Yoast & rel canonical for paginated Wordpress URLs
-
Hello, our Wordpress blog at http://www.jobs.ca/career-resources has a rel canonical issue since we added pagination to the front page and category-pages. We're using Yoast and it's incorrectly applying a rel-canonical meta tag referencing page 1 on page 2, 3, etc. This is a known misuse of the rel-canonical tag (per Google's Webmaster Blog - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html, which says rel-canonical should be replaced with rel-prev and rel-next for page 2, 3, etc.).
We don't see a way to specify anywhere in Yoast's options to correct this behaviour for page 2, 3, etc. Yoast allows you to override a page's canonical URL, otherwise it automatically uses the Wordpress permalink.
My question is, does anyone know how to configure Yoast to properly replace rel-canonical tags with rel-prev and rel-next for paginated URLs, or do I need to look at another plugin or customize the behavior directly in my child theme code?
This issue was brought up here as well: http://moz.com/community/q/canonical-help, but the only response did not relate to Yoast.
(We're using Wordpress 3.6.1 and Yoast "Wordpress SEO" 1.4.18)
-
Thanks for posting this Shaun! People actually do come back and read these months to come and these Q&A's will return in search results, so you've made this a really valuable page for future readers - thanks!
-Dan
-
I've now fixed this issue by refactoring our child theme so the WP queries occur before the header (inserting the content later).
Because we're using a custom homepage template for the front page and a custom "category page" template, I've also had to modify Yoast's "canonical" and "adjacent_rel_links" functions to understand the pagination for those pages (otherwise Yoast simply detects these as "singular" pages and only applies the rel canonical pointing to page 1, regardless of the current page).
I used the following code to allow overriding Yoast in my child-theme's functions.php:
if (defined('WPSEO_VERSION')) {
function custom_wpseo_override() {global $wpseo_front;
remove_action('wpseo_head', array($wpseo_front, 'canonical'), 20);
add_action('wpseo_head', 'custom_wpseo_canonical', 20);
remove_action('wpseo_head', array($wpseo_front, 'adjacent_rel_links'), 21);
add_action('wpseo_head', 'custom_wpseo_adjacent_rel_links', 21);
}
add_action('init','custom_wpseo_override');
} -
Shaun
Great, thanks - happy to help!
-Dan
-
Hi Dan,
Yeah it must me some kind of conflict with the theme or another plugin... We're not using Thesis or Genesis but we have modified header.php in our child theme to replace the masthead markup (just stuff within the body tag). I just noticed the other day that both the theme (ExtraNews by ThemeForest) and Yoast are adding their own <title>tags, so there may be more conflicts than one.</p> <p>Marking your response as an answer because you proved that Yoast can insert the rel next & prev tags and you've helped me get to the point where I'm 80% sure it's a theme conflict. Thanks again!</p></title>
-
Hi Shaun
Yes in terms of keeping strictly to Google's guidelines, I agree that Yoast should in theory use either prev/next or canonical on subpages, but not both.
I am honestly not certain the settings it could be otherwise, as "subpages of archives" is the only one I know of that handles pagination.
Could there be another plugin or your theme (or custom coding in header.php) causing a conflict? One thing you can do is shut off other plugins one by one to diagnose. You can switch themes or switch to the default header.php file included with WordPress, but I (for obvious reasons) do NOT recommend doing that on a live website. I'm not sure if you have a testing environment.
Are you using a framework like Thesis or Genesis? Sometimes those can cause unexpected things to happen as well.
-Dan
-
Hi Dan, and thanks very much for your response.
Per your screenshot, I believe it's not ideal that there's a rel canonical meta-tag pointing to the current partial page (page 2).
From the Google blog link above: "In cases of paginated content, we recommend either a rel=canonical from component pages to a single-page version of the article, or to use rel=”prev” and rel=”next” pagination markup."
They mention here https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en (2nd last point) that it's optional to include a rel canonical tag like yours, but without the "Noindex subpages of archives" option enabled, it would probably cause your separate post pages to be indexed, which may or may not be ideal for you depending on how authoritative/complete each individual page's content is.
Yoast is definitely adding the rel prev & next meta-tags for you though, which is exactly what I need (minus the rel canonical). I wonder which exact setting is enabling that for you... We have very few Yoast options enabled/configured at all currently, but I don't see any that are specific to the rel prev & next tags.
I've tried enabling the "Noindex subpages of archives" per your suggestion, but it didn't result in any change in the meta-tags for my site (verified after caches cleared too).
Any other suggestions you have would be great. My colleagues want to keep Yoast for it's other features, so I may go the route of forking/modifying the Yoast plugin code to fit our situation if needed.
Thanks for your time!
-
Hi Shaun
Dan here, one of the Moz Associates - we're very sorry for the delay!
I've attached a screenshot of my own personal company site which uses the Yoast Plugin - just want to verify the code as seen here is what I would consider "correct" and best practice for WordPress pagination.
That code has not require any custom coding or anything. So either we need to get the Yoast settings correct, or something else may be interfering with Yoast.
