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.
-
Fantastic, thank you Paul! Those links are very useful, and I might have already read those when I setup those canonicals (I jut forgot after a few years to have worked on that!)
I'll check them out carefully again
Appreciated your help and prompt reply
All the best,
Fabrizio
-
Yup, that's exactly correct - just the way you first proposed.
And if you want it straight from the horse's mouth, here's Google's own description of implementation best practice for your exact situation:
rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts.Both declarations can be included in the same page.
For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain:
Note the canonical for the page is self referential to the version of the page including the basic variable that defines the actual page, leaving out the more dynamic variable of sessionID - the same way you'd want to leave out the dynamic size or colour variables, for example, which are specific to only that visit.
From https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
With a big whack of followup confirmation in this discussion with Google Engineer Maile Ohye https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/YbXqwoyooGM/0XTh-gIxS7YJDon't forget you can also use the tools in GSC to help GoogleBot understand which of your URL variables are indexable and which should be ignored. Only helps Google itself, but hey, every little bit counts
Good luck!
Paul
-
Thank you Paul, so, what I have been doing so far is correct, right? Here it is again, please, confirm so I can close this thread:
On page 1:
On page 2:
On page 3:
And so on, until the last page is reached:
Is this the correct way to do it then?
-
You want to have each of your paginated category pages include a self-referential canonical tag, Fabrizo, for exactly the reason you mention - to protect the paginated pages from additional variables creating more dupe indexed pages.
Paul
-
Thank you for your reply, but I am sorry Logan, I am confused, you said:
Regarding your recent question about links, a self-referring canonical on those pages will handle that.
So, if I had to follow what you said above, I should add the following canonicals on these pages:
Page 1:
http://www.mysite.com/category/
Page 2:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=2
Page 3:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=3
But then you said that I don't have to put any canonicals except for the first page... so, I am confused... sorry!
Fact is, all pages may have extra parameters that could cause duplicates, therefore, how can I tackle that without adding a canonical on each page pointing to the "clean" URL without extra parameters? I hope you understand what I mean...
-
No, you do not need a canonical on any page other than page=1. Refer to Andy's set of examples above. What he laid out is exactly how I markup for pagination.
-
Thank you Logan.
So, even if I am on page 4, the canonical must points always to the root? I think I read somewhere that it should point to the page URL without the extra parameters like this:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4
Am I wrong?
-
Yes, you only need the canonical tag on the root (as a self-referring canonical) and on page=1 of your paginated URLs. Regarding your recent question about links, a self-referring canonical on those pages will handle that.
Example:
On this URL- http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4&orderby=title&view=list
Canonicalize to-Â http://www.mysite.com/category/
Hope that's helpful!
-
I am sorry, but I haven't received an answer to my last inquiry above, I can't close this thread.
-
Another question: what about links on those pages that can take the crawl to possible duplicate because of parameters added to the URL like:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4&orderby=title
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4&orderby=title&view=list
etc.? That's probably why we added the canonical I talked about above.... your thoughts?
-
Sorry, it is my understanding I have to leave the canonical just on the first page, is that correct?
Thank you again.
-
Oh, thank you Andy and Logan! So, can I remove the canonical tag altogether?
Thank you so much!
All the best,
Fabrizio
-
I'm with Logan here, Fabrizio. Rel next & prev pagination removes the need to canonical as well. So it would look like this:
Page 1:
Page 2:
Page 3:
It's Google way of understanding that there are similar pages that you wish to lead visitors to.
-Andy
-
Hi,
You don't need the self-referring canonical tags on each of the paginated URLs. Â Other than that it looks good to go.
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
-
Pages canonicaled to another appearing before the canonical on google searches
Hello, When I do this google search, this page(amandine roses category) appears before the one it is canonical-ed to(this multi-product version of amandine roses). This happens often with this multi-product template, where they don't rank as well as their category version(that are canonical to the multi-product version). Can someone maybe point us in the right direction on what the issue may be? What can be improved?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globalrose.com0 -
Teaser Content Help!!
