What to do with "show all" page
-
Hello,
What should I do with the following situation:
In e-commerce shop I have an option to "show all products" (list all products in one page) - do I need to put canonnical or 301 redirect to somewhere or should I leave as normal page - I think google consider this is as duplicate since everything is the same (only number of products is different) ?
Regards,
Nenad
-
It's a bit tricky, since your category page will naturally have internal links. I wouldn't canonical all the paginated versions to View All and then canonical the View All to the main category - that's likely to cause some problems. If you really want to focus on page 1 as the category (and not the View All), then I'd probably consider rel=prev/next.
-
Peter, thank you very much for your response!
My only concern about view-all page was that main page (category) has better PA so my conclusion was that I should set canonical to view-all page to point to main page.
-
Agreed - Google seems to be ok with setting a rel-canonical to the "View All" page. Don't combine this with rel=prev/next - both methods are ok, but either use one or the other. Using both sends a mixed message about what you want to have indexed and ranked.
Real-world data about rel=prev/next is hard to come by. I know SEOs at big companies who have done testing, but it's really unclear how Google honors/indexed paginated content with rel=prev/next in place. My gut feeling boils down to this:
(1) If you can reasonably build a "View All" page that loads quickly and is a decent user experience, go ahead and rel=canonical to that page. It's just easier, all-around, and rel=canonical is a more powerful directive.
(2) If that isn't feasible, and/or if you want individual search pages (2+) to have the ability to rank, then use rel=prev/next.
-
Hi Allen,
Can you please confirm that this is the right way to implement this solution:
So right now situation is:
Show all page is: http://www.page.com/abc.html?=viewall
This is the category page: http://www.page.com/abc.html and canonical is set to this page.
Page 2 of category is: http://www.page.com/abc.html?page=2 with following parameters:
If I understand correctly I should implement canonical in this way:
Main (category) page (http://www.page.com/abc.html) will have these parameters:
Page 2 will have these parameters:
Is this correct?
Thank you very much,
Nenad
-
Hi to all,
Sorry for my late response. Thank you all for advices, this will definitely help.
Regards,
Nenad
-
You need to read this article and watch this video by Maile Ohye. She goes over pagination and rel next and prev
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html
She also mentions how to use rel=canonical in this system as well and when it is appropriate.
You would only want to use the 301 redirect if you were deleting the page or changing the URL and wanted to get you users to the correct page as the old url was not working anymore.
Cheers!
-
No, dont 301 to a 301 website.com/category/title/ to website.com/category/title/?view=all - you just need to set the canonical of website.com/category/title/ to website.com/category/title/?view=all
Good luck!
-
Nenad,
We have a similar issue, and we Canonical any paginated pages to the show all page. The Show all page does not need to be canonicaled because it is the root of all the products.
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
-
"nofollow" vs. "no follow"
Does anyone know if it is problematic to have a space between the "no" and the "follow"? I just discovered our CMS has been inserting a space and am trying to understand if it the reason why something that we were trying to keep from being indexed has become indexed.
Technical SEO | | LivDetrick0 -
Sudden Indexation of "Index of /wp-content/uploads/"
Hi all, I have suddenly noticed a massive jump in indexed pages. After performing a "site:" search, it was revealed that the sudden jump was due to the indexation of many pages beginning with the serp title "Index of /wp-content/uploads/" for many uploaded pieces of content & plugins. This has appeared approximately one month after switching to https. I have also noticed a decline in Bing rankings. Does anyone know what is causing/how to fix this? To be clear, these pages are **not **normal /wp-content/uploads/ but rather "index of" pages, being included in Google. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | Tom3_150 -
SERPs started showing the incorrect date next to my pages
Hi Moz friends, I've noticed since Tuesday, November 9, half of my post's meta dates have changed in regards to what appears next to the post in the search results. Although published this year, I'm getting some saying a random date in 2010! (The domain was born in 2013; which makes this even more odd). This is harming the CTR of my posts and traffic is decreasing. Some posts have gone from 200 hits a day to merely 30. As far as on our end of the website, we have not made any changes in regards to schema markup, rich snippets, etc. We have not edited any post dates. We have actually not added new content since about a week ago, and these incorrect dates have just started to appear on Tuesday. Only changes have been updating certain plugins in terms of maintenance. This is occurring on four of our websites now, so it is not just specific to one. All websites use Wordpress and Genesis theme. It looks like only half of the posts are showing weird dates we've never seen before (far off from the original published date as well as last updated date -- again, dates like 2010, 2011, and 2012 when none of our websites were even created until 2013). We cannot think of a correlation as to why certain posts are showing weird dates and others the correct. The only change we can think of that's related is back in June we changed our posts to show Last Updated date to give our readers an insight into when we changed it last (since it's evergreen content). Google started to use that date for the SERPs which was great, it actually increased traffic. I'm hoping it's a glitch and a recrawl soon may help sift it around. Anybody have experience with this? I've noticed Google fluctuates between showing our last updated date or not even showing a date at all sometimes at random. We're super confused here. Thank you in advance!
