Link rel="prev" AND canonical
-
Hi guys,
When you have several tabs on your website with products, you can most likely navigate to page 2, 3, 4 etc...
You can add the link rel="prev" and link rel="next" tags to make sure that 1 page get's indexed / ranked by Google. am I correct?However this still means that all the pages can get indexed, right?
For example a webshop makes use of the link rel="prev" and ="next" tags.
In the Google results page though, all the seperate tabs pages are still visible/indexed..
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=1
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=24
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=19
etc.....Can we prevent this, and make sure only the main page get's indexed and ranked, by adding a canonical link on every 'tab page' to the main page --> www.domain.nl/watches/
I hope I explained it well and I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Tom
-
WOW, this is an interesting thread. In theory, rel next prev is what Google wants you to go with. In practice, however, I haven't not seen this work as advertised by Google, and end up going to rel canonical in most cases. Here's one way to think about it:
Allow non-filtered pagination for top-level categories to be followed, but NOT indexed. Give them their own rel canonicals (self referencing) and ensure the intro content (or any other static content on the page) only shows on the first page (which should rel canonical to / instead of /?page=1). This will ensure your product pages all have a path going to them. Use rel next prev here, which "may" help the main/first page rank better by consolidating ranking signals from the paginated set.
For sub-categories and/or filters/facets use rel canonical pointing to the canonical version of that category page.
None of this, however, takes care of the crawl budget issue on enterprise eCommerce sites with crawlable filtered URLs. Therefore, I also use the robot.txt file, or nofollow attributes in links to handle this. I don't often use the nofollow robots meta tag for a variety of reasons.
Again, in the real world rel next/prev doesn't seem to be working very well. I haven't tried it in awhile, but it just doesn't seem to do what Google says it's supposed to do. This is why you see a lot of sites using rel canonical instead. I think we should think about this in terms of where you are in the architecture instead of trying to fit all pages into a single scheme. For example, some sites may even want to allow the first facet/filter to be indexable - such as "Filter by Brand" - because people are searching for it. If that's the case, I'll often advise they turn that into a real category instead of a filter. Another example, if you sell kitchenware and Pots & Pans is a category but Material is a filter you're missing out on a lot of searches for things like "Copper Pots & Pans" or "Stainless Steel Pans". It all depends on the situation, and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
-
Hi Lesley,
Interesting indeed, I'd agree with the colours etc. having a canonical as essentially it would be Duplicated but when writing I was assuming unique products under each category (e.g. TV's each with different size or brand). This might also encompass filters etc. but it depends on how far down that road you want to go. I assume Tom's problem is more for just a categories with X pages all with unique things in. Hopefully you find the above somewhat helpful Tom!
Good conversation thanks Lesley.
-
Good pick up on the Walmart issue. I actually took that screen shot when I was making that post, so it kind of confused me to how it changed so quickly. I did a bit more digging and figured out what they are doing. It basically looks like their canonical on their category pages is broken. See this video, http://screencast.com/t/Azyjjuxor8 So when you change pages, the canonical stays the same as your entry page and the rel=next/previous does not change either. But that would lead me to suspect if Google is crawling the site, they see the canonical pointing to the top level of the category. But interestingly enough if they ever did a fetch as Google on a paginated page, or if the crawler started with page 5 that would lead to some weird results Google would have to deal with. So effectively I would say their is broken.
It also seems like Rand might have changed his tune a bit since that article. When I did an interview with him, he said to canonical back to the main category page in faceted navigation situations. "Having 28 separate category pages for women’s pants where the only variations are size and color is probably not a great idea. In faceted navigation scenarios like that, I’d make the color and size filtered pages use a rel=canonical back to the non-faceted women’s pants page." https://www.prestashop.com/blog/en/seo-expert-series-rand-fishkin-of-moz/
So for a better answer it might depend on how the category pages are structure with the navigation as well.
