Rel=prev/next and canonical tags on paginated pages?
-
Hi there,
I'm using rel="prev" and rel="next" on paginated category pages. On 1st page I'm also setting a canonical tag, since that page happens to get hits to an URL with parameters.
The site also uses mobile version of pages on a subdomain.
Here's what markup the 1st desktop page has:
Here's what markup the 2nd desktop page has:
Here's what markup the 1st MOBILE page has:
Here's what markup the 2nd MOBILE page has:
Questions:
1. On desktop pages starting from page 2 to page X, if these pages get traffic to their versions with parameters, will I'll have duplicate issues or the canonical tag on 1st page makes me safe?
2. Should I use canonical tags on mobile pages starting from page 2 to page X?
Are there any better solutions of avoiding duplicate content issues?
-
Yes, which is why I thought the first page might be a bit more helpful as a reference point.
-
Yes, but having a "view all" page is not possible. It will be too big to generate it, cache it and display it...
-
Okay, technically you should have a "view all" page and canonical to that which is what that is referring to, as you've got so many pages it is still possible to do that but may suffer from load times etc. So if you were to do it by the book you would ahve the rel=prev/next etc. and a view all button which lists all the content you would then canonical to that.
-
There's another link: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
It says:
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. If rel=canonical to a view-all page isn’t designated, paginated content can use rel=”prev” and rel=”next” markup.
That's why i'm confused which way to go with...
-
It shouldn't matter how many pages though it might be beneficial to categorize them or similar to help users but you can canonical the first page or you can canonical a page that's the same or very similar.
There are many helpful facts on the link above.
-
Thanks for your answer, but I didn't say that this is for a few pages. What if there are 100k pages like these?
If I put both rel="prev"/rel="next" and canonical tags on them all. Will it be fine? What URLs do I put inside of canonical tags on pages other than the 1st page of the pagination?
-
First off you might find this page handy - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
Canonical and pagination are the same (sort of) so you don't need both.
Canonical is when you've got a few pages that are the same and you're telling Google these are all the same but here is the original.
Pagination is telling Google these pages are all the same but they are in a sequence here is the first and here is the last page
Now there is no harm having both on a page especially if you've got some parameters, You should be safe plus duplicate content is not the worst thing to face and it's not going to cause that much harm if you've got a couple of pages duplicated.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Rel=Canonical Vs. 301 for blog articles
Over the last few years, my company has acquired numerous different companies -- some of which were acquired before that. Some of the products acquired were living on their previous company's parent site vs. having their own site dedicated to the product. The decision has been made that each product will have their own site moving forward. Since the product pages, blog articles and resource center landing pages (ex. whitepapers LPs) were living on the parent site, I'm struggling with the decision to 301 vs. rel=canonical those pages (with the new site being self canonicaled). I'm leaning toward take-down and 301 since rel=canonicals are simply suggestions to Google and a new domain can get all the help it can to start ranking. Are there any cons to doing so?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mfcb0 -
Should I put rel next and rel prev and canonical on tags pages
Hi I have a tag pages on a news website each tag page is divided to several pages, but Google does't crawled those pages because the links are in javaScript, I want to do the following things: Change the links to html href Add rel=pref rel=next Add a canonical in each page with the url of the main tag page Do you agree with my solution? Thanks Roy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kadut1 -
Best way to link to 1000 city landing pages from index page in a way that google follows/crawls these links (without building country pages)?
Currently we have direct links to the top 100 country and city landing pages on our index page of the root domain.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse
I would like to add in the index page for each country a link "more cities" which then loads dynamically (without reloading the page and without redirecting to another page) a list with links to all cities in this country.
I do not want to dillute "link juice" to my top 100 country and city landing pages on the index page.
I would still like google to be able to crawl and follow these links to cities that I load dynamically later. In this particular case typical site hiearchy of country pages with links to all cities is not an option. Any recommendations on how best to implement?0 -
Is this the correct way of using rel canonical, next and prev for paginated content?
Hello Moz fellows, a while ago (3-4 years ago) we setup our e-commerce website category pages to apply what Google suggested to correctly handle pagination. We added rel "canonicals", rel "next" and "prev" as follows: On page 1: On page 2: On page 3: And so on, until the last page is reached: Do you think everything we have been doing is correct? I have doubts on the way we have handled the canonical tag, so, any help to confirm that is very appreciated! Thank you in advance to everyone.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
URL Parameters as a single solution vs Canonical tags
Hi all, We are running a classifieds platform in Spain (mercadonline.es) that has a lot of duplicate content. The majority of our duplicate content consists of URL's that contain site parameters. In other words, they are the result of multiple pages within the same subcategory, that are sorted by different field names like price and type of ad. I believe if I assign the correct group of url's to each parameter in Google webmastertools then a lot these duplicate issues will be resolved. Still a few questions remain: Once I set f.ex. the 'page' parameter and i choose 'paginates' as a behaviour, will I let Googlebot decide whether to index these pages or do i set them to 'no'? Since I told Google Webmaster what type of URL's contain this parameter, it will know that these are relevant pages, yet not always completely different in content. Other url's that contain 'sortby' don't differ in content at all so i set these to 'sorting' as behaviour and set them to 'no' for google crawling. What parameter can I use to assign this to 'search' I.e. the parameter that causes the URL's to contain an internal search string. Since this search parameter changes all the time depending on the user input, how can I choose the best one. I think I need 'specifies'? Do I still need to assign canonical tags for all of these url's after this process or is setting parameters in my case an alternative solution to this problem? I can send examples of the duplicates. But most of them contain 'page', 'descending' 'sort by' etc values. Thank you for your help. Ivor
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ivordg0 -
Potential Pagination Issue/ Duplicate content issue
Hi All, We upgraded our framework , relaunched our site with new url structures etc and re did our site map to Google last week. However, it's now come to light that the rel=next, rel=Prev tags we had in place on many of our pages are missing. We are putting them back in now but my worry is , as they were previously missing when we submitted the , will I have duplicate content issues or will it resolve itself , as Google re-crawls the site over time ?.. Any advice would be greatly appreciated? thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Pagination with rel=“next” and rel=“prev”
Hey mozzers Would be interested to know if anyone has used the rel=“next” and rel=“prev” attributes more info here http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html If you have used it, has it worked and what are your thoughts etc:? And for those that have used it, is it a better way of handling pagination other than the obvious of Google saying so. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CraigAddyman0 -
Should "View All Products" be the canonical page?
We currently have "view 12" as the default setting when someone arrives to www.mysite.com/subcategory-page.aspx. We have been advised to change the default to "view all products" and make that the canonical page to ensure all of our products get indexed. My concern is that doing this will increase the page load time and possibly hurt rankings. Does it make sense to change all our our subcategory pages to show all the products when someone visits the page? Most sites seem to have a smaller number of products as the default.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pbhatt0
