Canonicals for Splitting up large pagination pages
-
Hi there,
Our dev team are looking at speeding up load times and making pages easier to browse by splitting up our pagination pages to 10 items per page rather than 1000s (exact number to be determined) - sounds like a great idea, but we're little concerned about the canonicals on this one.
at the moment we rel canonical (self) and prev and next. so b is rel b, prev a and next c - for each letter continued.
Now the url structure will be a1, a(n+), b1, b(n+), c1, c(n+).
Should we keep the canonicals to loop through the whole new structure or should we loop each letter within itself?
Either b1 rel b1, prev a(n+), next b2 - even though they're not strictly continuing the sequence.
Or a1 rel a1, next a2. a2 rel a2, prev a1, next a3 | b1 rel b1, next b2, b2 rel b2, prev b1, next b3 etc.
Would love to hear your points of view, hope that all made sense I'm leaning towards the first one even though it's not continuing the letter sequence, but because it's looping the alphabetically which is currently working for us already.
This is an example of the page we're hoping to split up: https://www.world-airport-codes.com/alphabetical/airport-name/b.html
-
thanks, good to know we were on the right tracks
-
-
Hi,
I might not have explained our project sufficiently, sorry.
We are paginating a into a1, a2 and so on, that's a given.
My question is 'how best do i canonicalise these new pages?'
would you recommend using rel next and prev across the different alphabet pagination pages OR keeping the rel next and prev circulating in their own letters?
Please see the diagram, which hopefully explains this better!
-
Please, lets separate canonical from pagination.
On one hand, pagination. Yes, i´ve suggested to paginate a,a1,a2,b,b1,b2,c... and so on.
On the other hand, canoincals. Use them to self-canonicalize each page from any parameter or whatever you might use.
Am i clear?
I think we are confusing too much one with anotherHope it helps.
Best luck.
GR -
I guess what we're doing is going from canonicalising via alphabet - a to b to c.
but now we're splitting up a into a mini-pagination. do I split canonicals up too?
-
Hi, so you're recommending linking through the whole structure a, a1, a2, b, b1, b2, c, c1, c2 and so on?
Or would you suggest we loop within a, a1, a2 and not canonicalise a2 to b?
Thanks
-
Hi there!
To what im understanding from what you´ve said, looks fine to me.
Just finished reading a really great source about pagination:
Pagination attributes: link rel=”prev” and rel=”next" - ContentKing AcademyAlso, canonicals and pagination attibutes are orthogonal concepts. As google describes it in the notes here:
Indicate paginated content - Google Search Console Help (It's nearly at the end of the page)rel="next"
andrel="prev"
are orthogonal concepts torel="canonical"
. You can include both declarations.Hope it helps.
Best luck.
GR
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
-
Pages canonicaled to another appearing before the canonical on google searches
Hello, When I do this google search, this page(amandine roses category) appears before the one it is canonical-ed to(this multi-product version of amandine roses). This happens often with this multi-product template, where they don't rank as well as their category version(that are canonical to the multi-product version). Can someone maybe point us in the right direction on what the issue may be? What can be improved?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globalrose.com0 -
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 | | brucepomeroy2 -
Should I put rel next and rel prev and canonical on tags pages
Hi I have a tag pages on a news website each tag page is divided to several pages, but Google does't crawled those pages because the links are in javaScript, I want to do the following things: Change the links to html href Add rel=pref rel=next Add a canonical in each page with the url of the main tag page Do you agree with my solution? Thanks Roy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kadut1 -
Splitting a strong page - SEO
Hi, I have a page with high traffic that is showing a list of flea markets in a unique URL. We are redesigning our website and we have created a listing directory of flea markets, so the users can look up and find the information for each. Each flea market will have its own URL in the future, and the listing directory shows only summarized info of each flea market in the results. Before activating the new flea market section, I would like to make sure which is our best bet: Option 1: Create pages with same URL/content as the current ones, which we won't link from frontend, and besides that, use the new flea market section on a separate page. Option 2: Redirect the current page to the new flea market section. As an inaccurate reference because it depends on many variables and SEO doesn't have an actual number, I understand this is more or less how it would work: Example Option 1 (after 1 week of launch): Old Flea Market Pages SEO traffic: 10,000 visits/month New Copied Flea Market Pages traffic: 9,700 (maybe a bit below 100 because of design changes etc) New Flea Market Section traffic: 500 visits/month (then increase over time) Example Option 2 (after 1 week of launch): Old Flea Market Pages SEO traffic: 10,000 visits/month New Redirected Flea Market Pages traffic: 9,000 (in principle PageRank wouldn't be affected, but other rankings might) New Flea Market Section traffic: (joined above, then increase over time) According to this, Option 1 would give us more total future visits compared to redirecting, plus the new flea market pages would add to it. If redirecting, the new flea market section would add up some SEO juice to the old page, but not as much as Option 1 (not redirecting). Please confirm. Which option is the best one and why? Thank you, New 301 Redirection Rules: https://mza.seotoolninja.com/blog/301-redirection-rules-for-seo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | viatrading10 -
Is there an advantage to using rel=canonical rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)?
Is there an advantage to using link rel=alternate (as recommended by Google) rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)? The content on the mobile pages is very similar to the content on the desktop site. I see Google recommends canonical and alternate tags, but what are the benefits of using those rather than noindex?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jennifer.new0 -
Our client's web property recently switched over to secure pages (https) however there non secure pages (http) are still being indexed in Google. Should we request in GWMT to have the non secure pages deindexed?
Our client recently switched over to https via new SSL. They have also implemented rel canonicals for most of their internal webpages (that point to the https). However many of their non secure webpages are still being indexed by Google. We have access to their GWMT for both the secure and non secure pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB
Should we just let Google figure out what to do with the non secure pages? We would like to setup 301 redirects from the old non secure pages to the new secure pages, but were not sure if this is going to happen. We thought about requesting in GWMT for Google to remove the non secure pages. However we felt this was pretty drastic. Any recommendations would be much appreciated.0 -
Canonical use when dynamically placing items on "all products" page
Hi all, We're trying to get our canonical situation straightened out. We have a section of our site with 100 product pages in it (in our case a city with hotels that we've reviewed), and we have a single page where we list them all out--an "all products" page called "all.html." However, because we have 100 and that's a lot for a user to see at once, we plan to first show only 50 on "all.html." When the user scrolls down to the bottom, we use AJAX to place another 50 on the page (these come from another page called "more.html" and are placed onto "all.html"). So, as you scroll down from the front end, you see "all.html" with 100 listings. We have other listings pages that are sorted and filtered subsets of this list with little or no unique content. Thus, we want to place a canonical on those pages. Question: Should the canonical point to "all.html"? Would spiders get confused, because they see that all.html is only half the listings? Is it dangerous to dynamically place content on a page that's used as a canonical? Is this a non-issue? Thanks, Tom
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomNYC0 -
Remove Landing Pages?
Howdy Guys, I've just been listening to the latest edition of whiteboard Friday regarding the over-optimization penalty. I'm just wondering if we should remove alot of make specifc landing pages... For instance we have a landing pages for our top 20 cars... For instance "bmw keyword" or "audi keyword" What do you guys think? remove them and 301 the pages to the homepage? Thanks, Scott
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottBaxterWW0