ECommerce Problem with canonicol , rel next , rel prev
-
Hi
I was wondering if anyone willing to share your experience on implementing pagination and canonical when it comes to multiple sort options . Lets look at an example
I have a site example.com ( i share the ownership with the rest of the world on that one ) and I sell stuff on the site
I allow users to sort it by date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on . So now we have
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value
- etc
example.com/for-sale/stuff1 **has the same result as **example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added ( that is the default sort option )
similarly for stuff2, stuff3 and so on. I cant 301 these because these are relevant for users who come in to buy from the site. I can add a view all page and rel canonical to that but let us assume its not technically possible for the site and there are tens of thousands of items in each of the for-sale pages. So I split it up in to pages of x numbers and let us assume we have 50 pages to sort through.
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value&page=2 to ...page=50
- etc
This is where the shit hits the fan. So now if I want to avoid duplicate issue and when it comes to page 30 of stuff1 sorted by date do I add
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29
None of this feels right to me . I am thinking of using GWT to ask G-bot not to crawl any of the sort parameters ( date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on ) and use
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
My doubts about this is that , will the link value that goes in to the pages with parameters be consolidated when I choose to ignore them via URL Parameters in GWT ? what do you guys think ?
-
Thanks Peter .
-
Thanks for your input.
IMHO...If I exclude ? , then paginated pages like ?page=xx wont be crawled , thus the rel=next prev tags on the page are rendered useless.
-
Yeah, it gets ugly fast, and even done "by the book" you're often going to need to monitor your index and make adjustments, I've found. That said, the official Google stance (at least the last I heard) is that you should canonical to the page with no parameters and rel=prev/next to the parameterized versions (your 2nd-to-last example):
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
See the bottom of this Google blog post:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
The other option would be to use rel=prev/next on the paginated URLs and then dynamically Meta Noindex anything with parameters. Honestly, it really depends on what works, and it can take a while to sort out. Also, keep in mind that Bing doesn't handle rel=prev/next quite the same way as Google.
-
First of all: did you check this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=njn8uXTWiGg
-
You can set the ? as exclude from searches in Webmaster Tool
-
I would always set rel="canonical" to the main page (category page): .
Check how big sites work with this issue.
-
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
-
Ecommerce site product reviews, canonicals – which option to choose?
Recently, I discovered that only the first 4 reviews on our product pages are crawled and indexed. Example: http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/253432 I'm assuming it's due to the canonical that's on the product page http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/253432" />. When you click on page 2 of the reviews, the url does not change, but the next batch of reviews appears on the product page. Same with page 3, etc… The problem is the additional pages are not being crawled and indexed. We have to have the canonical on the product page because our platform creates multiple urls for each product page by including each category where the product resides, related link parameters, etc in the product url (example: http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/patio-furniture/outdoor-furniture/253432) – trust me, it gets ugly! I've researched other Moz answers and I've found that there appears to be a couple of ways to fix the issue. Any ideas/help/guidance/examples on the below options is greatly appreciated!!!! Show only 4 reviews on the first page and place the remaining reviews on a new page by themselves (similar to how Amazon does it). However, I would rather keep all of the reviews on the product page if possible. Add page 2, page 3, etc parameters to the url to display the remaining reviews and adding rel=prev/next. If we chose option 2, would each product page have a different canonical? If so, would it create a duplicate content issue since the above-the-fold content, title tag and meta descriptions would all be the same? Also, would you include each additional page in the sitemap? We had a similar issue with our category pages and we implemented the "viewall" in the canonical. Would that work for our reviews? Thanks in advance for your help!
Technical SEO | | Improvements0 -
Site wide links from another domain - could these cause a problem?
Hi I manage the SEO in house for the site http://www.naturalworldsafaris.com/ A new add on to our services has been launched in the form of an online store allowing us to sell, for example, expedition clothing that is relevant to the trips we offer. The store is managed elsewhere and sits on a subdomain of the company who are providing this service for us. There are sitewide links throughout this site back to our homepage: http://naturalworld.newheadings.com/index.php I'm just a bit concerned about these links from an SEO perspective and was wondering if we should request these are set up as no follow. Would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | KateWaite0 -
Google+ Authorship, Rich Snippits and Three Names - a Problem?
