Pagination parameters and canonical
-
Hello,
We have a site that manages pagination through parameters in urls, this way:
friendly-url.html
friendly-url.html?p=2
friendly-url.html?p=3
...We've rencently added the canonical tag pointing to friendly-url.html for all paginated results.
In search console, we have the "p" parameter identified by google.
Now that the canonical has been added, should we still configure the parameter in search console, and tell google that it is being use for pagination?Thank you!
-
Hi Teconsite, this is a great question.
I would not recommend marketing the "p" parameter in Search Console. Instead, I'd leave it as "Let Google Decide" and use your pagination SEO implementation to guide the search engines.
There is still a lot of debate around pagination as it relates to SEO. The way I have always implemented is is:
- Every paginated page canonicals to itself, because you do not want the search engines to start ignoring your paginated pages which are there somewhat for users, but also for SEO.
- Use rel next/prev to help Google understand that they are in pagination, which will also help them rank the beginning of pagination for the terms you are trying to rank for.
- Use noindex/follow on pages 2-N to be sure they stay out of Google's index.
- Use the numbers showing how long pagination is to drive the search engines deep into your pagination to get all of your products/whatever indexed. This is often done through linking to page 1, the last page, and the 3-5 pages on either side of the page you are currently on. So page 7 of 20 would like to page 1, pages 5-9, and page 20.
The reason most people say to canonical pages 2-N to the base page is to preserve any link equity pointing to these pages and help the first page rank. However, I have almost never seen a deep paginated page with links, and if you have architected pagination correctly then the equity going into pages 2-N will also flow to page 1, just like product pages linking to category pages.
Hope this helps!
-
In this Moz guide regarding Google webmaster recommendations, it says you should still set the paginated page parameter in Google's Webmaster Tools:
https://mza.seotoolninja.com/ugc/seo-guide-to-google-webmaster-recommendations-for-pagination (search for the part "Coding Instruction for the View-All Option")
Hope this helps!
-
You are sort of in an odd situation. You could tell Google that the "p" parameter is for pagination and they would better understand that. However, the canonical tag usage sort of tells Google that all of your paginated pages are actually duplicates of the first page.
-
Hello Anthony!
Thank you for your answer. I have been reading about the rel/prev and the canonical, and I found two different points of view about this. I know the recommendation of Google is the one that you have mentioned above, but as the CMS (Prestashop) is managing the paginated results the way I have shown, that is the one I am using.
The question is, imagine that I have implemented the canonical the way you say before (or the way I did, I doesn't really matter for my question), should I still tell google that "p" parameter is a pagination parameter in Google Webmaster Tools or it's not necessary?
Thank you!
-
Typically, if you want to use the Canonical Tag for pagination, you would have it point to a View All style page, such as friendly-url.html&view=all.
If you have too many products/pages in the pagination series, you might want to consider removing the canonical tag and implementing rel=prev/next. You can get more info here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
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
-
Spammy page with canonical reference to my website
A potentially spammy website http://www.rofof.com/ has included a rel canonical tag pointing to my website. They've included the tag on thousands of pages on their website. Furthermore http://www.rofof.com/ appears to have backlinks from thousands of other low-value domains For example www.kazamiza.com/vb/kazamiza242122/, along with thousands of other pages on thousands of other domains all link to pages on rofof.com, and the pages they link to on rofof.com are all canonicalized to a page on my site. If Google does respect the canonical tag on rofof.com and treats it as part of my website then the thousands of spammy links that point to rofof.com could be considered as pointing to my website. I'm trying to contact the owner of www.rofof.com hoping to have the canonical tag removed from their website. In the meantime, I've disavowed the www.rofof.com, the site that has canonical tag. Will that have any effect though? Will disavow eliminate the effect of a rel canonical tag on the disavowed domain or does it only affect links on the disavowed website? If it only affects links then should I attempt to disavow all the pages that link to rofof.com? Thanks for reading. I really appreciate any insight you folks can offer.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brucepomeroy1 -
WooCommere Canonical links relating to products and subscriptions
Hello, Thanks for taking the time to have a read of this, I'm not quite sure of the best way to address this issue. I have a WooCommerce site with Products and Subscriptions, i.e subscribe to buy the product monthly. Because of the way WooCommerce works these are effectively two different pages, for example: https://formnutrition.com/plant-based-nutrition/form-superblend-plant-based-vegan-protein/ and https://formnutrition.com/plant-based-nutrition/superblend-protein-subscription/ Since the second is just a Subscription of the first (Product) it's basically exactly the same content. I'm not sure if I should make the canonical link of the Subscription point to the Product? I would prefer that customers find the Product first and don't want Google to think this is duplicate content. On the other hand it's not strictly duplicate content as they are two different things? Is there any advice or best practice on how to handle this? Many thanks, Damian
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | damo_form0 -
Pagination vs. Scroll for Ecommerce
Hi I wanted to see what opinions were on having a product listings on paginated pages vs. loading as the user scrolls? We use pagination but I have heard scroll may be better for SEO? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
GWT url parameter issue/question
Hi Moz community, I'm having an issue with URL parameters in GWT. The tracking taxonomy for my websites is used as either /?izid=... (internal) OR /?dzid=... (external) I put tracking parameters in GWT as izid & dzid, but it hasn't picked up any URLs or examples in regards to these parameters. It's been about 2 months since we've started using this so I want to make sure Google isn't indexing as duplicate content. Side note: any page that uses a tracking parameter automatically adds rel="canonical" to the original page. Could this be the reason that GWT doesn't pick up any URLs for tracking parameters and/or do I not need to worry about adding paramters if I already have the canonical attribute automatically in place. Thanks for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IceIcebaby
-Reed0 -
Circular Canonical/Redirect
My client's site has an issue (see below) and I'm wondering how much it could be affecting crawlability. Has anyone seen a major rankings bump after fixing something like this? 1. In each page the rel=canonical is pointing to the http version of the page while the http version is redirecting to the https version. Basically, a circular redirect-canonical loop is occurring.2. The sitemap.xml is also referring to the http version of the pages rather than the https.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | elenaroi0 -
Linking to urls with Query Parameters good for SEO?
Hey guys, I am currently buying link ad spots on sites (hardcoded, not using ad networks). I track the each link I buy and the sales they generate with query parameters such as : http://www.mydomain.com/?r=top_menu_nav_on_seomoz My question is : do these links still pass link juice? I have my canonical already set to http://www.mydomain.com Also, in Webmaster tools I have it set to ignore anything after /?r= The way I see it, a link is a link. Naturally I would prefer to send directly to my root domain, however, these links cost a lot of money and I like to track my results. Does anyone have experience with SEO and working with query parameters?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CrakJason0 -
Parameters when deciding how to set up cross domain analytics?
Hi, I am planning on setting up cross domain analytics for my website. I have found lots of sources about the code to use, but haven't been able to find something about what parameters to consider. Would appreciate my fellow mozzers helping me to put together a list of all the variations of elements I may want to track to ensure I am setting it up correctly. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter0 -
Use of rel=canonical to view all page & No follow links
Hey, I have a couple of questions regarding e-commerce category pages and filtering options: I would like to implement the rel=canonical to the view all page as suggested on this article on googlewebmastercentral. If you go on one of my category pages you will see that both the "next page link" and the "view all" links are nofollowed. Is that a mistake? How does nofoolow combines with canonical view all? Is it a good thing to nofollow the "sorty by" pages or should I also use Noindex for them?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ypsilon0