Please first try going to: Yoast SEO->Titles/Meta and select "Noindex subpages of archives". This to my knowledge is the only setting that needs to be made to handle pagination correctly.
Let us know if that works - and again, apologies for the delay. Sometimes we have quite a backlog and don't pick up right away if the community has not appropriately answered a question.
Thanks!
-Dan
-
Do the 30+ people who've viewed this question think it answered itself? I tried to be thorough, but was it too much to read? Or... Is this not a great place to ask such a question?
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
-
How to deal with parameter URLs as primary internal links and not canonicals? Weird situation inside...
So I have a weird situation, and I was hoping someone could help. This is for an ecommerce site. 1. Parameters are used to tie Product Detail Pages (PDP) to individual categories. This is represented in the breadcrumbs for the page and the use of a categoryid. One product can thus be included in multiple categories. 2. All of these PDPs have a canonical that does not include the parameter / categoryid. 3. With very few exceptions, the canonical URL for the PDPs are not linked to. Instead, the parameter URL is to tie it to a specific category. This is done primarily for the sake of breadcrumbs it seems. One of the big issues we've been having is the canonical URLs not being indexed for a lot of the products. In some instances, the canonicals _are _indexed alongside parameters, or just parameter URLs are indexed. It's all very...mixed up, I suppose. My theory is that the majority of canonical URLs not being linked to anywhere on the site is forcing Google to put preference on the internal link instead. My problem? **I have no idea what to recommend to the client (who will not change the parameter setup). ** One of our Technical SEOs recommended we "Use cookies instead of parameters to assign breadcrumbs based on how the PDP is accessed." I have no experience this. So....yeah. Any thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alces0 -
Is AMP works on blogs only?
I have installed AMP Plugin in my WordPress website but when I check pages with /amp/ it shows 404 error. But for blog pages, for the example www.website.com/blog/post/amp/ it shows amp version of the particular page. Also, nothing is showing in search console Accelerate Moile pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO-Stephanie0 -
If I own a .com url and also have the same url with .net, .info, .org, will I want to point them to the .com IP address?
I have a domain, for example, mydomain.com and I purchased mydomain.net, mydomain.info, and mydomain.org. Should I point the host @ to the IP where the .com is hosted in wpengine? I am not doing anything with the .org, .info, .net domains. I simply purchased them to prevent competitors from buying the domains.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | djlittman0 -
Received "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site:" but most of the example URLs are noindexed.
An example URL can be found here: http://symptom.healthline.com/symptomsearch?addterm=Neck%20pain&addterm=Face&addterm=Fatigue&addterm=Shortness%20Of%20Breath A couple of questions: Why is Google reporting an issue with these URLs if they are marked as noindex? What is the best way to fix the issue? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
How far can I push rel=canonical?
My plan: 3 sites with identical content, yet--wait for it--for every article whose topic is A, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site A. For every article whose topic is B, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site B. So Site A will have some articles about topics A, B, and C. And for pages with articles about A, the rel=canonical will point to the page it's on. Yet for pages with articles about B, the rel=canonical will point to the version of that article on site B. Etc. I have my reasons for planning this, but you can see more or less that I want each site to rank for its niche, yet I want the users at each site to have access to the full spectrum of articles in the shared articles database without having to leave a given site. These would be distinct brands with distinct Whois, directory listings, etc. etc. The content is quality and unique to our company.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
Wordpress No 404
Hello, My issue is that in wordpress 404 does not seem to be working properly. An example of this is: sitename.com/category/catname loads the files in that category but I can also type sitename.com/category/asdasfaasd/catname and it still goes to the posts in that category and does not 404. I can replace the misc text with anything and it does not 404. My worry is that this can be used to exploit duplicate content. I've looked at a couple of other sites and they do the same. I'm using Yoast as my SEO plugin and my theme is elogix from themeforest. I've tried disabling all plugins, cloudflare and changing theme and the same issue exists. If anyone can help it would be extremely appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LukeHutchinson0 -
What is the proper syntax for rel="canonical" ??
I believe the proper syntax is like this [taken from the SEOMoz homepage]: However, one of the sites I am working on has all of their canonical tags set up like this: I should clarify, not all of their canonicals are identical to this one, they simply use this naming convention, which appears to be relative URLs instead of absolute. Doesn't the entire URL need to be in the tag? If that is correct, can you also provide me with an explanation that I can give to management please? They hate it when I say "Because I said so!" LOL
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
URL Length or Exact Breadcrumb Navigation URL? What's More Important
Basically my question is as follows, what's better: www.romancingdiamonds.com/gemstone-rings/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (this would fully match the breadcrumbs). or www.romancingdiamonds.com/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (cutting out the first level folder to keep the url shorter and the important keywords are closer to the root domain). In this question http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/37982/url-length-vs-url-keywords I was consulted to drop a folder in my url because it may be to long. That's why I'm hesitant to keep the bradcrumb structure the same. To the best of your knowldege do you think it's best to drop a folder in the URL to keep it shorter and sweeter, or to have a longer URL and have it match the breadcrumb structure? Please advise, Shawn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Romancing0