Paging Question: Rel Next or Canonical?
-
Hi,
Lets say you have a category which displays a list of 20 products and pagination of up to 10 pages.
The root page has some content but when you click through the paging the content is removed leaving only the list of products.
Would it be best to apply a canonical tag on the paging back to the root or apply the prev/next tags.
I understand prev/next is good for say a 3 part article where each page holds unique content but how do you handle the above situation?
Thanks
-
Hi there,
As Eric mentioned before, the solution will depend on how much unique content is there in the paginated pages (from the main category page): If there is very very little unique content, crawling and indexing them won't really help on earning more search visibility with them (usually in these cases would be additional long-tail type of keywords for that product category) but just to consume the crawlers time and effort. Being this the case then the best way would be to canonicalize the paginated pages towards each one of their appropriate main product category page.
On the other hand, if the possibility exist to differentiate them: By featuring additional pages descriptions for each one of the paginated category pages or users reviews or ratings, or product descriptions of enough length, that can serve to give additional relevance value, then the best way to go would be to implement the rel next & prev annotations.
-
Thanks,
The root page is not the 'view all' page but I do have a dropdown which allows for all the products to be viewed.
I wouldn't want this page being the page displayed in the SE's though because so many products are being loaded it can cause a lag.
using the SEOMOZ Toolbar I can see some of the paging along with filters (view all/cheapest/highest/a-z) have some juice, and ideally I only want the root page to show in SE's, so im thinking of canonical tagging all the paging and filters back to the root category page.
Thoughts?
-
I think the best course of action depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to avoid search engines from indexing the paginated pages (since they do not contain the unique content) then a rel canonical should do the trick. If you are trying to associate all the content that is provided on all pages as one, like in your example of the 3 part article, then the rel next/prev is your best bet.
Does your site have a "view all" option?
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
-
No Index No follow instead of Rel canoncical on product pages
Hi all, we handle our product pages no with rel canonical now, we have 1 url that is indexed http://www.prams.net/cam-combi-family the other colours have different urls like http://www.prams.net/cam-combi-family-3-in-1-pram-reversible-seat-car-seat-grey-d which canonicalize to the indexed page. Google still crawls all those pages. For crawl budget reasons we want to use "no index, no follow" instead on these pages (the pages for the other colours)? Google would then crawl fewer pages more often? Does this make sense? Are their any downsides doing it? Thanks in advance Dieter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Storesco1 -
Putting rel=canonical tags on blogpost pointing to product pages
I came across an article mentioning this as a strategy for getting product pages (which are tough to get links for) some link equity. See #21: content flipping: https://www.matthewbarby.com/customer-acquisition-strategies Has anyone done this? Seems like this isn't what the tag is meant for, and Google may see this as deceptive? Any thoughts? Jim
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jim_shook0 -
Merging two sites to one Rel Can Question
Hi All, We have 2 brands (1 main 1 product as a satellite domain) that we're merging into our main brand. When doing a 301 redirect - should we redirect everypage of the product satellite to the new site or is 1 main redirect fine? I'm Confusing ....yep. Ill do an E.G www.nike.com & www.air-jordan.com we are now shutting down www.airjordan.com and will be migrating all the content to www.nike.com/air-jordan Just of course there will be other pages like air-jordan.com/order-now . Should i do a rel can from air-jordan.com/order-now to www.nike.com/air-jordan/order-now ? Or is simply a 301 from www.airjordan.com to www.nike.com/air-jordan sufficient? Cheers!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CFCU0 -
High level rel=canonical conceptual question
Hi community. Your advice and perspective is greatly appreciated. We are doing a site replatform and I fear that serious SEO fundamentals were overlooked and I am not getting straight answers to a simple question: How are we communicating to search engines the single URL we want indexed? Backstory: Current site has major duplicate content issues. Rel-canonical is not used. There are currently 2 versions of every category and product detail page. Both are indexed in certain instances. A 60 page audit has recommends rel=canonical at least 10 times for the similar situations an ecommerce site has with dupe urls/content. New site: We are rolling out 2 URLS AGAIN!!! URL A is an internal URL generated by the systerm. We have developed this fancy dynamic sitemap generator which looks/maps to URL A and creates a SEO optimized URL that I call URL B. URL B is then inserted into the site map and the sitemap is communicated externally to google. URL B does an internal 301 redirect back to URL A...so in an essence, the URL a customer sees is not the same as what we want google to see. I still think there is potential for duplicate indexing. What do you think? Is rel=canonical the answer? In my research on this site, past projects and google I think the correct solution is this on each customer facing category and pdp: The head section (With the optimized Meta Title and Meta Description) needs to have the rel-canonical pointing to URL B
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mm916157
example of the meta area of URL A: What do you think? I am open to all ideas and I can provide more details if needed.0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
301 canonical'd pages?
I have an ecommerce site with many different URLs with the same product. Let's say the product is a hat. It's in: a a) mysite.com/products/hat b) mysite.com/collections/head-ware/hat c) mysite.com/collections/stuff-to-wear-on-your-head/hat Right now, A is the canonical page for B and C. I want to clean up my site, so that every product only has ONE unique URL, which is linked to from all the collections. So B and C URL will be broken. Is it necessary that I 301 them if they were already canonical'd? Based on the number of products I have, I would have to 301 1000+ URLs. I'm just trying to figure out what I need to do to avoid getting penalized. thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | birchlore0 -
What causes internal pages to have a page rank of 0 if the home page is PR 5?
The home page PageRank is 5 but every single internal page is PR 0. Things I know I need to address each page has 300 links (Menu problem). Each article has 2-3 duplicates caused from the CMS working on this now. Has anyone else had this problem before? What things should I look out for to fix this issue. All internal linking is follow there is no page rank sculpting happening on the pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEOBrent0 -
Does a Single Instance of rel="nofollow" cause all instances on a page to be nofollowed?
I attended the Bruce Clay training at SMX Advanced Seattle, and he mentioned link pruning/sculpting (here's an SEOMoz article about it - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-says-yes-you-can-still-sculpt-pagerank-no-you-cant-do-it-with-nofollow) Now during his presentation he mentioned that if you have one page with multiple links leading to another page, and one of those links is nofollowed, it could cause all links to be nofollowed. Example: Page A has 4 links to Page B: 1:followed, 2:followed, 3:nofollowed, 4:followed The presence of a single nofollow tag would override the 3 followed links and none of them would pass link juice. Has anyone else encountered this problem, and Is there any evidence to support this? I'm thinking this would make a great experiment.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brycebertola0