Pagination: rel="next" rel="prev" in ?
-
With Google releasing that instructional on proper pagination I finally hunkered down and put in a site change request.
I wanted the rel="next" and rel="prev" implemented… and it took two weeks for the guy to get it done. Brutal and painful.
When I looked at the source it turned out he put it in the body above the pagination links… which is not what I wanted. I wanted them in the .
Before I respond to get it properly implemented I want a few opinions - is it okay to have the rel="next" in the body? Or is it pretty much mandatory to put it in the head?
(Normally, if I had full control over this site, I would just do it myself in 2 minutes… unfortunately I don't have that luxury with this site)
-
Guys I have just joined seo moz and I ended up with 3600 crawl errors and after speaking with abe from seo moz it soon became clear it was to do with the on page pagination we then asked our developer to add rel=”next” & rel=”prev” Within a few minutes my rankings on certain keywords started to drop some ranking on page 1 in the top 5 have now dropped out of the top 50.
I'm a retailer with a certain amount of knowledge regarding seo but this stuff im completely puzzled could anyone help. my site is www.maximumsports-nutrition.com
Cheers
Andy
-
Ah thanks for that Matthew! You gave me exactly what I needed for my email…
Now to wait another two weeks for this web developer. (beyond frustrating)
-
Matthew is spot on here. Has to be in the head or it wont work properly. All the rel/link tags exist in the head (same with rel=canonical, etc...)
-
It does need to be in the head tag. I was in a similar situation on another site where the rel next/prev was put in the . We saw no results from it (in terms of pages indexed) but as soon as those were moved back to the , life was good.
If you need documentation proof for your change request (which I was asked for!), these might help:
Google's blog post about this says "rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document ."
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
At a more basic level, the tag only works in the . See the "Tips & Notes" section.
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
-
How to Rank for "Interesting Finds" on Google Mobile?
Hi! Some of the sites I work with, when doing searches for their top terms, I am seeing some articles listed under "Interesting Finds". I have read some people thought it deals with AMP, others do not. Some thing it has to do with the structured data added to the page, some do not. Does anyone have a definitive answer on how to increase your chances of being listed here? Any example is attached. Any ideas? Uoi4Jyh
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vetofunk0 -
Pagination & View all option on Ecommerce site
Hi I want to add a view all option to our category pages as recommended by Google and to make it easier for the customer. I'm not sure how long this will take our developer, but is this an action that is worth doing from an SEO point of view? Will it add value? For me it will have value, but in terms of SEO actions should it be one I prioritise? I have issues with our pagination and think this would be the quickest way to solve it - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches Any help appreciated 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Is a Rel Canonical Sufficient or Should I 'NoIndex'
Hey everyone, I know there is literature about this, but I'm always frustrated by technical questions and prefer a direct answer or opinion. Right now, we've got recanonicals set up to deal with parameters caused by filters on our ticketing site. An example is that this: http://www.charged.fm/billy-joel-tickets?location=il&time=day relcanonicals to... http://www.charged.fm/billy-joel-tickets My question is if this is good enough to deal with the duplicate content, or if it should be de-indexed. Assuming so, is the best way to do this by using the Robots.txt? Or do you have to individually 'noindex' these pages? This site has 650k indexed pages and I'm thinking that the majority of these are caused by url parameters, and while they're all canonicaled to the proper place, I am thinking that it would be best to have these de-indexed to clean things up a bit. Thanks for any input.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | keL.A.xT.o0 -
Dates in the URLs for a "hot" content website (tipping service)
Hi, I'm planning to build a website that will present games previews for different sports. I think that the date should be included in the URL as the content will be valuable until the kick off f the game. So first i want to know if this is the right approach and second the URL structure i have imagined is /tips/sport/competition/year/month/day Ex : /tips/football/premier_league/2013/11/05 Is this a good structure ? Guillaume.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | betadvisor0 -
Rel=Canonical to Longer Page?
We've got a series of articles on the same topic and we consolidated the content and pasted it altogether on a single page. We linked from each individual article to the consolidated page. We put a noindex on the consolidated page. The problem: Inbound links to individual articles in the series will only count toward the authority of those individual pages, and inbound links to the full article will be worthless. I am considering removing the noindex from the consolidated article and putting rel=canonicals on each individual post pointing to the consolidated article. That should consolidate the PageRank. But I am concerned about pointing****a rel=canonical to an article that is not an exact duplicate (although it does contain the full text of the original--it's just that it contains quite a bit of additional text). An alternative would be not to use rel=canonicals, nor to place a noindex on the consolidated article. But then my concern would be duplicate content and unconsolidated PageRank. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheEspresseo0 -
Is it ok to add rel=CANONICAL into the desktop version on top of the rel="alternate" Tag (Mobile vs Desktop version)
Hi mozzers, We launched a mobile site a couples months ago following the parallel mobile structure with a URL:m.example.com The week later my moz crawl detected thousands of dups which I resolved by implementing canonical tags on the mobile version and rel=alternate onto the desktop version. The problem here is that I still also got Dups from that got generated by the CMS. ?device=mobile ?device=desktop One of the options to resolve those is to add canonicals on the desktop versions as well on top of the rel=alternate tag we just implemented. So my question here: is it dangerous to add rel=canonical and rel=alternate tags on the desktop version of the site or not? will it disrupt the rel=canonical on mobile? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
What next to help with my rankings
I'm after a fresh set of eyes and any suggestions to help me with my site on what next I should be doing to help increase rankings. The site is: http://bit.ly/VR6xIm Currently the site is ranking around 9-11th on google.co.uk for it's main term which is the name of the site. The site is around a year old, when it launched it went initially up towards positions 3-5 but has since settled at around where it is now. I have a free tool webmasters can use to implement our speed test into their sites which also includes a link back to our site in it to recognise that we are providing the tool for free, I periodically change the link achor text so it is not always the same anchor text that every site uses. Is there anything obvious I should be doing or that is missing that would help with my rankings? *Just as a note, I am not after a review on the actual speed test on the site, a new one will be developed to help further increase accuracy.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wardy0 -
What metrics is Google looking for to classify a websites as a "Store" or "Brand"
Our company is both a store and brand as we sell manufacture direct. We are not included in Google's "Related Searches for widgets:" Picture attached as reference (we are not selling computers ... just an example) What is Google looking for to pull these brands and stores? hXSLn.gif
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tatermarketing0