Technical SEO | | smmour2 -
Rel canonical for partner sites - product pages only or also homepage and other key pages?
Hello there Our main site is www.arenaflowers.com. We also run a number of partner sites (eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/). We've relcanonical'd the products on the partner site back to the main (arenaflowers.com) site. eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013 rel canonicals back to: http://www.arenaflowers.com/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013). My question: Should we also relcanonical the homepage and other key pages on partner sites back to the main arenaflowers website too? The content is similar but not identical. We don't want our partner sites to be outranking the original (as is the case on kw flower delivery for example). (NB this situation may be complicated by the fact we appear to have an unnatural link penalty on af.com (and when we did an upgrade a while back, the af.com site fell out of the index altogether due to some issues with our move to AWS.) We're getting professional SEO advice on this but wondered what the Moz community's thoughts were.. Cheers, Will
Technical SEO | | ArenaFlowers.com0 -
"Daily Special" = Duplicate Content?
I believe this has been addresses and answered previously, but despite searching the Q&A archives, I was unable to find the question and answer. So, please be gentle and patient: We have an eCommerce site with several hundred products, most of which use the structure: www.mysite.com/subcategory/itemA.html. We wish to feature itemA as a "daily special" item, and our Magento developer has recommended: www.mysite.com/internet-daily-special/**itemA.html ** Because itemA.html is the same page—albeit following a different path—will Google see this as duplicate content? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | RScime250 -
Duplicate content with "no results found" search result pages
We have a motorcycle classifieds section that lets users search for motorcycles for sale using various drop down menus to pick year-make-type-model-trim, etc.. These search results create urls such as:
Technical SEO | | seoninjaz
www.example.com/classifieds/search.php?vehicle_manufacturer=Triumph&vehicle_category=On-Off Road&vehicle_model=Tiger&vehicle_trim=800 XC ABS We understand that all of these URL varieties are considered unique URLs by Google. The issue is that we are getting duplicate content errors on the pages that have no results as they have no content to distinguish themselves from each other. A URL like:
www.example.com/classifieds/search.php?vehicle_manufacturer=Triumph&vehicle_category=Sportbike
and
www.example.com/classifieds/search.php?vehicle_manufacturer=Honda&vehicle_category=Streetbike Will have a results page that says "0 results found". I'm wondering how we can distinguish these "unique" pages better? Some thoughts:
-make sure <title>reflects what was search<br />-add a heading that may say "0 results found for Triumph On-Off Road Tiger 800 XC ABS"<br /><br />Can anyone please help out and lend some ideas in solving this? <br /><br />Thank you.</p></title>0 -
Authorship Markup worth it for "invisible" authors
Greetings everyone! Background I help run multiple continuing education sites for Allied Health professionals. Our editors do a great job of getting some of the best authors in their respective fields to come onto the site and present webinars and we publish articles around those presentations. I would love to be able to use the rel=author tag on these sites as the authors we use help to improve our credibility when a user is on the site and I would like to take advantage of this in the SERPs. The issue is that while most of these authors are leaders in their respective fields and have published in many academic publications, they are not on Facebook or Twitter, let alone Google+. Also, they are probably not interested in setting up a G+ profile. They are "famous" and well published within their fields, yet they are somewhat "invisible" on the web. We are looking to implement author bios on our site and then could use the rel=author tag internally so that seems like a good first step. The question is then around linking out with rel=me to any profiles (FB, Twitter, G+) The issue is that, as I mentioned above, the online profiles are pretty scarce. Question / Discussion Is it worth it to setup all the authorship markup to internal bios on a site when many of the authors are "invisible" on G+, twitter, FB, etc. and so I will be limited in how I can link rel=me to those profiles. If the Google+ profile is not available for an author, what do you prefer to link to. Would you say FB over Twitter as FB has more users, or if a user has both profiles, but uses twitter more often, would you link to the Twitter profile instead? Many of these authors work at the university and have a bio page on the university website, would it be working linking to that profile? How do you judge the "best" place to link to if there is no Google+ profile. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | CleverPhD0 -
2 links on home page to each category page ..... is page rank being watered down?
I am working on a site that has a home page containing 2 links to each category page. One of the links is a text link and one link is an image link. I think I'm right in thinking that Google will only pay attention to the anchor text/alt text of the first link that it spiders with the anchor text/alt text of the second being ignored. This is not my question however. My question is about the page rank that is passed to each category page..... Because of the double links on the home page, my reckoning is that PR is being divided up twice as many times as necessary. Am I also right in thinking that if Google ignore the 2nd identical link on a page only one lot of this divided up PR will be passed to each category page rather than 2 lots ..... hence horribly watering down the 'link juice' that is being passed to each category page?? Please help me win this argument with a developer and improve the ranking potential of the category pages on the site 🙂
Technical SEO | | QubaSEO0