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
-
Duplicate Titles and Sitemap rel=alternate
Hello, Does anyone know why I still have duplicate titles after crawling with moz (also google webmasters shows the same) even after I implemented (since 1 week or 2) a new sitemap with rel=alternate attribute for languges? In fact, the duplicates should be in the titles like http://socialengagement.it/su-di-me and http://socialengagement.it/en/su-di-me. The sitemap is on socialengagement.it/sitemap.xml (please note formatting somehow does not show correctly, you should see the source code to double check if its done properly. Was made by hand by me). Thanks for help! Eugenio
Technical SEO | | socialengaged0 -
Target="_blank"
Do href links that leave a site and use target="_blank" to open a new tab impact SEO?
Technical SEO | | ChristopherGlaeser0 -
Title Tags & Url Structure
So I'm working on a website for a client in the Tourism Industry. We've got a comprehensive list of museums & other attractions in a number of cities that have to go online. And we have to come up with the correct url structure, title tags and obviously content. My current line of thought was to work the urls in the following way. http://domain.com/type-of-attraction/city/name-of-attraction/ This is mainly because we think that the type of attraction is far more important then the city (SEO wise) as the country as a whole receives more searches, however we require a city in the url to make it unique because some attractions across cities happen to share names and we don't want to have the names of attractions littered with city names. However for title-tags I wanted to go the other way around, again due to the attraction type being more important then the city. Name of Attraction - Type of Attraction - City - Brand Name or Name of Attraction - Type of Attraction in City - Brand Name I am quite confident in working it this way; however I would appreciate if I receive some feedback on this structure, you think its good or you would make any suggestions / alterations. One last thing, There's the possibility of having many urls ending up with the same city names (For each type of attraction) I would think that just providing a list of links & duplicate text is not enough; would you suggest a canonical pointing to a link containing just information on the city? and using the other pages for user-navigation only? or should i set variables in the text which are replaced by the types of attraction so that the text looks different for each one?
Technical SEO | | jonmifsud0 -
I always get this error "We have detected that the domain or subfolder does not respond to web requests." I don't know why. PLEASE help
subdomain www.nwexterminating.com subfolder www.nwexterminating.com/pest_control www.nwexterminating.com/termite_services www.nwexterminating.com/bed_bug_services
Technical SEO | | NWExterminating0 -
My site has a "Reported Web Forgery!" warning
When I check my bing cached page it comes up with a "Reported Web Forgery!" warning. I've looked at google web tools and no malware has been detected. I do have another site that has a very similar web address jaaronwoodcountertops.com and jaaron-wood-countertops.com. Could that be why? How do I go about letting bing and or firefox know this is not a forgery site?
Technical SEO | | JAARON0 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0 -
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 -
Rel canonical or 301 the Index Page?
Still a bit confused on best practice for /index.php showing up as duplicate for www.mysite.com. What do I need to do and How?
Technical SEO | | bozzie3110
