization | | vivekrathore0 -
Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
When I'm checking my page on SEOmoz should I use http://www. or http:// or www. or just keyword.com? And I get this for my check Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>XXX</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>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.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>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.</dd> <dd>I have absolutely NO idea what this means 😞
On-Page Optimization | | 678648631264
</dd> </dl>0 -
Is rel=canonical used only for duplicate content
Can the rel-canonical be used to tell the search engines which page is "preferred" when there are similar pages? For instance, I have an internal page that Google is showing on the first page of the SERPs that I would prefer the home page be ranked for. Both the home and internal page have been optimized for the same keyword. What is interesting is that the internal page has very few backlinks compared to the home page but Google seems to favor it since the keyword is in the URL. I am afraid a 301 will drop us from the first page of the SERPs.
On-Page Optimization | | surveygizmo0 -
My report also notes that I have 176 Rel Canonical. What does this mean and how do I fix it. Thanks
My report also notes that I have 176 Rel Canonical. What does this mean and how do I fix it. Thanks http://pro.seomoz.org/campaigns/95663/issues/18
On-Page Optimization | | cyaindc0 -
How to solve Rel Canonical issue?
I have created one campaign for my website on SEOmoz. I found Rel Canonical issue for following 2 URLs. I can not understand that, what is error with that? Can any one help me to solve it? http://vistastores.com/blog/?p=1 http://vistastores.com/blog/?page_id=2
On-Page Optimization | | CommercePundit0 -
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