Just read Travis Loncar's YouMoz post and I have a question about Pagination
-
This was a brilliant post.
I have a question about Pagination on sites that are opting to use Google Custom Search. Here is an example of a search results page from one of the sites I work on:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman
I notice in the source code of sequential pages that the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags are not used. I also noticed that the URL does not change when clicking on the numbers for the subsequent pages of the search results.
Also, the canonical tag of every subsequent page looks like this:
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? All of our Google Custom Search pages have the same canonical tag....Something's telling me this just can't be good.
Questions:
1. Is this creating a duplicate content issue?
2. If we need to include rel="prev" and rel="next" on Google Custom Search pages as well as make the canonical tag accurate, what is the best way to implement this?
Given that searchers type in such a huge range of search terms, it seems that the canonical tags would have to be somehow dynamically generated.
Or, (best case scenario!) am I completely over-thinking this and it just doesn't matter on dynamically driven search results pages?
Thanks in advance for any comments, help, etc.
-
-
Considering that the larger of the two sites I work on is on a platform from 1996, I might actually be living "back in the day!" lol - Thanks again Jared!
-
This would all depend on what the site was built on, and the flexibility. There's no questions that this can be done. "Back in the day" we had a few sites that had tens of thousands of page due to sorting, and we had everything generated including:
Title, meta d, meta k, breadcrmb, H1 and short description.
Those were the days!!!
-
For the most part, I would choose to use rel=prev/next for pagination, including both pagination with dynamic urls and static URLs. There are some cases (as with this original thread question) where you should use canonical, but as a whole you should use rel=prev/next.
The best way to explain it is:
Rel Prev/Next:
Your site: Hi Google, I have all of these pages that very similar so I'm just letting you know that I only have duplicate content here for usability reasons and am in no way inferring that you should index all of these pages and rank them #1!
Google: Ok great, thanks for letting us know. We'll index the pages we feel are appropriate, but you wont get penalized for duplicate content. We may only index and serve one page, "page 1", or we may index multiple pages. Thanks for letting us know.
Canonical:
Your site: Hi Google, I have all these paginated pages that look like duplicate content, please do not include any of them in your index, and don't penalize me for duplicate content. For the record, the page you should index is Page 1 and no other pages.Any links that point to the paginated pages should be counted towards Page 1*.
Google: Great, no matter what we will not index any pagination and only Page 1.
With rel=next you are simply letting Google know, but not dictating how Google should act on the situation. If fact with ecomm sites, youll find that a lot of timees when you use rel=next, Google will actually index the 'view all' page if you have "view all" as an option around your pagination links
*many articles suggest that link juice is passed to the canonical URL - I'm have not seen any direct evidence of this but is worth a different discussion.
-
Yes, Jared, this is a great answer. I understand completed. It looks like we are ok then with Google Custom Search as it is. Thanks so much for your thoughtful answer. Now, if we can only get our paginated category pages sorted out, we'll be on the right track!
-
Hi Gerd,
Yes, this is a separate issue we are also struggling with on the site. I believe Travis' YouMoz post from yesterday made a pretty good case for using multiple paginated URLs, and he even illustrated how to accomplish this with sorting parameters like "color" and "price"
You raise a very good point about duplicate titles and descriptions potentially being a problem in this scenario.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to handle that? Could the backend be programmed to dynamically create unique titles and descriiptions based on some rules for naming conventions? (assuming you have access to that level of the code of course)
Really interested to know some points of view on this!
Dana
-
I raised a similar question in the following Q&A - http://www.seomoz.org/q/duplicate-title-tags-with-pagination-and-canonical
My concern or question (we have rel=prev/next) would be more towards what the canoncial should be. There seems to be different opinions:
1. Use the current paginated page as the canonical - in our case GWMT reports duplicate titles (I suppose appending a page-number should sort this out)
2. Use the base search URL as the canonical - perhaps not a bad choice if your site's content changes and Google indexes page 50, but over time you only have results for 40 pages (resulting in an empty result page)
I currently only can conclude that having the prev/next implemented is a good thing as it will hint Google in pagination (in addition to setup the URL parameters in GWMT). I do plan to change the canoncial to the base search URL (and not having multiple paginated URLs) and see how this will affect indexing and SERPs.
-
Dana
Great and informative question,
Jared
Great Answer
-
Hi Dana - Let me see if I understand this correctly:
In question 1 you asked if this would be a duplicate content issue. The canonical tag retains the exact same URL regardless of the search parameter (and resulting search results). Therefore, regardless of the search being made, Google and other crawlers will not index page with a search parameter since the canonical references to the original url (http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return). This means that when Google accidentally lands here http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman it sees the canonical tag and understands that it should not index this page as it is only a variation of the core page.
This would of course be a problem if you actually wanted Google to index every query page. Alternate methods could be to disclude the query parameter in WMT or Robots. But the canonical is built in for you so that you dont have to.
In situations like this I also like to add site search to analytics and block the query parameter so no query pages show up as landing pages.
-
I understand exactly what you are saying Jared. However, here's the problem, the canonical tag is exactly the same....for every single subsequent page in a series across the entire site.
No matter what is searched. The canonical tag remains:
Wouldn't that mean that all search results pages, regardless of search term, are viewed as the same page?
I have heard this discussed before come to think of it. In this case, wouldn't it be proper to block all dynamic search results pages from being crawled or indexed by Google via the htaccess file or robots.txt file?
