Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
-
Hi Guys,
One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented?
Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google?
Thanks, George
Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev”
If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs:
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section:
On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2:
On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3:
And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4:
A few points to mention:
-
The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup.
-
Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup.
-
The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”.
-
rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a
<base>
link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. -
rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document .
-
We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links.
-
rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain:
-
rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives.
-
When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.
-
-
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html
3. While it’s fine to set rel=”canonical” from a component URL to a single view-all page, setting the canonical to the first page of a parameter-less sequence is considered improper usage. We make no promises to honor this implementation of rel=”canonical.”
-
Dear Irving,
Im very interested in your concept could you explain in depth or give me any source or link where to learn about.
Because canonical from my point of view is a controversial thing.
I'll appreciate your help
Claudio
-
Google no longer recommends setting up pagination pages with canonical tags. The rel tags are the way to go...
-
Dear George,
In the past I was dealing with the same issue, to solve it I implement these 2 fix :
1. Canonical tag ie.:
rel="canonical" href="http://www.yourdomain.com/your-page.asp">
This tell the Search engines specially google the page is the referred as canonical
http://www.yourdomain.com/your-page.asp
http://www.yourdomain.com/your-page.asp?page=1
http://www.yourdomain.com/your-page.asp?page=2
from google perspective these pages are http://www.yourdomain.com/your-page.asp (canonical)
2. On each page I add (dynamically) Page # on both title and description meta tags
<title></span><span>Your page title - Page: 1</span><span></title>
name="description" content="Your page Description meta tag etc etc - Page: 1">
This resolve the problem on both, HTML issues in Google WMT and the rank flow because you're joining all pages into the root page.
Hope this hepl
Claudio
-
You will still need unique title and meta tags to avoid duplication. It's in the W3.org spec: Anything unique will work, so you can start the title and meta description tag on page 2 with the words "Page 2: "
<a name="h-12.1.2">12.1.2</a> <a name="idx-link-2">Other link relationships</a>
By far the most common use of a link is to retrieve another Web resource, as illustrated in the previous examples. However, authors may insert links in their documents that express other relationships between resources than simply "activate this link to visit that related resource". Links that express other types of relationships have one or more link types specified in their source anchor.
The roles of a link defined by <samp class="einst">A</samp> or <samp class="einst">LINK</samp> are specified via the <samp class="ainst">rel</samp> and <samp class="ainst">rev</samp> attributes.
For instance, links defined by the <samp class="einst">LINK</samp> element may describe the position of a document within a series of documents. In the following excerpt, links within the document entitled "Chapter 5" point to the previous and next chapters:
_...other head information..._ <title>Chapter 5</title>
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
-
Why are my 301 redirects and duplicate pages (with canonicals) still showing up as duplicates in Webmaster Tools?
My guess is that in time Google will realize that my duplicate content is not actually duplicate content, but in the meantime I'd like to get your guys feedback. The reporting in Webmaster Tools looks something like this. Duplicates /url1.html /url2.html /url3.html /category/product/url.html /category2/product/url.html url3.html is the true canonical page in the list above._ url1.html,_ and url2.html are old URLs that 301 to url3.html. So, it seems my bases are covered there. _/category/product/url.html _and _/category2/product/url.html _ do not redirect. They are the same page as url3.html. Each of the category URLs has a canonical URL of url3.html in the header. So, it seems my bases are covered there as well. Can I expect Google to pick up on this? Why wouldn't it understand this already?
Technical SEO | | bearpaw0 -
How can i Get this google meta description?
How can i Get the google meta description that has the website Ke Adventure ? https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ke+adventure I mean with the link of the website section below the SEO TITLE tx
Technical SEO | | tourtravel0 -
"Items 1 - 24 of 75" Appearing in Meta Description - How Do I Remove It?
Hey guys, I've noticed that the item count is appearing at the beginning of the meta description for our brand pages, e.g. "Items 1 - 24 of 75 -". The issue I have with this is that it reduces the character limit (due to truncation), consequently leaving me with little room to play with to include more useful information. Is there a way to remove this? Cheers, A
Technical SEO | | RobTucker0 -
Is "commented out" text still read by the SEs?
A site I reviewed was showing up in Google rankings for key phrases specific to a city, however the page that was showing up had the 'city' key phrases commented out. Does Google still read and utilized commented out text? Or is it more likely that the page in question got indexed before the key phrases were commented out and it's just still appearing for the related search queries?
Technical SEO | | MLTGroup1 -
Does using data-href="" work more effectively than href="" rel="nofollow"?
I've been looking at some bigger enterprise sites and noticed some of them used HTML like this: <a <="" span="">data-href="http://www.otherodmain.com/" class="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a> <a <="" span="">Instead of a regular href="" Does using data-href and some javascript help with shaping internal links, rather than just using a strict nofollow?</a>
Technical SEO | | JDatSB0 -
Is a Rel="cacnonical" page bad for a google xml sitemap
Back in March 2011 this conversation happened. Rand: You don't want rel=canonicals. Duane: Only end state URL. That's the only thing I want in a sitemap.xml. We have a very tight threshold on how clean your sitemap needs to be. When people are learning about how to build sitemaps, it's really critical that they understand that this isn't something that you do once and forget about. This is an ongoing maintenance item, and it has a big impact on how Bing views your website. What we want is end state URLs and we want hyper-clean. We want only a couple of percentage points of error. Is this the same with Google?
Technical SEO | | DoRM0 -
Meta description tag missing in crawl diagnostics
Each week I've been looking at my crawl diagnostics and seomoz still flags a few pages with missing meta description although they are definitely in there. Any ideas on why this would be happening?
Technical SEO | | British_Hardwoods0 -
Will using hidden divs cause me problems?
The developers want to use hidden divs to display links to each page of our photo gallery from the first page to Google but only previous and next buttons to users. Will this be a problem? Is it the best solution?
Technical SEO | | GriffinHansen0