I'm in the process of a redesign and upgrade to Drupal 8 and have used Drupal's taxonomy feature to add a fairly large database of Points of Interest, Services etc. initially this was just for a Map/Filter for site users. The developer also wants to use teasers from these content types (such as a scenic vista description) as a way to display the content on relevant pages (such as the scenic vistas page, as well as other relevant pages). Along with the content it shows GPS coordinates and icons related to the description. In short, it looks cool, can be used in multiple relevant locations and creates a great UX. However, many of these teasers would basically be pieces of content from pages with a lot of SEO value, like descriptive paragraphs about scenic viewpoints from the scenic viewpoints page. Below is an example of how the descriptions of the scenic viewpoints would be displayed on the scenic viewpoints pages, as well as other potential relevant pages. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE SEO VALUE OF THE CONTENT?? Thanks in advance for any help, I can't find an answer anywhere. About 250 words worth of content about a scenic vista. There’s about 8 scenic vista descriptions like this from the scenic vistas page, so a good chunk of valuable content. There are numerous long form content pages like this that have descriptions and information about sites and points of interest that don't warrant having their own page. For more specific content with a dedicated page, I can just the the intro paragraph as a teaser and link to that specific page of content. Not sure what to do here.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | talltrees0 -
Pagination parameters and canonical
Hello, We have a site that manages pagination through parameters in urls, this way: friendly-url.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite
friendly-url.html?p=2
friendly-url.html?p=3
... We've rencently added the canonical tag pointing to friendly-url.html for all paginated results. In search console, we have the "p" parameter identified by google.Â
Now that the canonical has been added, should we still configure the parameter in search console, and tell google that it is being use for pagination? Thank you!0 -
Rel=canonical on pre-migration website
I have an e-commerce client that is migrating platforms. The current structure of their existing website has led to what I would believe to be mass duplicate content. They have something north of 150,000 indexed URLs. However, 143,000+ of these have query strings and the content is identical to pages without any query string. Even so, the site does pretty well from an organic stand point compared to many of its direct competitors. Here is my question: (1) I am assuming that I should go into WMT (Google/Bing) and tell both search engines to ignore query strings. (2) In a review of back links, it does appear that there is a mish mash of good incoming links both to the clean and the dirty URLs. Should I add a rel=canonical via a script to all the pages with query strings before we make our migration and allow the search engines some time to process? (3) I'm assuming I can continue to watch the indexation of the URLs, but should I also tell search engines to remove the URLs of the dirty URLs? (4) Should I do Fetch in WMT? And if so, what sequence should I do for 1-4. How long should I wait between doing the above and undertaking the migration?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ExploreConsulting0 -
Is their value in linking to PPC landing pages and using rel="canonical"
I have ppc landing pages that are similar to my seo page. The pages are shorter with less text with a focus on converting visitors further along in the purchase cycle. My questions are: 1. Is there a benefit for having the orphan ppc pages indexed or should I no index them? 2. If indexing does provide benefits, should I create links from my site to the ppc pages or should I just submit them in a sitemap? 3. If indexed, should I use rel="canonical" and point the ppc versions to the appropriate organic page? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrandExpSteve0 -
Stolen website content
Hello, recently we had a lot of content written for our new website. Unfortunately me and my partner have went separate ways, and he has used all my unique content on his own website. All our product descriptions, about us etc, he simply changed the name of the company. He has agreed to take the content down, so that i can now put this content on our new website which is currently being designed. Will google see this as duplicate content as it has been on a website before? Even though the content has been removed from the original website. I was worried as the content is no longer "fresh" so to speak. Can any one help me with this,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexogilvie0 -
Unpaid Followed Links & Canonical Links from Syndicated Content
I have a user of our syndicated content linking to our detailed source content. Â The content is being used across a set of related sites and driving good quality traffic. Â The issue is how they link and what it looks like. We have tens of thousands of new links showing up from more than a dozen domains, hundreds of sub-domains, but all coming from the same IP. Â The growth rate is exponential. Â The implementation was supposed to have canonical tags so Google could properly interpret the owner and not have duplicate syndicated content potentially outranking the source. The canonical are links are missing and the links to us are followed. Â While the links are not paid for, it looks bad to me. Â I have asked the vendor to no-follow the links and implement the agreed upon canonical tag. Â We have no warnings from Google, but I want to head that off and do the right thing. Is this the right approach? Â What would do and what would you you do while waiting on the site owner to make the fixes to reduce the possibility of penguin/google concerns? Blair
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlairKuhnen0 -
Do I need to use canonical tags if I'm 301 redirecting pages?
I just took a job about three months and one of the first things I wanted to do was restructure the site. The current structure is solution based but I am moving it toward a product focus. The problem I'm having is the CMS I'm using isn't the greatest (and yes I've brought this up to my CMS provider). It creates multiple URL's for the same page. For example, these two urls are the same page: (note: these aren't the actual urls, I just made them up for demonstration purposes) http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Omnipress
http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/bossman.cmsx (I know this is terrible, and once our contract is up we'll be looking at a different provider) So clearly I need to set up canonical tags for the last two pages that look like this: With the new site restructure, do I need to put a canonical tag on the second page to tell the search engine that it's the same as the first, since I'll be changing the category it's in? For Example: http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/ will become http://www.website.com/home/MEET-OUR-TEAM/team-leaders/boss-man My overall question is, do I need to spend the time to run through our entire site and do canonical tags AND 301 redirects to the new page, or can I just simply redirect both of them to the new page? I hope this makes sense. Your help is greatly appreciated!!0