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
-
[Organization schema] Which Facebook page should be put in "sameAs" if our organization has separate Facebook pages for different countries?
We operate in several countries and have this kind of domain structure:
Technical SEO | | Telsenome
example.com/us
example.com/gb
example.com/au For our schemas we've planned to add an Organization schema on our top domain, and let all pages point to it. This introduces a problem and that is that we have a separate Facebook page for every country. Should we put one Facebook page in the "sameAs" array? Or all of our Facebook pages? Or should we skip it altogether? Only one Facebook page:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example.com/org/#organization",
"name": "Org name",
"url": "https://example.com/org/",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/xxx",
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_us"
], All Facebook pages:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example.com/org/#organization",
"name": "Org name",
"url": "https://example.com/org/",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/xxx",
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_us"
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_gb"
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_au"
], Bonus question: This reasoning springs from the thought that we only should have one Organization schema? Or can we have a multiple sub organizations?0 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
My sites "pages indexed by Google" have gone up more than qten-fold.
Prior to doing a little work cleaning up broken links and keyword stuffing Google only indexed 23/333 pages. I realize it may not be because of the work but now we have around 300/333. My question is is this a big deal? cheers,
Technical SEO | | Billboard20120 -
Rel="canonical" in hyperlink
Inside my website, I use the rel = "canonical" but I do not use it in the but in a hyperlink. Now it is not clear to me if that goes well. See namely different stories about the Internet. My example below link: Bruiloft
Technical SEO | | NECAnGeL0 -
After I 301 redirect duplicate pages to my rel=canonical page, do I need to add any tags or code to the non canonical pages?
I have many duplicate pages. Some pages have 2-3 duplicates. Most of which have Uppercase and Lowercase paths (generated by Microsoft IIS). Does this implementation of 301 and rel=canonical suffice? Or is there more I could do to optimize the passing of duplicate page link juice to the canonical. THANK YOU!
Technical SEO | | PFTools0 -
With or without "/" at the end of domain
Hello, A client domains appear sometimes like www.domain.co.uk and sometimes like www.domain.co.uk/ I would like to place redirects from URLs that contain strings such as /index.aspx?id=42 to the main page but which one should I pick? With or without the "/" ? Thank you
Technical SEO | | DavidSpivac0 -
"/" at the end of a URL
I just noticed that I have the exact same page showing up separately in my Google Analytics reports. One has a "/" at the end and the other does not. Otherwise, these are the exact same URL's. Is this something I need to be aware of from a duplicate content perspective? If so, how do I go about fixing this? I thought the SE's would automatically see that a URL with a "/" at the end is the same as one without, but if that is the case, why is it showing up in my reports as two separate pages?
Technical SEO | | Blockinc0 -
On Page 301 redirect for html pages
For php pages youve got Header( "HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently" );
Technical SEO | | shupester
Header( "Location: http://www.example.com" );
?> Is there anything for html pages? Other then Or is placing this code redirect 301 /old/old.htm http://www.you.com/new.php in the .htaccess the only way to properly 301 redirect html pages? Thanks!0