Pagination: rel="next" rel="prev" in ?
-
With Google releasing that instructional on proper pagination I finally hunkered down and put in a site change request.
I wanted the rel="next" and rel="prev" implemented… and it took two weeks for the guy to get it done. Brutal and painful.
When I looked at the source it turned out he put it in the body above the pagination links… which is not what I wanted. I wanted them in the .
Before I respond to get it properly implemented I want a few opinions - is it okay to have the rel="next" in the body? Or is it pretty much mandatory to put it in the head?
(Normally, if I had full control over this site, I would just do it myself in 2 minutes… unfortunately I don't have that luxury with this site)
-
Guys I have just joined seo moz and I ended up with 3600 crawl errors and after speaking with abe from seo moz it soon became clear it was to do with the on page pagination we then asked our developer to add rel=”next” & rel=”prev” Within a few minutes my rankings on certain keywords started to drop some ranking on page 1 in the top 5 have now dropped out of the top 50.
I'm a retailer with a certain amount of knowledge regarding seo but this stuff im completely puzzled could anyone help. my site is www.maximumsports-nutrition.com
Cheers
Andy
-
Ah thanks for that Matthew! You gave me exactly what I needed for my email…
Now to wait another two weeks for this web developer. (beyond frustrating)
-
Matthew is spot on here. Has to be in the head or it wont work properly. All the rel/link tags exist in the head (same with rel=canonical, etc...)
-
It does need to be in the head tag. I was in a similar situation on another site where the rel next/prev was put in the . We saw no results from it (in terms of pages indexed) but as soon as those were moved back to the , life was good.
If you need documentation proof for your change request (which I was asked for!), these might help:
Google's blog post about this says "rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document ."
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
At a more basic level, the tag only works in the . See the "Tips & Notes" section.
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
-
Community Discussion - What's the ROI of "pruning" content from your ecommerce site?
Happy Friday, everyone! 🙂 This week's Community Discussion comes from Monday's blog post by Everett Sizemore. Everett suggests that pruning underperforming product pages and other content from your ecommerce site can provide the greatest ROI a larger site can get in 2016. Do you agree or disagree? While the "pruning" tactic here is suggested for ecommerce and for larger sites, do you think you could implement a similar protocol on your own site with positive results? What would you change? What would you test?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MattRoney2 -
Pages are being dropped from index after a few days - AngularJS site serving "_escaped_fragment_"
My URL is: https://plentific.com/ Hi guys, About us: We are running an AngularJS SPA for property search.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | emre.kazan
Being an SPA and an entirely JavaScript application has proven to be an SEO nightmare, as you can imagine.
We are currently implementing the approach and serving an "escaped_fragment" version using PhantomJS.
Unfortunately, pre-rendering of the pages takes some time and even worse, on separate occasions the pre-rendering fails and the page appears to be empty. The problem: When I manually submit pages to Google, using the Fetch as Google tool, they get indexed and actually rank quite well for a few days and after that they just get dropped from the index.
Not getting lower in the rankings but totally dropped.
Even the Google cache returns a 404. The question: 1.) Could this be because of the whole serving an "escaped_fragment" version to the bots? (have in mind it is identical to the user visible one)? or 2.) Could this be because we are using an API to get our results leads to be considered "duplicate content" and that's why? And shouldn't this just result in lowering the SERP position instead of a drop? and 3.) Could this be a technical problem with us serving the content, or just Google does not trust sites served this way? Thank you very much! Pavel Velinov
SEO at Plentific.com1 -
Why is "Noindex" better than a "Canonical" for Pagination?
"Noindex" is a suggested pagination technique here: http://searchengineland.com/the-latest-greatest-on-seo-pagination-114284, and everyone seems to agree that you shouldn't canonicalize all pages in a series to the first page, but I'd love if someone can explain why "noindex" is better than a canonical?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Canonical Tags being indexed on paginated results?
On a website I'm working on which has a search feature with paginated results, all of the pages of the search results are set with a canonical tag back to the first page of the search results, however Google is indexing certain random pages within the result set. I can literally do a search in Google and find a deep page in the results, click on it and view source on that page and see that it has a canonical tag leading back to the first page of the set. Has anyone experienced this before? Why would Google not honor a canonical tag if it is set correctly? I've seen several SEO techniques for dealing with pagination, is there another solution that you all recommend?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
How use Rel="canonical" for our Website
How is the best way to use Rel="canonical" for our website www.ofertasdeemail.com.br, for we can say goodbye for duplicated pages? I appreciate for every help. I also hope to contribute to the SEOmoz community. Sincerely,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZZNINTERNETMEDIAGROUP
Amador Goncalves0 -
Should I create a separate sitemap.xml for paginated categories?
For example: http://www.site.com/category/sub-category http://www.site.com/category/sub-category/1 http://www.site.com/category/sub-category/2 http://www.site.com/category/sub-category/3 Thanks in advance! 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | esiow20130 -
Canonical URL's - Do they need to be on the "pointed at" page?
My understanding is that they are only required on the "pointing pages" however I've recently heard otherwise.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DPSSeomonkey0 -
Does a Single Instance of rel="nofollow" cause all instances on a page to be nofollowed?
I attended the Bruce Clay training at SMX Advanced Seattle, and he mentioned link pruning/sculpting (here's an SEOMoz article about it - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-says-yes-you-can-still-sculpt-pagerank-no-you-cant-do-it-with-nofollow) Now during his presentation he mentioned that if you have one page with multiple links leading to another page, and one of those links is nofollowed, it could cause all links to be nofollowed. Example: Page A has 4 links to Page B: 1:followed, 2:followed, 3:nofollowed, 4:followed The presence of a single nofollow tag would override the 3 followed links and none of them would pass link juice. Has anyone else encountered this problem, and Is there any evidence to support this? I'm thinking this would make a great experiment.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brycebertola0