Just read Travis Loncar's YouMoz post and I have a question about Pagination
-
This was a brilliant post.
I have a question about Pagination on sites that are opting to use Google Custom Search. Here is an example of a search results page from one of the sites I work on:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman
I notice in the source code of sequential pages that the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags are not used. I also noticed that the URL does not change when clicking on the numbers for the subsequent pages of the search results.
Also, the canonical tag of every subsequent page looks like this:
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? All of our Google Custom Search pages have the same canonical tag....Something's telling me this just can't be good.
Questions:
1. Is this creating a duplicate content issue?
2. If we need to include rel="prev" and rel="next" on Google Custom Search pages as well as make the canonical tag accurate, what is the best way to implement this?
Given that searchers type in such a huge range of search terms, it seems that the canonical tags would have to be somehow dynamically generated.
Or, (best case scenario!) am I completely over-thinking this and it just doesn't matter on dynamically driven search results pages?
Thanks in advance for any comments, help, etc.
-
-
Considering that the larger of the two sites I work on is on a platform from 1996, I might actually be living "back in the day!" lol - Thanks again Jared!
-
This would all depend on what the site was built on, and the flexibility. There's no questions that this can be done. "Back in the day" we had a few sites that had tens of thousands of page due to sorting, and we had everything generated including:
Title, meta d, meta k, breadcrmb, H1 and short description.
Those were the days!!!
-
For the most part, I would choose to use rel=prev/next for pagination, including both pagination with dynamic urls and static URLs. There are some cases (as with this original thread question) where you should use canonical, but as a whole you should use rel=prev/next.
The best way to explain it is:
Rel Prev/Next:
Your site: Hi Google, I have all of these pages that very similar so I'm just letting you know that I only have duplicate content here for usability reasons and am in no way inferring that you should index all of these pages and rank them #1!
Google: Ok great, thanks for letting us know. We'll index the pages we feel are appropriate, but you wont get penalized for duplicate content. We may only index and serve one page, "page 1", or we may index multiple pages. Thanks for letting us know.
Canonical:
Your site: Hi Google, I have all these paginated pages that look like duplicate content, please do not include any of them in your index, and don't penalize me for duplicate content. For the record, the page you should index is Page 1 and no other pages.Any links that point to the paginated pages should be counted towards Page 1*.
Google: Great, no matter what we will not index any pagination and only Page 1.
With rel=next you are simply letting Google know, but not dictating how Google should act on the situation. If fact with ecomm sites, youll find that a lot of timees when you use rel=next, Google will actually index the 'view all' page if you have "view all" as an option around your pagination links
*many articles suggest that link juice is passed to the canonical URL - I'm have not seen any direct evidence of this but is worth a different discussion.
-
Yes, Jared, this is a great answer. I understand completed. It looks like we are ok then with Google Custom Search as it is. Thanks so much for your thoughtful answer. Now, if we can only get our paginated category pages sorted out, we'll be on the right track!
-
Hi Gerd,
Yes, this is a separate issue we are also struggling with on the site. I believe Travis' YouMoz post from yesterday made a pretty good case for using multiple paginated URLs, and he even illustrated how to accomplish this with sorting parameters like "color" and "price"
You raise a very good point about duplicate titles and descriptions potentially being a problem in this scenario.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to handle that? Could the backend be programmed to dynamically create unique titles and descriiptions based on some rules for naming conventions? (assuming you have access to that level of the code of course)
Really interested to know some points of view on this!
Dana
-
I raised a similar question in the following Q&A - http://www.seomoz.org/q/duplicate-title-tags-with-pagination-and-canonical
My concern or question (we have rel=prev/next) would be more towards what the canoncial should be. There seems to be different opinions:
1. Use the current paginated page as the canonical - in our case GWMT reports duplicate titles (I suppose appending a page-number should sort this out)
2. Use the base search URL as the canonical - perhaps not a bad choice if your site's content changes and Google indexes page 50, but over time you only have results for 40 pages (resulting in an empty result page)
I currently only can conclude that having the prev/next implemented is a good thing as it will hint Google in pagination (in addition to setup the URL parameters in GWMT). I do plan to change the canoncial to the base search URL (and not having multiple paginated URLs) and see how this will affect indexing and SERPs.
-
Dana
Great and informative question,
Jared
Great Answer
-
Hi Dana - Let me see if I understand this correctly:
In question 1 you asked if this would be a duplicate content issue. The canonical tag retains the exact same URL regardless of the search parameter (and resulting search results). Therefore, regardless of the search being made, Google and other crawlers will not index page with a search parameter since the canonical references to the original url (http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return). This means that when Google accidentally lands here http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman it sees the canonical tag and understands that it should not index this page as it is only a variation of the core page.
This would of course be a problem if you actually wanted Google to index every query page. Alternate methods could be to disclude the query parameter in WMT or Robots. But the canonical is built in for you so that you dont have to.
In situations like this I also like to add site search to analytics and block the query parameter so no query pages show up as landing pages.
-
I understand exactly what you are saying Jared. However, here's the problem, the canonical tag is exactly the same....for every single subsequent page in a series across the entire site.
No matter what is searched. The canonical tag remains:
Wouldn't that mean that all search results pages, regardless of search term, are viewed as the same page?
I have heard this discussed before come to think of it. In this case, wouldn't it be proper to block all dynamic search results pages from being crawled or indexed by Google via the htaccess file or robots.txt file?
