Product search URLs with parameters and pagination issues - how should I deal with them?
-
Hello Mozzers - I am looking at a site that deals with URLs that generate parameters (sadly unavoidable in the case of this website, with the resource they have available - none for redevelopment) - they deal with the URLs that include parameters with *robots.txt - e.g. Disallow: /red-wines/? **
Beyond that, they userel=canonical on every PAGINATED parameter page[such as https://wine****.com/red-wines/?region=rhone&minprice=10&pIndex=2] in search results.**
I have never used this method on paginated "product results" pages - Surely this is the incorrect use of canonical because these parameter pages are not simply duplicates of the main /red-wines/ page? - perhaps they are using it in case the robots.txt directive isn't followed, as sometimes it isn't - to guard against the indexing of some of the parameter pages???
I note that Rand Fishkin has commented: "“a rel=canonical directive on paginated results pointing back to the top page in an attempt to flow link juice to that URL, because “you'll either misdirect the engines into thinking you have only a single page of results or convince them that your directives aren't worth following (as they find clearly unique content on those pages).” **- yet I see this time again on ecommerce sites, on paginated result - any idea why? **
Now the way I'd deal with this is:
Meta robots tags on the parameter pages I don't want indexing (nofollow, noindex - this is not duplicate content so I would nofollow but perhaps I should follow?)
Use rel="next" and rel="prev" links on paginated pages - that should be enough.Look forward to feedback and thanks in advance, Luke
-
Hi Zack,
Have you configured your parameters in Search Console? Looks like you've got your prev/next tags nailed down, so there's not much else you need to do. It's evident to search engines that these types of dupes are not spammy in nature, so you're not running a risk of getting dinged.
-
Hi Logan,
I've seen your responses on several threads now on pagination and they are spot on so I wanted to ask you my question. We're an eCommerce site and we're using the rel=next and rel=prev tags to avoid duplicate content issues. We've gotten rid of a lot of duplicate issues in the past this way but we recently changed our site. We now have the option to view 60 or 180 items at a time on a landing page which is causing more duplicate content issues.
For example, when page 2 of the 180 item view is similar to page 4 of the 60 item view. (URL examples below) Each view version has their own rel=next and prev tags. Wondering what we can do to get rid of this issue besides just getting rid of the 180 and 60 item view option.
https://www.example.com/gifts/for-the-couple?view=all&n=180&p=2
https://www.example.com/gifts/for-the-couple?view=all&n=60&p=4
Thoughts, ideas or suggestions are welcome. Thanks!
-
I've been having endless conversations about this over the last few days and in conclusion I agree with everything you say - thanks for your excellent advice. On this particular site next/prev was not set up correctly, so I'm working on that right now.
-
Yes I agree totally - some wise words of caution - thanks.
-
thanks for the feedback - it is Umbraco.
-
To touch on your question about if you should follow or nofollow links...if the pages in question could help with crawling in any fashion at all...despite being useless for their own sake, if they can be purposeful for the sake of other pages in terms of crawling and internal pagerank distribution, then I would "follow" them. Only if they are utterly useless for other pages too and are excessively found throughout a crawling of the site would I "nofollow" them. Ideally, these URLs wouldn't be found at all as they are diluting internal pagerank.
-
Luke,
Here's what I'd recommend doing:
- Lose the canonical tags, that's not the appropriate way to handle pagination
- Remove the disallow in the robots.txt file
- Add rel next/prev tags if you can; since parameter'd URLs are not separate pages, some CMSs are weird about adding tags to only certain versions of parameter
- Configure those parameters in Search Console ('the last item under the Crawl menu) - you can specific each parameter on the site and its purpose. You might find that some of these have already been established by Google, you can go in and edit those ones. You should configure your filtering parameters as well.
- You don't want to noindex these pages, for the same reason that you might not be able to add rel next/prev. You could risk that noindex tag applying to the root version of the URL instead of just the parameter version.
Google has gotten really good at identifying types of duplicate content due to things like paginated parameters, so they don't generally ding you for this kind of dupe.
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
-
Same URL-Structure & the same number of URLs indexed on two different websites - can it lead to a Google penalty?
Hey guys. I've got a question about the url structure on two different websites with a similar topic (bith are job search websites). Although we are going to publish different content (texts) on these two websites and they will differ visually, the url structure (except for the domain name) remains exactly the same, as does the number of indexed landingpages on both pages. For example, www.yyy.com/jobs/mobile-developer & www.zzz.com/jobs/mobile-developer. In your opinion, can this lead to a Google penalty? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vde130 -
Shall I hide short product review texts from customers (to avoid google panda/quality issues)?
About 30% of product reviews that the clients of our ecommerce store submitted in the last 10 years are 3 words or less (we did not require any minimum length). Would you recommend to hide those very short review texts? Where to draw the limit?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse
Numeric star rating would still go into our accumulated product rating. My only concern here is what impact it may have on google ranking.
To give some context, the site has for a long time some panda/phantom related issues where there are no obvious reasons that we could point to.0 -
Multiple brands issue
My client has his main brand on the domain name .com and then 3 brands that exist on .com/brandA , com/brandB and .com/brandC We created a lot of content for .com main brand and we noticed that brandB copied some of our content and put it on .com/brandB . How to deal with this? Canonical tags?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aliciaporrata10090 -
Mass Product Page Upload - SEO Issue?
Hi We will be adding a lot of products to our site, in a mass referencing exercise, not all in one go, but 10,000 split into a few loads. This product content won't be duplicate, but the quality of the information may be sparse and not very high. My question is, whether adding a bulk of these pages will reduce the pverall domain authority on our site? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
New-york-city vs. broadway as a URL parameter
We're a content publisher that writes news and reviews about the theater community, both in New York City (broadway mainly) and beyond. Presently, we display the term 'new-york-city' in news articles about Broadway / New York City theater (see http://screencast.com/t/XlifMdT9QP). Would it be better for us to replace that term with simply 'Broadway' to improve its searchability? I was doing some google trends keyword research and it looks like the search term "Broadway" in various permutations is substantially more popular than "New York City Theater."
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
If I own a .com url and also have the same url with .net, .info, .org, will I want to point them to the .com IP address?
I have a domain, for example, mydomain.com and I purchased mydomain.net, mydomain.info, and mydomain.org. Should I point the host @ to the IP where the .com is hosted in wpengine? I am not doing anything with the .org, .info, .net domains. I simply purchased them to prevent competitors from buying the domains.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | djlittman0 -
Multiple URL's exist for the same page, canonicaliazation issue?
All of the following URL's take me to the same page on my site: 1. www.mysite.com/category1/subcategory.aspx 2. www.mysite.com/subcategory.aspx 3. www.mysite.com/category1/category1/category1/subcategory.aspx All of those pages are canonicalized to #1, so is that okay? I was told the following my a company trying to make our sitemap: "the site's platform dynamically creates URLs that resolve as 200 and should be 404. This is a huge spider trap for any search engine and will make them wary of crawling the site." What would I need to do to fix this? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pbhatt0 -
Google Maps results doesn't show my site url but rather the maps url, why is this?
For several of my clients landing pages that show up in the Maps results the website url has been overwritten by the maps url (maps.google.com). Even though on my places page I have the correct website set up. Does anyone have any idea why they would be doing this and how I can correct it? Thanks kinldy in advance, Aaron. maps-url.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | afranklin0