Query string category pagination
-
I've been reading some posts on the merits and pitfalls of using rel=prev, rel=next and canonical, but I just wanted to double check the right solution.
example.com/birth-announcements
example.com/birth-announcements?p=2
example.com/birth-announcements?p=3
With a small selection of products on each variation.
So at the moment there is a canonical on all of them to the base example.com/birth-announcements. The problem is we are having difficulty getting the products within p=* indexed. I don't think from all I read that rel=prev/rel=next is the way to go. Would the solution (or best way to go) be to create a "view-all" filter and set that to be the canonical URL, so all product URLs are in clear focus for Google. The volume of products won't (shouldn't) have too much of an impact on page load. Or am I wrong and rel=prev/rel=next is a feasible solution?
-
Hi Andy,
thanks for the reply. Yes, each p=* is identical to the base category URL, the only differences are a small handful of products on each p=* which are not really offering anything to those pages in the way of uniqueness at all in the way they are presented. So from that point of view the canonical makes sense. However, I don't want to take Google's focus away from cleanly crawling all the products within p=*
So rel=next & prev for me opens up duplication issues as there are no "parts" of content, it's going to be effectively the same category textual content.
However if I implement &view-all and set the canonical to that version i'm then worried Google may be problematic and not play ball.
-
Hi Michael,
The problem is we are having difficulty getting the products within p= indexed*
If you have a canonical set on a p=* to the base URL, this will mean those pages never get indexed by Google.
If each page is different /p=1, /p=2 et al, then a rel prev / next will handle this for you. However, it depends on what is on each of those pages. If they are virtually identical (or at least very similar) then the solution might be to leave the canonical in place - but that doesn't sound like what you want.
If what I am reading is right, the nel=next & prev would work for you - but remove the canonical on each page. You could also use a view-all as this will work, but have a read of some of the options here. It covers what you need to know.
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
-Andy
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
-
Category url with resultsperpage loop
Hi there, We upgraded our webshop last weekend and our moz crawl on monday found a lot of errors we are trying to fix. I am having some communication problems with our webmaster so I need a little help. We have extremely long category pages url, does anyone have a guess which kind of mistake our webmaster could make:
Technical SEO | | isabelledylag
https://site-name.pl/category-name?page=3?resultsPerPage=53?resultsPerPage=53 .... And it keeps on repeating the string ?resultsPerPage=53 exactly 451 times as if there was some kind of loop. Thanks in advance for any kind of hint 🙂
Kind regards,
Isabelle0 -
Query on Sitemap xml Root Path
Is it compulsory to have sitemap.xml at this path - abcd.com/sitemap.xml? My sitename is abcd.com. Now is it compulsory to have sitemap.xml at this path - abcd.com/sitemap.xml only? a) If i take cnd services where path can be like xyz.com/sitemap.xml and then this sitemap i can submit in robot file so it is fine? b) What will happen here in webmaster tool as in webmaster tool when we submit sitemap by default it gives us domain name like abcd.com and we have to just add /sitemap.xml
Technical SEO | | Johny123450 -
Stuck with canonical URL - main site vs categorys?
Hello, I started to doubt myself. We have a classified advertisements website. On the main www.website.com page, almost all the advertisements are shown. Now we take those advertisements and also split them into categorys Category 1 / category 2 / category 3 / category 4 Now all those categories almost always have the same content as www.website.com except a bit less (because X amount of content is now divided also to 4-5 groups) For raking should i actually tell google that those categories are a copy of www.website.com or they should still be as they are?
Technical SEO | | advertisingcloud0 -
Should all pagination pages be included in sitemaps
How important is it for a sitemap to include all individual urls for the paginated content. Assuming the rel next and prev tags are set up would it be ok to just have the page 1 in the sitemap ?
Technical SEO | | Saijo.George0 -
Blog posts outranked for Title a String searches in content...why?
Site Pages: When I wrap a page title, or a string of several words in quotes, and GG search, my client's page shows up first. My understanding is that this shows general health of site, and acknowledgement as the original source of the content. Blog Posts: When I wrap a blog page, or post, title or string of words in quotes, and GG search, Feedblitz, Facebook, and other scraper sites appear before the blog home page, and also the actual blog post. The blog is in a separate directory. Does this suggest that the /blog/ is being penalized or demoted in any way? Does it indicate the /blog/ directory does not have authority? Both the static site pages, and the blog pages, are using rel=canonical tags. What causes this, what does it indicate, and how can I fix it? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | seagreen
Greg0 -
Which Pagination/Canonicalization Page Selection Approach Should be Used?
Currently working on a retail site that has a product category page with a series of pages related to each other i.e. page 1, page 2, page 3 and Show All page. These are being identified as duplicate content/title pages. I want to resolve this through the applications of pagination to the pages so that crawlers know that these pages belong to the same series. In addition to this I also want to apply canonicalization to point to one page as the one true result that rules them all. All pages have equal weight but I am leaning towards pointing at the ‘Show All’. Catch is that products consistently change meaning that I am sometimes dealing with 4 pages including Show All, and other times I am only dealing with one page (...so actually I should point to page 1 to play it safe). Silly question, but is there a hard and fast rule to setting up this lead page rule?
Technical SEO | | Oxfordcomma0 -
A query about internal linking. Have I got this right?
Hi Guys I think this sounds like a right noobie question, but I am amongst friends so here goes. So our website is an ecommerce site selling magazines. There are certain magazines, for example Vogue, where we sell the UK version, USA, italian, spanish, french etc there's basically 13 different Vogue magazines on our site. The more niche ones attract some good long tail traffic. However, the UK version is competitive and so requires some extra umph to get us a half descent rank. However, when you search "vogue magazine subscription" for example, it's our italian vogue which is listed first. When I looked into this, I found that we had linked out from our UK Vogue to Italian vogue. Could this have given the italian vogue a marginal boost, as it had the additional internal links? What I have now done is add to some, not all, of the variations something along the lines "you will find the UK Vogue magazine here" where "UK Vogue Magazine" is the anchor text. Is this the right thing to do? Will this identify that the UK Vogue page is the higher priority page, or the more important page? I was also going to add to a category page a "Top 10 Womens magazines" section, and link to Vogue from there. Am I barking up the right tree? Thanks Guys Paul
Technical SEO | | TheUniqueSEO0 -
Pagination/Crawl Errors
Hi, Ive only just joined SEO moz and after they crawled my site they came up with 3600 crawl errors mostly being duplicate content and duplicate urls. After researching this it soon became clear it was due to on page pagination and after speaking with Abe from SEO mozhe advised me to take action by getting our developers to implement rel=”next” & rel=”prev” to review. soon after our developers implemented this code ( I have no understanding of this what so ever) 90% of my keywords I had been ranking for in the top 10 have dropped out the top 50! Can anyone explain this or help me with this? Thanks Andy
Technical SEO | | beck3980