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
-
Rel=Canonical For Landing Pages
We have PPC landing pages that are also ranking in organic search. We've decided to create new landing pages that have been improved to rank better in natural search. The PPC team however wants to use their original landing pages so we are unable to 301 these pages to the new pages being created. We need to block the old PPC pages from search. Any idea if we can use rel=canonical? The difference between old PPC page and new landing page is much more content to support keyword targeting and provide value to users. Google says it's OK to use rel=canonical if pages are similar but not sure if this applies to us. The old PPC pages have 1 paragraph of content followed by featured products for sale. The new pages have 4-5 paragraphs of content and many more products for sale. The other option would be to add meta noindex to the old PPC landing pages. Curious as to what you guys think. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Using rel=canonical
I have a set of static pages which were created with the purpose of targeting long tail keywords. That has resulted in Domain Authority dilution to some extent. I am now in the process of creating one page which will serve the same results but only after user selects the fields in the drop-down. I am planning to use rel=cannonical on the multiple pages pointing back to the new page. Will it serve the purpose?
Technical SEO | | glitterbug0 -
Hreflang Implementation
Hello All, I'm currently working on a website with different folders for different country. For now I have defined the href lang implementation as below: http://www.homepage.com/en/default.html"/>
Technical SEO | | buiserik
Language: English - Country: United Kingdom http://www.homepage.com/enus/default.html"/>
Language: English - Country: United States http://www.homepage.com/nl/default.html"/>
Language: Dutch - Country: Netherlands http://www.homepage.com/nlbe/default.html"/>
Language: Dutch - Country: Belgium http://www.homepage.com/fr/default.html"/>
Language: French - Country: All french speaking countries http://www.homepage.com/de/default.html"/>
Language: German - Country: All german speaking countries http://www.homepage.com/es/camisa-a-medida.html"/>
Language: Spanish - Country: Spain http://www.homepage.com/enen/default.html" />
Language: English - Country: All other countries Does this make any sense? Furthermore, how do I implement this on underlying pages. Do I fill out the URL dynamically according to the URL the tags are found on? Or do I use these tags mentioning the homepage on all underlying pages? If so, how do I avoid duplicate content issues between NL and NL-BE and EN-GB, EN-US and EN? Canonicals? Besides the whole hreflang implementation I was wondering if it's worthwhile or advisable to implement lang="en" xml:lang="en_"_ in the HTML tag and http-equiv="content-language" content="en_"_ in the META tags?0 -
Staging site and "live" site have both been indexed by Google
While creating a site we forgot to password protect the staging site while it was being built. Now that the site has been moved to the new domain, it has come to my attention that both the staging site (site.staging.com) and the "live" site (site.com) are both being indexed. What is the best way to solve this problem? I was thinking about adding a 301 redirect from the staging site to the live site via HTACCESS. Any recommendations?
Technical SEO | | melen0 -
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 -
Malware & Wordpress
Google has identified Malware on on eof our Wordpress sites. In webmaster tools it names the 10 pages where code has been injected. I cant' find them easily via the WP dashboard and wondered if anyone had had any experience of this and what steps they took? Plus are there any measure I can take to fight against this? The site is on the latest WP version. Thanks, Colin
Technical SEO | | NileCruises0 -
How valuable is content "hidden" behind a JavaScript dropdown really?
I've come across a method implemented by some SEO agencies to fill up pages with somehow relevant text and hide it behind a javascript dropdown. Does Google fall for such cheap tricks? You can see this method used on these pages for example (just scroll down to the bottom) - it's all in German, but you get the idea I guess: http://www.insider-boersenbrief.de/ http://www.deko-und-kerzenshop.de/ How is you experience with this way of adding content to a site? Do you think it is valuable or will it get penalised?
Technical SEO | | jfkorn0 -
Research for "love quotes"
I'm doing some research for the term "love quotes" I'm trying to understand why following URL is ranking so high quote-monster.com/category/love-quotes/ it only has one link? Any advise would be appreciated. Rgds Mark
Technical SEO | | relientmark0
