Implementation of rel="next" & rel="prev"
-
Hi All,
I'm looking to implement rel="next" & rel="prev", so I've been looking for examples. I looked at the source code for the MOZ.com forum, if anyone one is going to do it properly MOZ are.
I noticed that the rel="next" & rel="prev" tags have been implemented in the a href tags that link to the previous and next pages rather than in the head. I'm assuming this is fine with Google but in their documentation they state to put the tags in the . Does it matter?
Neil.
-
We have a good post on pagination right now on YouMoz at http://moz.com/ugc/seo-guide-to-google-webmaster-recommendations-for-pagination, which could be a good place to ask that quesiton.
-
Hi Ruth,
If we currently have rel=canonical tags on our pages but will be implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev”, should we remove the existing rel=canonical tags?
Thanks for your help
Freddy
-
Thanks Ruth.
Good to know I was on the right track.
-
You've stumbled into a test we were running! Yes, putting it in the is the methodology recommended by Google - we were testing to see if having it in the anchor would work as well (looks like no, it doesn't). We're often running tests of this type so just because you see us doing something, doesn't necessarily mean it's the 100% best way to do it! You're better off reading the blog and Learn SEO sections for best practices information. Good catch!
-
No problem!
I don't know exactly where Moz uses pagination, so can't really tell.
However, using rel=next/prev in the anchor tag is allowed as well as defined by w3.org, it's just that Google won't take those into consideration because, as Maile says, "we’re concerned that links in the section make it possible for spammers to find less secure user-generated content (UGC) sites and then inject irrelevant links totally unbeknownst to the webmaster".
-
Very Helpful,
Thanks Mihal,
That's what I thought, after reading and watching Maile's video. Does this mean I've spotted a mistake by MOZ??
Neil.
-
Hey Neil,
The pagination tags do have to be implemented in the section to be properly recognized by Google. Maile Ohye confirmed this aspect.
As for an example, here's one I gave to a previous related question: http://moz.com/community/q/pagination-for-product-page-reviews
Hope this helps!
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
-
Site Architecture & URL length
Hello SEO Folks, Wanting to have an expert advice on which one we should give preference. We understand a well put-together site architecture is one of the major factor ranking factor. In the other hand shorter URL also an important factor. Since our site aim to have many pages and destination wise product pages, in order to have shorter URL we avoid to follow the best site structure. in our site a product page do not have the right path to have right architecture, would it hurt our DA ? Thanks in advance John Adventure Emirates
Technical SEO | | Johnauh0 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
HTTP & HTTPS
what is best recommended when some of the pages on site goes from HTTP to HTTPS: 301 redirection or 302 redirection?
Technical SEO | | JonsonSwartz
and why? thank you I was asked to elaborate so: on my website I have open account pages. users are asked to fill the details. those page are secured and are HTTPS. the problem is that the whole website turned to HTTPS so they redirected most of the pages from HTTPS to HTTP.
the secured pages are redirected from HTTP to HTTPS. I wanted to check if it's correct and what is the best redirection way (301 or 302)0 -
Should we rel=nofollow these links ?
On our website, we have a section of free to low-cost tools that could help small business increase their productivity without spending big bucks. For example, this is the page for online collaboration tools: http://www.bdc.ca/EN/solutions/smart_tech/tech_advice/free_low_cost_applications/Pages/online_collaboration_tools.aspx None of the company pay anything to be on these list. We actually do quite a lot of research to chose which should be listed there and which should not. Recently, one of the company in our lists asked us to add rel=nofollow to the link to their website because they add been targeted by a manual action on Google and want their link profile to be as clean as possible (probably too clean). My question is : Should we add rel=nofollow to all these links ? Thanks, Jean-François Monfette
Technical SEO | | jfmonfette0 -
Rel=Canonical for filter pages
Hi folks, I have a bit of a dilemma that I'd appreciate some advice on. We'll just use the solid wood flooring of our website as an example in this case. We use the rel=canonical tag on the solid wood flooring listings pages where the listings get sorted alphabetically, by price etc.
Technical SEO | | LukeyB30
e.g. http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/?orderBy=highestprice uses the canonical tag to point to http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/ as the main page. However, we also uses filters on our site which allows users to filter their search by more specific product features e.g.
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm/
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/natural-lacquered/ We don't use the canonical tag on these pages because they are great long-tail keyword targeted pages so I want them to rank for phrases like "18mm solid wood flooring". But, in not using the canonical tag, I'm finding google is getting confused and ranking the wrong page as the filters mean there is a huge number of possible URLs for a given list of products. For example, Google ranks this page for the phrase "18mm solid wood flooring" http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm,116mm/ This is no good. This is a combination of two filters and so the listings are very refined, so if someone types the above phrase into Google and lands on this page their first reaction will be "there are not many products here". Google should be ranking the page with only the 18mm filter applied: http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm How would you recommend I go about rectifying this situation?
Thanks, Luke0 -
Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
Why is this url showing as "not crawled" on opensiteexplorer, but still showing up in Google's index?
The below url is showing up as "not crawled" on opensitexplorer.com, but when you google the title tag "Joel Roberts, Our Family Doctors - Doctor in Clearwater, FL" it is showing up in the Google index. Can you explain why this is happening? Thank you http://doctor.webmd.com/physician_finder/profile.aspx?sponsor=core&pid=14ef09dd-e216-4369-99d3-460aa3c4f1ce
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0
