Pagination V Canonical
-
Hi Guys,
I am needing some help with regards to duplicate page content issues.
Using Zen Cart on an ecommerce platform and it is bringing up duplicate page content on pages. For instance:-
http://www.blissfulkidsparties.com.au/store/1st-birthday-themes-barnyard-bash-1st-birthday-c-67_321/
is the same as:-
Rel=Prev/Next as I understand it will treat
as one page but won't solve the issue of the duplicate content issues between:-
http://www.blissfulkidsparties.com.au/store/1st-birthday-themes-barnyard-bash-1st-birthday-c-67_321/
and
am I better using rel=Canonical here instead???
Kind Regards
Neil
-
So, technically, according to Google, the answer is really ugly. You should canonical to the page level (e.g. "page=2"), but then rel=prev/next to pages 1 and 3 with the same parameters have the current page. So, if you call page 2 with "sort=20" then, "sort=20" should be in the rel=prev/next tags, BUT the canonical should go to page 2 without the "sort=20".
Repeat this for every possible parameter, and welcome to Hell.
You could just use rel=prev/next with the base URLs, and then rel-canonical to the page level. The other option, though, is to hide these parameters completely. Could you store the results/page option in a cookie, for example (that's what I do on a lot of sites) or leave it default, unless someone changes it? If Google always gets the default, then they'll never see that in the URL.
You could also block the sort= parameter in Google Webmaster Tools, although I think combining that with rel=prev/next gets a bit messy.
-
If we navigate yoursite outside of the pagination then the root page is this:
http://www.blissfulkidsparties.com.au/store/1st-birthday-themes-c-67/
I would use that but the big thing here is just to be consistent.
Hope that helps.
Marcus
-
I have just read this post
http://www.seomoz.org/q/avoiding-duplicate-content-in-e-commerce-product-search-sorting-results
And Dr. Pete explains it well. However, If I use rel="canonical" and "rel=prev/next" together
would the rel=canonical be to this page http://www.blissfulkidsparties.com.au/store/1st-birthday-themes-barnyard-bash-1st-birthday-c-67_321/?sort=20a&page=1 or this page
http://www.blissfulkidsparties.com.au/store/1st-birthday-themes-barnyard-bash-1st-birthday-c-67_321/
I am confused!!!
Kind Regards
Neil
-
Hi Neil,
Yes use rel=Canonical, by using this code you are telling Google which page to count.
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
-
Canonical tag not working
I have a weebly site and I put the canonical tag in the header code but the moz crawler still says that I'm missing the canonical tag. Any tips?
Technical SEO | | ctpolarbears0 -
Old site selected as canonical on GSC 3 years after migration?
Recently my company started consulting for a SaaS company. They're clearly the best known, most trusted company on their area of work and they have the strongest brand, best product and therefore more users than any of their competitors by a big margin. Still, 99% of their traffic comes from branded, despite having 3x more domains, better performance scores and more content. Even using tools such as SimilarWeb for comparing user satisfaction metrics, they seem to have lower bounce rates and more visits per session. Still, they rank for almost nothing that is non branded on Google (they rank extremely well for almost everything on bing and DuckDuckGo). They don't have any obvious issues with crawling or indexation - we've gone to great depths to tick off any issues that could be affecting this. My conclusion is that it's either a penalty or a bug, but GSC is not flagging any manual actions. These are the things we've identified: All the content was moved from domain1.com to domain2.com at the end of 2017. 301s were put in place, migration was confirmed on GSC. Everything was done with great care and we couldn't identify any issues with it. Some subdomains of the site, especially support, rank extremely well for all sorts of keywords, even very competitive ones but the www subdomain ranks for almost nothing on Google. The www subdomain has 1,000s of domains pointing to it while the support has only a few 100s. Google is performing delayed rendering attempts on old pages, JS and CSS particularly versions of assets that were live before the migration in 2017, including the old homepage. Again, the redirects have been in place for 3 years. Search Console frequently showing old HTML (at least a year old) in cache despite a recent crawl date and a current 301. Search Console frequently processing old HTML (at least a year old) when reporting on schema. Search Console is sometimes selecting pages from the old domain as the canonical of a URL of an existing page of the current domain, despite a long-standing 301 and the canonicals being well configured for 3 years now. Has anyone experienced anything similar in the past? We've been doing an analysis of old SEO practices, link profile, disavow... nothing points to black hat practices and at this point we're wondering if it's just Google doing a terrible job with this particular domain.
Technical SEO | | oline1230 -
How to deal with canonicals on dup product pages in Magento?
What's the best way to sort canonicals on duplicate product pages generated from products being in more than one category in a Magento web store? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Kerry_Jones0 -
Canonical Expert question!
Hello, I am looking for some help here with an estate agent property web site. I recently finished the MoZ crawling report and noticed that MoZ sees some pages as duplicate, mainly from pages which list properties as page 1,2,3 etc. Here is an example: http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=2
Technical SEO | | artdivision
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=3 etc etc Now I know that the best practise says I should set a canonical url to this page:
http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=all but here is where my problem is. http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 contains good written content (around 750 words) before the listed properties are displayed while the "page=all" page do not have that content, only the properties listed. Also http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses?page=1 is similar with the originally designed landing page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses I would like yoru advise as to what is the best way to can url this and sort the problem. My original thoughts were to can=url to this page http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/property-for-rent/london/houses instead of the "page=all" version but your opinion will be highly appreciated.0 -
Rel Canonical ? please help
Can some one please answer a question for me, I have a crawl error stating that I have [#### Rel Canonical 326](http://pro.seomoz.org/campaigns/243472/issues/18) Can you please advise me on how serious these Errors are? I was told by one person not to worry but It seems far to many to me. thanks
Technical SEO | | Chris__Chris0 -
Are pagination a bad thing for seo
hi i am just checking my errors on my site and it is telling me about duplicate pagination results, so i am just wondering if pagination is bad for seo for example http://www.in2town.co.uk/benidorm/benidorm-news/Page-2 i also have page 3 and page 4. should i stop my site from having this to help with seo
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Canonical versus 301 for affilaite links
Affiliate links for the Volusion ecommerce shops are of the form mydomain.com/?Click=XX where XX is the affiliate ID. Volusion uses rel=canonical to redirect the affiliate links to mydomain.com. Is this a good solution? I used iDevAffiliate for another online store, and their solution was to use 301 redirects to trip off the ? string. Comments? Best,
Technical SEO | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
REL Canonical Error
In my crawl diagnostics it showing a Rel=Canonical error on almost every page. I'm using wordpress. Is there a default wordpress problem that would cause this?
Technical SEO | | mmaes0
