Pagination Issue
-
Hello Community,
We have a pagination issue on a set of pages :
http://homengo.com/s/location/
http://homengo.com/s/location/?page=1
and so on ( ?page=2, ?page=3, ...).
As you can see in the source code the pagination rel and prev are there.
First question : does moz crawler know and recognize pagination ?
Second question : if yes then do you know what could be wrong with pagination on these pages ?
Thanks
-
OK, I understand now.
Looking at the source code I think it is making it hard for a crawler (Moz or Google) to make sense of it. Combine that with the AJAX running as it is I think it is not straightforward for a person to navigate either - just saying it how it is for me as a visitor to the site
With regard to Google, I think this is further compounded for them to relate what they can crawl to pages it will serve as relevant results for a search.
On the AJAX stuff this blog post by Matthew Edgar on Moz may help:
Can Google Really Access Content in JavaScript? Really?
Particularly striking for me is what Matthew says at the end:
Yes, Google can execute some JavaScript to find content but Google has limitations on what it can do, and what it can understand. The best practice remains the same: put the content you want Google to crawl and index in basic HTML. For example, use jQuery tabs to put the content on one file instead of AJAX tabs that spreads out the content across several files. In short, make it easy for Google to access your content.
Sorry, I don't mean for my thoughts to be seen as negative, but I hope the info helps you in some way.
Peter
-
Hello Peter,
Sorry yes i shoud have mentionned that we use jquery-ias to provide infinite scrolling on the website.
But on the html side it does not change anything since pagination is still in the html and you get different results if you access a page with a parameter such as ?page=3 or ?page=4
-
Hi, I looked at your site and could not see how the pagination is working as all I get if I scroll through the properties on the right-hand side is the page loading more properties dynamically so I never get to the end of page 1 it seems.
What am I misunderstanding?
Peter
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
-
Question on Pagination - /blog/ vs /blog/?page=1
Question on Pagination Because we could have /blog/ or /blog/?page=1 as page one would this be the correct way to markup the difference between these two URL? The first page of a sequence could start with either one of these URLs. Clarity around what to do on this first page would be helpful. Example… Would this be the correct way to do this as these two URLs would have the exact content? Internal links would likely link to /blog/ so signal could be muddy. URL: https://www.somedomain.com/blog/
Technical SEO | | jorgensoncompanies
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1"> URL: https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.somedomain.com/blog/?page=1"> Google is now saying to just use the canonical to the correct paginated URL with page number. You can read that here:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/ecommerce/pagination-and-incremental-page-loading But they do not clarify what to do on /blog/?page=1 vs /blog/ as they are the exact same thing. Thanks for your help.0 -
Need for a modified meta-description every page for paginated content?
I'm currently working on a site, where there url structure which is something like: www.domain.com/catagory?page=4. With ~15 results per page. The pages all canonical to www.domain.com/catagory, with rel next and rel prev to www.domain.com/catagory?page=5 and www.domain.com/catagory?page=3 Webmaster tools flags these all as duplicate meta descriptions, So I wondered if there is value in appending the page number to the end of the description, (as we have with the title for the same reason) or if I am using a sub-optimal url structure. Any advice?
Technical SEO | | My-Favourite-Holiday-Cottages0 -
Does having a page (or site) available on HTTP and HTTPS cause duplication issues?
Say I've got a site that can be accessed using either protocal (i.e. HTTP and HTTPS), but most (if not all of the links) are pointing to the HTTP versions. Will it cause a problem if I start link building to HTTPS versions? In other words does google see http://mysite.com as the same page as https://mysite.com? Thanks
Technical SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0 -
Any Positive Experiences with Rel=Next Rel=Prev for pagination?
Hi Mozzers! Can you share your experience and observations in implementing rel=next rel=prev on sites you've worked on?
Technical SEO | | SparkplugDigital0 -
Htaccess issue
I have some urls in my site due to a rating counter. These are like: domain.com/?score=4&rew=25
Technical SEO | | sesertin
domain.com/?score=1&rew=28
domain.com/?score=5&rew=95 These are all duplicate content to my homepage and I want to 301 redirect them there. I tried so far: RedirectMatch 301 /[a-z]score[a-z] http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /.score. http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /^score$.* http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /.^score$.* http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /[a-z]score[a-z] http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 score http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /[.]score[.] http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /[.]score[.] http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /[a-z,0-9]score[a-z,0-9] http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /[a-z,0-9,=,&]score[a-z,0-9,=,&] http://domain.com
RedirectMatch 301 /[a-z,0-9,=&?/.]score[a-z,0-9,=&] http://domain.com None of them works. Anybody? Solution? Would be very much appriciated0 -
Multiple URLs in CMS - duplicate content issue?
So about a month ago, we finally ported our site over to a content management system called Umbraco. Overall, it's okay, and certainly better than what we had before (i.e. nothing - just static pages). However, I did discover a problem with the URL management within the system. We had a number of pages that existed as follows: sparkenergy.com/state/name However, they exist now within certain folders, like so: sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/name So we had an aliasing system set up whereby you could call the URL basically whatever you want, so that allowed us to retain the old URL structure. However, we have found that the alias does not override, but just adds another option to finding a page. Which means the same pages can open under at least two different URLs, such as http://www.sparkenergy.com/state/texas and http://www.sparkenergy.com/about-us/service-map/texas. I've tried pointing to the aliased URL in other parts of the site with the rel canonical tag, without success. How much of a problem is this with respect to duplicate content? Should we bite the bullet, remove the aliased URLs and do 301s to the new folder structure?
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0 -
Website Ranking Issue
Hi, We have been performing our own onsite of offsite SEO along with external assistance and have ranked well over the years with minimal impact from Google updates. Howevr the last so called Panda update has affected us heavily pushing our main phrase 'web design melbourne' from 2nd to 7th where we have been for almost 2 months now on Google.com.au irrespective of onsite or offsite work. We have been trying to find signs of any onsite, IP, duplicate content, titles or other issues that may be holding us back to no avail. The only flag that Google webmaster tools is showing is a number of bad internal site links, which I think is a glitch with the CMS we are using. Even the SEO MOZ tool gives us a higher ranking compared to most competitors on page 1 of Google.com.au for our main phrase. The biggest difference between us and competitors is we chose to target an internal page specific to the topic rather than our homepage. With this sadi we have also reduced our keyword density and content quantity inline with the other sites homepages. Can anyone help shed some light on this? and perhaps something obvious that we have missed, or where we should be looking? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | paulsid0