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
-
Paginated category pages still showing in Google
Despite our blog using rel=next and rel=”prev” we’re still finding paginated pages getting impressions in Google, suggesting they are taking up unnecessary crawl budget. An example is: https://www.theukdomain.uk/seo/page/2/ What steps would you recommend I take to most benefit my sites SEO? Thanks, Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sjefferies0 -
Can anyone see any issues with the canonical tags on this web site?
The main domain is: http://www.eumom.ie/ And these would be some of the core pages: http://www.eumom.ie/pregnancy/ http://www.eumom.ie/getting-pregnant/ Any help from the Moz community is much appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IcanAgency0 -
Canonicals: use when page has same listings, but displayed very differently?
Say you have a listing of movies. In that listing, there are 5 different view types. One has the scenes broken out. Another has only the box covers. Two of the views have movie descriptions, but others don't. Still, the listings themselves are the same, and you only want the default view to be indexed. Is it appropriate to use canonicals in this case? The alternative is to noindex the other views, but the site already has rankings and deep links. If Google does see the pages as unique and we apply a canonical, could we be penalized or would they merely ignore it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LahomaManagement0 -
Canonical VS Rel=Next & Rel=Prev for Paginated Pages
I run an ecommerce site that paginates product pages within Categories/Sub-Categories. Currently, products are not displayed in multiple categories but this will most likely happen as time goes on (in Clearance and Manufacturer Categories). I am unclear as to the proper implementation of Canonical tags and Rel=Next & Rel=Prev tags on paginated pages. I do not have a View All page to use as the Canonical URL so that is not an option. I want to avoid duplicate content issues down the road when products are displayed in multiple categories of the site and have Search Engines index paginated pages. My question is, should I use the Rel=Next & Rel=Prev tags on paginated pages as well as using Page One as the Canonical URL? Also, should I implement the Canonical tag on pages that are not yet paginated (only one page)?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mj7750 -
Trailing slash and rel="canonical"
Our website is in a directory format: http://www.website.com/website.asp Our homepage display URL is http://www.website.com which currently matches our to eliminate the possibility of duplicate content. However, I noticed that in the SERPs, google displays the homepage with a trailing slash http://www.website.com/ My question: should I change the rel="canonical" to have a trailing slash? I noticed one of our competitors uses the trailing slash in their rel="canonical" Do potential benefits outweigh the risks? I can PM further information if necessary. Thanks for the assistance in advance...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BethA0 -
Rel=canonical tag on original page?
Afternoon All,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jellyfish-Agency
We are using Concrete5 as our CMS system, we are due to change but for the moment we have to play with what we have got. Part of the C5 system allows us to attribute our main page into other categories, via a page alaiser add-on. But what it also does is create several url paths and duplicate pages depending on how many times we take the original page and reference it in other categories. We have tried C5 canonical/SEO add-on's but they all seem to fall short. We have tried to address this issue in the most efficient way possible by using the rel=canonical tag. The only issue is the limitations of our cms system. We add the canonical tag to the original page header and this will automatically place this tag on all the duplicate pages and in turn fix the problem of duplicate content. The only problem is the canonical tag is on the original page as well, but it is referencing itself, effectively creating a tagging circle. Does anyone foresee a problem with the canonical tag being on the original page but in turn referencing itself? What we have done is try to simplify our duplicate content issues. We have over 2500 duplicate page issues because of this aliasing add-on and want to automate the canonical tag addition, rather than go to each individual page and manually add this tag, so the original reference page can remain the original. We have implemented this tag on one page at the moment with 9 duplicate pages/url's and are monitoring, but was curious if people had experienced this before or had any thoughts?0 -
Canonical issue with my Home Page
Hi, My site has several canonical issues that should be fixed. http://www.crosscountryallied.com For my Home Page, more links are pointing at www.crosscountryallied.com/ (887) than http:// http://www.crosscountryallied.com/ctAlliedWebSite (27). It is recommended that I implement a 301 redirect to recapture a significant amount of link value. The following lists show the most common canonicalization errors that can be produced when using default settings on my web server: Microsoft Internet Information Services 6 (IIS): http://www.crosscountryallied.com/ http://www.crosscountryallied.com/default.jsp (or .jsp depending on the version) http://crosscountryallied.com/ http://crosscountryallied.com/default.jsp or any combination with different capitalization. Each of these URLs spreads out the value of backlinks to our homepage. Should I just redirect them to: http://www.crosscountryallied.com and add a canonical tag?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Melia0 -
Duplicate Content http://www.website.com and http://website.com
I'm getting duplicate content warnings for my site because the same pages are getting crawled twice? Once with http://www.website.com and once with http://website.com. I'm assuming this is a .htaccess problem so I'll post what mine looks like. I think installing WordPress in the root domain changed some of the settings I had before. My main site is primarily in HTML with a blog at http://www.website.com/blog/post-name BEGIN WordPress <ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | thirdseo
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule . /index.php [L]</ifmodule> END WordPress0