-
I still disagree, a middle ground might be a view all section that you can canonical the downside might be some page load speeds but there are some ways to reduce that. I had a quick look for my self and found that Walmart seems to have updated their game http://i.imgur.com/RvMboWG.png
A few of the examples you posted are more filters(Query string) than they are true pagination but I get what your leaning towards.
We're also an e-commerce specialist, the problem with copying bigger companies is if something goes wrong they can afford to get through it, can you? Just because they are a bigger company doesn't mean they know better, don't follow what everyone else is doing try to set your self apart, it is possible to set meta tags on paginated content, create more content to make each page unique etc. if 99% of the CMS's you found didn't do it keep looking for the 1% as it is possible
Finally I'll point to Rands own blog here - https://mza.bundledseo.com/blog/pagination-best-practices-for-seo-user-experience
"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)."
Thanks for the reply I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the above, i guess I'm somewhat stuck in my ways for pagination and canonical tags!
Hope some of the above helps Tom.
-
Tom,
I think you are seeing two differing view points on the issue. We only do e-commerce work, so we have gleaned our suggestions from the best practices in the e-commerce industry. I have done some pretty extensive research around this issue just to see what other companies do, that is why I suggested pointing your canonical back to your category landing pages. One issue I think is thin content. Do people really want to land on page 4 of a pagination?
With paginated category pages you actually run into a lot of SEO problems that are not addresses in 99% of all e-commerce platforms. Duplicate content, meta descriptions, and titles are some of the biggest. I am not familiar with any e-commerce package that will let you have different meta title or meta descriptions for paginated pages. Some might add "Page number x" to the title and descriptions, but that will still trigger duplicate content errors.
Lets look at what other sites in the industry do and how they do it.
Walmart
Walmart points all of their paginated pages back to the main category page. But they also do something interesting worth noting. They use rel=next on everyone as well. Even if the rel=next points to the page itself. See this screenshot of their TV category on page 2.
http://screencast.com/t/eZb9zbgA0u
If you notice the rel=next at the bottom actually points to the page you are on and the canonical points back to the category root.
Target
Target uses a filtering navigation on their category pages. It makes some really unpretty urls too. Below is a screenshot of a page 2 of their TV category.
http://screencast.com/t/oolK0hZy
They also point their category pagination back to the main category landing page as well. Also note that they do not use the rel=next or previous in their page as well.
Macy's
Macy's also points their canonical back at their category root page too. For some reason they have a query string on it as you can see in the image below. But in the next screenshot you can see where that page actually goes.
http://screencast.com/t/l3Jp2lxeBhTK
http://screencast.com/t/sDLTuAOa
Also it it is worth note that they don't use the rel next/previous on any of their pages as well.
Tiger Direct
Tiger Direct is another company that follows pretty much the same pattern as well. You can see by the image below that they point their paginated page back to the root category.
http://screencast.com/t/PsGft6CCgJ
I think the main reason of doing things like this works out two fold for companies. First you are putting more power into the category landing page and second you are providing better user experience. What does a paginated page of a category have to offer that the main page doesn't?
Sure Google might call using them the best practice, but that does not mean they will penalize you for not using them. We personally recommend to people to not use them and to point everything at the category root because that seems to be the standard in the industry. When you are trying to rank a page against other big e-commerce competitors you want to use every trick in the book to get ahead. Generally by not using this one it seems you won't.
-
Hi Tom,
To break it down into the two areas:
Option A
Pagination - Google recommends this option it involves a similar set up that you have at the moment (the above links can help with this) you might find you canonical each page to its self perhaps but for the most part canonical is not used. Pros of this is its within Google guidelines and all content is indexed, the negative is that all the content is indexed and you might not have a way to get the page you want ranked (but you can tweak this)
Option B
You canonical all the pagination pages to a category page, this is not within Google guidelines as the pages are not duplicated nor would they really have duplicated content (with some exceptions). This bonus of this is technically you can sculpt all the link juice from all the pages to one place but the negative of this is you don't have a lot of content indexed.