-
Hi Dana -
I think in the case of Google Custom Search, there is no need to worry about duplication. The reason is that although the rel="prev" etc tags are not being used, a blanket solution already exists: the canonical tag. As you mentioned, the canonical tag never changes, regardless of the search - therefore the crawlers only ever see the Custom Search page as a single page regardless of the queries being made. Thus there is no duplicate issue.
-
I use Google custom search on my site and love it. I would say you have some valid concerns. At first it was a bit of a pain because some of the images didn't line up with the products after a few weeks it worked itself out. We had a 47% increase in conversion from using Google custom search, I use an out of the box type web service so I cannot help you with a few of the questions. There is a lot of customization you can do to fix that you described. Bringing our blog and recipe section was the purpose for trying it and the revenue proved it to be a wise decision.
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
-
Can I use a 301 redirect to pass 'back link' juice to a different domain?
Hi, I have a backlink from a high DA/PA Government Website pointing to www.domainA.com which I own and can setup 301 redirects on if necessary. However my www.domainA.com is not used and has no active website (but has hosting available which can 301 redirect). www.domainA.com is also contextually irrelevant to the backlink. I want the Government Website link to go to www.domainB.com - which is both the relevant site and which also should be benefiting from from the seo juice from the backlink. So far I have had no luck to get the Government Website's administrators to change the URL on the link to point to www.domainB.com. Q1: If i use a 301 redirect on www.domainA.com to redirect to www.domainB.com will most of the backlink's SEO juice still be passed on to www.domainB.com? Q2: If the answer to the above is yes - would there be benefit to taking this a step further and redirect www.domainA.com to a deeper directory on www.domianB.com which is even more relevant?
Technical SEO | | DGAU
ie. redirect www.domainA.com to www.domainB.com/categoryB - passing the link juice deeper.0 -
Could using our homepage Google +1's site wide harm our website?
Hello Moz! We currently have the number of Google +1's for our homepage displaying on all pages of our website. Could this be viewed as black hat/manipulative by Google, and result in harming our website? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | TheDude0 -
Are image pages considered 'thin' content pages?
I am currently doing a site audit. The total number of pages on the website are around 400... 187 of them are image pages and coming up as 'zero' word count in Screaming Frog report. I needed to know if they will be considered 'thin' content by search engines? Should I include them as an issue? An answer would be most appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MTalhaImtiaz0 -
Why Custom Post Types Don't Get Ranked Well
So I have started to use custom post types and have noticed that they don't get ranked very well in Google. On the other hand a post will rank almost immediately. Does anyone know any tricks for making custom post types rank as well as posts in wordpress? Sincerely, Garret
Technical SEO | | eWebify0 -
Product landing page URL's for e-commerce sites - best practices?
Hi all I have built many e-commerce websites over the years and with each one, I learn something new and apply to the next site and so on. Lets call it continuous review and improvement! I have always structured my URL's to the product landing pages as such: mydomain.com/top-category => mydomain.com/top-category/sub-category => mydomain.com/top-category/sub-category/product-name Now this has always worked fine for me but I see more an more of the following happening: mydomain.com/top-category => mydomain.com/top-category/sub-category => mydomain.com/product-name Now I have read many believe that the longer the URL, the less SEO impact it may have and other comments saying it is better to have the just the product URL on the final page and leave out the categories for one reason or another. I could probably spend days looking around the internet for peoples opinions so I thought I would ask on SEOmoz and see what other people tend to use and maybe establish the reasons for your choices? One of the main reasons I include the categories within my final URL to the product is simply to detect if a product name exists in multiple categories on the site - I need to show the correct product to the user. I have built sites which actually have the same product name (created by the author) in multiple areas of the site but they are actually different products, not duplicate content. I therefore cannot see a way around not having the categories in the URL to help detect which product we want to show to the user. Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | yousayjump0 -
Why won't the Moz plug in "Analyze Page" tool read data on a Big Commerce site?
We love our new Big Commerce site, just curious as to what the hang up is.
Technical SEO | | spalmer0 -
Switching ecommerce CMS's - Best Way to write URL 301's and sub pages?
Hey guys, What a headache i've been going through the last few days trying to make sure my upcoming move is near-perfect. Right now all my urls are written like this /page-name (all lowercase, exact, no forward slash at end). In the new CMS they will be written like this: /Page-Name/ (with the forward slash at the end). When I generate an XML sitemap in the new ecomm CMS internally it lists the category pages with a forward slash at the end, just like they show up through out the CMS. This seems sloppy to me, but I have no control over it. Is this OK for SEO? I'm worried my PR 4, well built ecommerce website is going to lose value to small (but potentially large) errors like this. If this is indeed not good practice, is there a resource about not using the forward slash at the end of URLS in sitemaps i can present to the community at the platform? They are usually real quick to make fixes if something is not up to standards. Thanks in advance, -First Time Ecommerce Platform Transition Guy
Technical SEO | | Hyrule0 -
Should I have a 'more' button for links?
I have a website that has a page for each town. rather than listing all the towns with a link to each, I want to show only the most popular towns and have a 'more' button that shows all of them when you click it. I know that the search engine can always see the full list of links and even though the visitor can't this doesn't go against Google guidelines because there is no deception involved, the more button is quite clear. However, my colleague is concerned that this is 'making life hard' for the search engines and so the pages are less likely to be indexed. I disagree. Is he right to worry about this??
Technical SEO | | mascotmike0