Hello All, I have a conundrum that I thought I'd resolved - but that's popped its gnarly old head over the parapet again. I have a number of websites that I'd like to have show my ugly Google+ mug as author in the Google SERPS. I jumped through all the authorship verification hoops that Google threw at me and I thought I'd won. The problem? I have three names: Nick Beresford-Davies. One example of a page that I'm trying to achieve authorship with is: http://www.graphic-design-employment.com/illustrator-how-to-make-a-pattern.html I have verified authorship of the above website on my Google Profile:
Technical SEO | | Tinstar
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107765436751760696335/about Originally I footed the page with Nick Beresford-Davies (hyphenated) and the Structured Data Testing Tool ignored the hyphen and just saw Nick Beresford. So I tweaked my online name (to please Google!) to Nick Beresford Davies (no hyphen). Initially this seemed to work - but I just checked again and now Google, for reasons only known to itself, sees "nick davies" as the author, completely ignoring the name in the footer of the page (by Nick Beresford Davies) and the fact that the site has been verified by Google+. This is also the case for all other websites that I contribute to - and not all the bylines are in the footer - some are by the headline. When I test pages on the structured testing tool and enter my Google+ profile, it replies: nick davies, we've found your name as one of the authors from the page. You can use "Authorship verification by email" method above to verify your authorship.Error: Author name found on the page and Google+ profile name do not match. Please consider adding markup to the site.Much as I would like to succeed on the Google SERPS, I draw the line at changing my name to keep this robot happy - so if anyone has any suggestions, or can see any obvious step that I've missed, I'd be very grateful. I find it hard to believe that no other double-barrelled website author exists - so I'm hoping I'm not the only one to have experienced this... Thanks!0 -
Rel Canonical ? please help
Can some one please answer a question for me, I have a crawl error stating that I have [#### Rel Canonical 326](http://pro.seomoz.org/campaigns/243472/issues/18) Can you please advise me on how serious these Errors are? I was told by one person not to worry but It seems far to many to me. thanks
Technical SEO | | Chris__Chris0 -
Link rel next previous VS duplicate page title
Hello, I am running into a little problem that i would like to have a feedback on. I am running multiple wordpress blogs and Seo Moz pro is telling me that i have duplicate title tags on canadiansavers.ca vs http://www.canadiansavers.ca/page/2 I can dynamically add a page 2 to the title but I am correctly using the link rel: next and rel:previous Why is it seen as a duplicate title tag and should i add the page 2, page 3... in the meta title thanks
Technical SEO | | pixweb0 -
Title too long, is it a big problem?
Hi is it a very big problem if my title is too long? I have PRODUCT NAME Company Name for Lingerie, Swimwear, Bras and Panties In shopping cart with the PRODUCT NAME generated dynamicly, so the product name could end up 20 or so characters but usually would be less
Technical SEO | | adamzski0 -
.htaccess problem using POST method
Hi guys I'm after some help with trying to achieve the following: 1. Canonicalise to http://www. 2. Remove the index.php from root and subfolders. I have the .htaccess code below, which seemed to work fine, but the urls use the POST method and this isn't working with the rewrites. Can anyone please advise as to what I am doing wrong? As you can probably guess .htaccess isn't my strongest SEO discipline! The code I have is: http:// to http://www. RewriteEngine on
Technical SEO | | TrevorJones
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mydomainexample.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.mydomainexample.com/$1 [R=301,L] /index.php to / Options +FollowSymLinks
DirectoryIndex index.php RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index.php\ HTTP/
RewriteRule ^index.php$ http://www.mydomainexample.com/ [R=301,L] Subdirectory /index.php to / RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]+\ /([^/]+/)index.(php|html|htm?)[#?]?
RewriteRule ^(([^/]+/))index.(php|html|htm?)$ http://www.mydomainexample.com/$1 [R=301,L] Just to add to this I have found this which I think is what I need to restrict it to GET: RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^GET.*index\.php [NC]RewriteRule (.*?)index\.php/*(.*) /$1$2 [R=301,L] Thank you in advance for any suggestions as to how I may put this code together.. Trevor0 -
Confused about rel="canonical"
I'm receiving a duplicate content error in my reports for www.example.com and www.example.com/index.htm. Should I put the rel="canonical" on the index page and point it to www.example.com? And if I have other important pages where rel="canonical" is being suggested do I place the rel="canonical" on that page? For example if www.example/product is an important page would I place on that page?
Technical SEO | | BrandonC-2698870