Personal I'm in favor of option A, its in the guidelines its what the whole thing was designed for and if done correctly shouldn't cause you too many problems. The second option whilst i can work can also backfire especially if you not a large company and like most things is a matter of weighing up the pros and cons.
Hope that somewhat helps give you an idea. Really with the canonical (with some exceptions) its an either or scenario.
-
Hi Lesley,
Thx. But I'm still confused, Chris says 'use pagination' , you say 'use canonical'.
I don't really know what the best practice is tbh.Can you explain why you wouldn't use the rel next/prev with this?
Regards,
Tom
-
Tom,
What we do with most of our clients is to point the canonical tag on paginated category pages to the root category page like you are wanting to do. It helps with duplicate content issues generated for category pages and also makes your landing page stronger. I would not use the rel next/previous with this though.
If you look around the industry at the bigger ecommerce sites this is what is done. Walmart, Target, and all of the big players with the exception of Amazon use this practice.
-
You shouldn't use both as the canonical tag kinda cancels out the pagination which is not ideal.It means some of the products wont be getting indexed, you can always create a view all page and aim to make that the main ranking page however its never a garuntee. The pagination sounds like its the best option to me. All that is happening is Google is giving what it thinks is the best results by trying to sculpt it you might cause more problems than its worth.
Edit okay just to expand some more, you may want to read some more into pagination here - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
it should help you clear up getting ti correct.
-
Hi Chris, Thx for your quick reply. We have a similar situation as the one I described earlier. Currently the code below is on the page. What are your thoughts on this contruction? Because, we use the prev and next AS WELL AS the canonical tag. The canonical to prevent duplicate content. The link prev and next to prevent Google indexing all the seperate /?tab=.. as inidivual pages. I'm looking forward to your response. Regards, Tom
-
Hi Tom,
You may find the following helpful - :http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
In short if you do canonical you would loose the pages (sort of) as technically they are not duplicated. You could try a "view all" page and hope that replaces some of the problems.
Seems to be pagination is working fine on your site so I wouldn't worry too much, if you did add canonical it may do more harm than good for the sake of making a URL look more appealing.
Hope that somewhat helps.
Good luck.
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
-
Trailing slash URLs and canonical links
Hi, I've seen a fair amount of topics speaking about the difference between domain names ending with or without trailing slashes, the impact on crawlers and how it behaves with canonical links.
Technical SEO | | GhillC
However, it sticks to domain names only.
What about subfolders and pages then? How does it behaves with those? Say I've a site structured like this:
https://www.domain.com
https://www.domain.com/page1 And for each of my pages, I've an automatic canonical link ending with a slash.
Eg. rel="canonical" href="https://www.domain.com/page1/" /> for the above page. SEM Rush flags this as a canonical error. But is it exactly?
Are all my canonical links wrong because of that slash? And as subsidiary question, both domain.com/page1 and domain.com/page1/ are accessible. Is it this a mistake or it doesn't make any difference (I've read that those are considered different pages)? Thanks!
G0 -
How should I deal with "duplicate" content in an Equipment Database?
The Moz Crawler is identifying hundreds of instances of duplicate content on my site in our equipment database. The database is similar in functionality to a site like autotrader.com. We post equipment with pictures and our customers can look at the equipment and make purchasing decisions. The problem is that, though each unit is unique, they often have similar or identical specs which is why moz (and presumably google/bing) are identifying the content as "duplicate". In many cases, the only difference between listings are the pictures and mileage- the specifications and year are the same. Ideally, we wouldn't want to exclude these pages from being indexed because they could have some long-tail search value. But, obviously, we don't want to hurt the overall SEO of the site. Any advice would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | DohenyDrones0 -
Canonical and Alternate REL
Hi I have a website which is mostly dynamic content from a database. In the header of the site I have a function which outputs the rel="canonical" link and in some cases the canonical is the page the user is visiting and not another page on the site but I still show it in the source. However we have just recently launched our mobile website which is stored on an M DOT domain (i.e. m.mydomain.com) which has different URL's to my main website so following Google's recommendations we have created rel="alternate" links on my desktop site to point to the equivalent mobile pages and on the mobile pages I have created rel="canonical" links which point back to the relevant desktop site keeping everything tidy.