-
Hi Dana -
I think in the case of Google Custom Search, there is no need to worry about duplication. The reason is that although the rel="prev" etc tags are not being used, a blanket solution already exists: the canonical tag. As you mentioned, the canonical tag never changes, regardless of the search - therefore the crawlers only ever see the Custom Search page as a single page regardless of the queries being made. Thus there is no duplicate issue.
-
I use Google custom search on my site and love it. I would say you have some valid concerns. At first it was a bit of a pain because some of the images didn't line up with the products after a few weeks it worked itself out. We had a 47% increase in conversion from using Google custom search, I use an out of the box type web service so I cannot help you with a few of the questions. There is a lot of customization you can do to fix that you described. Bringing our blog and recipe section was the purpose for trying it and the revenue proved it to be a wise decision.
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
-
What was the Google 'update' on 31st March?
Hi all. I looked back and saw that there was an update shown in 'Search Analytics' in Webmaster Tools a few weeks before the Mobile algorithm update. Not been able to find any mention of it and what it did so thought I'd check in here. ps. Also, this is a 90 day stretch and shows that our rankings have taken a hit since the mobile algorithm update. Interesting stuff (see image below) 4rJMU9e.jpg?1
Technical SEO | | RobFD0 -
What's Worse - 404 errors or a huge .htaccess file
We have changed our site architecture pretty significantly and now have many fewer pages (albeit with more robust content and focused linking). My question is, what should I do about all the 404 errors (keep in mind, I am only finding these in Bing Webmaster tools, not Moz or GWT)? Is it worse to have all those 404 errors (hundreds), or to have a massive htaccess file for pages that are only getting hits by the Bing crawlbot. Any insight would be great. Thanks
Technical SEO | | CleanEdisonInc0 -
What's the best Blogging platform
A year ago an SEO specialist evaluated my Wordpress site and said she had seen lower rankings for Wordpress sites--in general. We moved our site off any cms and design in html 5. Our blog, however, is still on Wordpress. I'm thinking about moving to the Ghost platform b/c I only a blog. The drawbacks are one author, no recent post lists, no meta tags. Is it worth it to move the site off Wordpress. Will it affect my rankings much if I have great content? Does anyone have experience with or opinions on Ghost?
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
No confirmation page on Google's Disavow links tool?
I've been going through and doing some spring cleaning on some spammy links to my site. I used Google's Disavow links tool, but after I submit my text file, nothing happens. Should I be getting some sort of confirmation page? After I upload my file, I don't get any notifications telling me Google has received my file or anything like that. It just takes me back to this page: http://cl.ly/image/0S320q46321R/Image 2013-04-26 at 11.15.25 AM.png Am I doing something wrong or is this what everyone else is seeing too?
Technical SEO | | shawn810 -
Possible penguin hit but then back, now what's next?
hiz, i did a little check on my site by answering the quiz at mytrafficdropped.com and there was a question about on what dates there was drop in organic. and i did checked my analytics on a top sending keyword. here is what i found. see attached image . Traffic dropped totally on April 20 to onwards. Then got back better in june, but again dropped in October, still down.. anythoughts guys ? 1Jk47.png
Technical SEO | | wickedsunny10 -
Has Google stopped rendering author snippets on SERP pages if the author's G+ page is not actively updated?
Working with a site that has multiple authors and author microformat enabled. The image is rendering for some authors on SERP page and not for others. Difference seems to be having an updated G+ page and not having a constantly updating G+ page. any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | irvingw0 -
Does 'framing' a website create duplicate content?
Something I have not come across before, but hope others here are able offer advice based on experience: A client has independently created a series of mini-sites, aimed at targeting specific locations. The tactic has worked very well and they have achieved a large amount of well targeted traffic as a result. Each mini-site is different but then in the nav, if you want to view prices or go to the booking page, that then links to what at first appears to be their main site. However, you then notice that the URL is actually situated on the mini-site. What they have done is 'framed' the main site so that it appears exactly the same even when navigating through this exact replica site. Checking the code, there is almost nothing there - in fact there is actually no content at all. Below the head, there is a piece of code: <frameset rows="*" framespacing=0 frameborder=0> <frame src="[http://www.example.com](view-source:http://www.yellowskips.com/)" frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0> <noframes>Your browser does not support frames. Click [here](http://www.example.com) to view.noframes> frameset> Given that main site content does not appear to show in the source code, do we have an issue with duplicate content? This issue is that these 'referrals' are showing in Analytics, despite the fact that the code does not appear in the source, which is slightly confusing for me. They have done this without consultation and I'm very concerned that this could potentially be creating duplicate content of their ENTIRE main site on dozens of mini-sites. I should also add that there are no links to the mini-sites from the main site, so if you guys advise that this is creating duplicate content, I would not be worried about creating a link-wheel if I advise them to link directly to the main site rather than the framed pages. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | RiceMedia0 -
Site just will not be reincluded in Google's Index
I asked a question about this site (www.cookinggames.com.au) some time ago http://www.seomoz.org/qa/view/38488/site-indexing-google-doesnt-like-it and had some very helpful answers which were great. However I'm still no further ahead. I have added some more content, submitted a new XML sitemap, removed the 'lorem ipsum...' Now it seems that even Bing have ditched the site too. The number 1 result in Australia for the search term 'cooking games' is now this one - http://www.cookinggames.net.au/ which surely is not so much better to deserve a #1 spot whilst my site is deindexed? I have just had another reconsideration request 'denied' and am absolutely out of ideas/. If anyone can help suggest what I need to do... or even suggest how I can get feedback from the search engines what's wring that would be fantastic. Thank you David
Technical SEO | | OzDave0