Pagination on a product page with reviews spread out on multiple pages
-
Our current product pages markup only have the canonical URL on the first page (each page loads more user reviews). Since we don't want to increase load times, we don't currently have a canonical view all product page. Do we need to mark up each subsequent page with its own canonical URL?
My understanding was that canonical and rel next prev tags are independent of each other. So that if we mark up the middle pages with a paginated URL, e.g:
Product page #1http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692"/>http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=2" />**Product page #2 **http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=2"/>http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692" />http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3" />Would mean that each canonical page would suggest to google another piece of unique content, which this obviously isn't. Is the PREV NEXT able to "override" the canonical and explain to Googlebot that its part of a series? Wouldn't the canonical then be redundant?Thanks
-
Hi Don,
Normally it's not really necessary to put a canonical on each the pages with different pageid - the most important reason to put a canonical url on a page is to let Google know that if the same content is published under different url's which url needs to be indexed. In your example - a canonical url on http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3 would be needed if the same content would also be available under http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3&sessionid=123456 (or any other additional parameter). Strictly speaking the canonical is not to indicate Google that the content is unique but to indicate on which preferred url you want the content to be indexed. That is also the reason why you can implement both together.
If you check the example from Google - they use the rel next/previous to indicate that the different pages belong together - the canonical is basically used to indicate that the session id needs to be ignored when indexing the page.
If you are sure that there is only one version of http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3 the canonical url is not really necessary. Note that e-commerce platforms have a tendency to add additional parameters to url's depending on the view - example when sorting on price etc - if this is the case the canonical would be needed.
Hope this helps,
Dirk
-
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for the answer but I'm still a tiny bit confused.
Currently we only have the Product.aspx?p=2692 first page including a canonical link, the rest of the variations don't have canonicals, ex:
Product page #1 http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692"/> http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=2" />
**Product page #2 **http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692" /> http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3" />
Should we go ahead and add a canonical link for these pages with each of the unique pageid which specifies the page number? Because that was always my understanding of the Google support page for pagination. But then like I said we are basically telling Google that these pages are all unique, when if fact just the additional 10 reviews on them is new content.
-
Hi,
If you want all pages with the same product id p=2692 and different &pageid=x to be considered as one big page your implementation is correct. Canonicals can be used in parallel with rel next/previous. The example you give is quite similar to the example given by Google: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en (example at the bottom of the page). The canonical you use on the pages aren't really necessary, but they don't hurt either so you can leave them there.
The one thing you have to avoid when mixing canonicals & rel next/previous is when you implement it like this:
**Product page #2 ** http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692"/>
http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692" /> http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3" /> => in that case you would be sending mixed signals to Google - on one hand indicating that all the pages with different pageid's should be considered as one big page & on the other hand saying that Google should only index the first page as the pages with different pageid's are duplicates.Hope this clarifies,
Dirk
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
-
My product category pages are not being indexed on google can someone help?
My website has been indexed on google and all of its pages can be found on google except for the product category pages - which are where we want our traffic heading to, so this is a big problem for us. Our website is www.skirtinguk.com And an example of a page that isn't being indexed is https://www.skirtinguk.com/product-category/mdf-skirting-board/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | chelseaskirtinguk0 -
Merging Pages and SEO
Hi, We are redesigning our website the following way: Before: Page A with Content A, Page B with Content B, Page C with Content C, etc
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | viatrading1
e.g. one page for each Customer Returns, Overstocks, Master Case, etc
Now: Page D with content A + B + C etc.
e.g. one long page containing all Product Conditions, one after the other So we are merging multiples pages into one.
What is the best way to do so, so we don't lose traffic? (or we lose the minimum possible) e.g. should we 301 Redirect A/B/C to D...?
Is it likely that we lose significant traffic with this change? Thank you,0 -
Ecommerce Site - Duplicate product descriptions & SKU pages
Hi I have a couple of questions regarding the best way to optimise SKU pages on a large ecommerce site. At the moment we have 2 landing pages per product - one is the primary landing page with no SKU, the other includes the SKU in the URL so our sales people & customers can find it when using the search facility on the site. The SKU landing page has a canonical pointing to the primary page as they're duplicates. Is this the best way? Or is it better to have the one page with the SKU in the URL? Also, we have loads of products with the very similar product descriptions, I am working on trying to include a unique paragraph or few sentences on these to improve the content - how dangerous is the duplicate content within your own site? I know its best to have totally unique content, but it won't be possible on a site with thousands of products and a small team. At the moment I am trying to prioritise the products to update. Thank you 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Multiple Ecommerce sites, same products
We are a large catalog company with thousands of products across 2 different domains. Google clearly knows that the sites are connected. Both domains are fairly well known brands - thousands of branded searches for each site per month. Roughly half of our products overlap - they appear on both sites. We have a known duplicate content issue - both sites having exactly the same product descriptions, and we are working on it. We've seen that when a product has different content on the 2 sites, frequently, both pages get to page 2 of the SERPs, but that's as far as it goes, despite aggressive white hat link building tactics. 1. Is it possible to get the same product pages on page 1 of the SERPs for both sites? (I think I know the answer...) 2. Should we be canonicalizing (is that a word?) products across the sites? This would get tricky - both sites have roughly the same domain authority, but in different niches. Certain products and keywords naturally rank better on 1 site or the other depending on the niche.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Duplicate page title at bottom of page - ok, or bad?
Can I get you experts opinion? A few years ago, we customized our pages to repeat the page title at the bottom of the page. So the page title is in the breadcrumbs at the top, and then it's also at the bottom of the page under all the contents. Here is a sample page: bit.ly/1pYyrUl I attached a screen shot and highlighted the second occurence of the page title. Am worried that this might be keyword stuffing, or over optimizing? Thoughts or advice on this? Thank you so much! ron ZH8xQX6
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yatesandcojewelers0 -
Date of page first indexed or age of a page?
Hi does anyone know any ways, tools to find when a page was first indexed/cached by Google? I remember a while back, around 2009 i had a firefox plugin which could check this, and gave you a exact date. Maybe this has changed since. I don't remember the plugin. Or any recommendations on finding the age of a page (not domain) for a website? This is for competitor research not my own website. Cheers, Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MBASydney0 -
Better UX or more Dedicated Pages (and page views)?
Hi, I'm building a new e-commerce site and I'm conflicting about what to do in my category pages. If we take for example a computer store.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
I have a category of laptops and inside there are filters by brand (Samsung, HP, etc.). I have two options - either having the brand choice open a new dedicated page -
i.e. Samsung-Laptops.aspx or simply do a JQuery filter which gives a better and faster user experience (immediate, animated and with no refresh). **Which should I use? (or does it depend on the keyword it might target)? **
Samsung laptops / dell laptops / hp laptops - are a great keyword on there own! By the way, splitting Laptops.aspx to many sub category physical pages might also help by providing the site with many actual pages dealing with laptops altogether.0 -
On Page vs Off Page - Which Has a Greater Effect on Rankings?
Hi Mozzers, My site will be migrating to a new domain soon, and I am not sure how to spend my time. Should I be optimizing our content for keywords, improving internal linking, and writing new content - or should I be doing link building for our current domain (or the new one)? Is there a certain ratio that determines rankings which can help me prioritize these to-dos?, such as 70:30 in favor of link-building? Thanks for any help you can offer!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0