Technical SEO | | yousayjump
My question is, is there an issue with having both a rel="canonical" and rel="alternate" in the source of of a single page on my desktop site? Is it conflicting or detrimental in anyway? Thanks for reading0 -
Missing Meta Tags - "thousands" using WooCommerce?
Recently took a site live for a client using WP/WooCommerce to replace their antiquated shopping cart site and have encountered thousands of "Missing Meta Description Tag" errors. Have researched and tried a couple different approaches, but nothing really seems to fix this problem. I'm happy to continue to research, but have never encountered this problem before. Anyone else encountered similar? If so, how did you fix? Which resources to start with? 2VKDRVx
Technical SEO | | twelvetwo.net0 -
Canonical & rel=prev / next changes to website a good idea or not?
Hi all, I decided yesterday to make a load of changes to my website, and today i woke thinking, should i have done that! So below is an example of what i have done (i will try to explain clearly anyway), can you let me know if you think what i have done would harm or help my website in search results etc... ok, so lets take just one category - Cameras And it has the sub categories - box dome bullet it also has other sub categories (which are actually features, but the only way i can show them on my site is by having them as a sub-category with its own static page, and adding the products to these as secondary categories) vandal proof high resolution night vision previously i have it set up so that every single category / sub category / feature had its own static page, with a canonical tag to itself (i.e cameras.html canonical was to cameras.html, vandalproof.html canonical was to vandalproof.html). Any of the categories / sub cats / features that had more than one page were simply not in search results due to the canonical pointing to "Page 1"... What i have now done: Last night i decided to change all this, now for all categories / sub cats / features i have add rel=prev / next where applicable, and removed the canonical from second / third / fourth pages etc, but left the canonical on "page 1". I also removed any keywords from page 2,3,4 etc and changed descriptions to just page "X" + category name. So for example, page one looks like: and page two looks like: I also went a little further (maybe too far) and decided that the features pages would canonicalize back to cameras so for those i now have: Page 1: Page 2: Any advice is welcome on the above, in regards to which way may be better and why, and obviously if anything jumps out as a mistake... Please advise James
Technical SEO | | isntworkdull0 -
Accidentally checked privacy setting in WP to "not to index" and dropped rank...how can I fix this?
I recently rebuilt a static website to a wordpress site...In the privacy settings ....the -"Ask search engines not to index this site" was checked and I didn't notice. I had a top ranking website now its completely gone off google and every where else. I have unchecked it, resubmitted a sitemap to google.....does anyone know if this is permanent damage or if there is something else I can do to help fix this......I'm freaking out
Technical SEO | | eversseo0 -
With or without "/" at the end of domain
Hello, A client domains appear sometimes like www.domain.co.uk and sometimes like www.domain.co.uk/ I would like to place redirects from URLs that contain strings such as /index.aspx?id=42 to the main page but which one should I pick? With or without the "/" ? Thank you
Technical SEO | | DavidSpivac0 -
How "Optimised" is my home page content
Good afternoon from 1 degrees C overcast frozen wetherby UK... I've made a number of on page html markup changes to optimise the page for steel suppliers steel stockholders but I'd like to know if there are any other on page improvments I could make for this page http://www.barrettsteel.com/ Im particulary concerned that contnet in in li tags and not p, could this be an issue? And finaaly on the home page a third party developer has slapped a header banner pointing to an external site know as woodberry tools, that cant be good can it? Any insights welcome 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0