What to do with "show all" page
-
Hello,
What should I do with the following situation:
In e-commerce shop I have an option to "show all products" (list all products in one page) - do I need to put canonnical or 301 redirect to somewhere or should I leave as normal page - I think google consider this is as duplicate since everything is the same (only number of products is different) ?
Regards,
Nenad
-
It's a bit tricky, since your category page will naturally have internal links. I wouldn't canonical all the paginated versions to View All and then canonical the View All to the main category - that's likely to cause some problems. If you really want to focus on page 1 as the category (and not the View All), then I'd probably consider rel=prev/next.
-
Peter, thank you very much for your response!
My only concern about view-all page was that main page (category) has better PA so my conclusion was that I should set canonical to view-all page to point to main page.
-
Agreed - Google seems to be ok with setting a rel-canonical to the "View All" page. Don't combine this with rel=prev/next - both methods are ok, but either use one or the other. Using both sends a mixed message about what you want to have indexed and ranked.
Real-world data about rel=prev/next is hard to come by. I know SEOs at big companies who have done testing, but it's really unclear how Google honors/indexed paginated content with rel=prev/next in place. My gut feeling boils down to this:
(1) If you can reasonably build a "View All" page that loads quickly and is a decent user experience, go ahead and rel=canonical to that page. It's just easier, all-around, and rel=canonical is a more powerful directive.
(2) If that isn't feasible, and/or if you want individual search pages (2+) to have the ability to rank, then use rel=prev/next.
-
Hi Allen,
Can you please confirm that this is the right way to implement this solution:
So right now situation is:
Show all page is: http://www.page.com/abc.html?=viewall
This is the category page: http://www.page.com/abc.html and canonical is set to this page.
Page 2 of category is: http://www.page.com/abc.html?page=2 with following parameters:
If I understand correctly I should implement canonical in this way:
Main (category) page (http://www.page.com/abc.html) will have these parameters:
Page 2 will have these parameters:
Is this correct?
Thank you very much,
Nenad
-
Hi to all,
Sorry for my late response. Thank you all for advices, this will definitely help.
Regards,
Nenad
-
You need to read this article and watch this video by Maile Ohye. She goes over pagination and rel next and prev
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html
She also mentions how to use rel=canonical in this system as well and when it is appropriate.
You would only want to use the 301 redirect if you were deleting the page or changing the URL and wanted to get you users to the correct page as the old url was not working anymore.
Cheers!
-
No, dont 301 to a 301 website.com/category/title/ to website.com/category/title/?view=all - you just need to set the canonical of website.com/category/title/ to website.com/category/title/?view=all
Good luck!
-
Nenad,
We have a similar issue, and we Canonical any paginated pages to the show all page. The Show all page does not need to be canonicaled because it is the root of all the products.
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
-
Quick Fix to "Duplicate page without canonical tag"?
When we pull up Google Search Console, in the Index Coverage section, under the category of Excluded, there is a sub-category called ‘Duplicate page without canonical tag’. The majority of the 665 pages in that section are from a test environment. If we were to include in the robots.txt file, a wildcard to cover every URL that started with the particular root URL ("www.domain.com/host/"), could we eliminate the majority of these errors? That solution is not one of the 5 or 6 recommended solutions that the Google Search Console Help section text suggests. It seems like a simple effective solution. Are we missing something?
Technical SEO | | CREW-MARKETING1 -
GSC: Change of Domain Not Processed, Despite Saying "Approved"?
Hi folks, I've just completed a straightforward olddomain -> newdomain migration. All the redirects were done on 7th Feb. I submitted the change of domain request on 7th Feb. All seemed fine - as can be seen in the attached. It's now 19th March and our pals at GSC are still saying that the domain migration is ongoing. I've never had this take so long before; 2-3 days tops. Their results are tanking as I can't geo target and more features in GSC are out of action as it's 'locked' due to this migration (I just get a screen as per the attached). Thoughts? Shall I risk withdrawing the request and starting anew? The old "turn it off and on again"? Thanks! hJXKC
Technical SEO | | tonyatfat0 -
"Ghost" errors on blog structured data?
Hi, I'm working on a blog which Search Console account advises me about a big bunch of errors on its structured data: Structured data - graphics Structured data - hentry list Structured data - detail But I get to https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/ and it tells me "all is ok": Structured data - test Any clue? Thanks in advance, F0NE5lz.png hm7IBtV.png aCRJdJO.jpg 15SRo93.jpg
Technical SEO | | Webicultors0 -
My beta site (beta.website.com) has been inadvertently indexed. Its cached pages are taking traffic away from our real website (website.com). Should I just "NO INDEX" the entire beta site and if so, what's the best way to do this? Please advise.
My beta site (beta.website.com) has been inadvertently indexed. Its cached pages are taking traffic away from our real website (website.com). Should I just "NO INDEX" the entire beta site and if so, what's the best way to do this? Are there any other precautions I should be taking? Please advise.
Technical SEO | | BVREID0 -
How to block "print" pages from indexing
I have a fairly large FAQ section and every article has a "print" button. Unfortunately, this is creating a page for every article which is muddying up the index - especially on my own site using Google Custom Search. Can you recommend a way to block this from happening? Example Article: http://www.knottyboy.com/lore/idx.php/11/183/Maintenance-of-Mature-Locks-6-months-/article/How-do-I-get-sand-out-of-my-dreads.html Example "Print" page: http://www.knottyboy.com/lore/article.php?id=052&action=print
Technical SEO | | dreadmichael0 -
Hyphenated Domain Names - "Spammy" or Not?
Some say hyphenated domain names are "spammy". I have also noticed that Moz's On Page Keyword Tool does NOT recognize keywords in a non-hyphenated domain name. So one would assume neither do the bots. I noticed obviously misleading words like car in carnival or spa in space or spatula, etc embedded in domain names and pondered the effect. I took it a step further with non-hyphenated domain names. I experimented by selecting totally random three or four letter blocks - Example: randomfactgenerator.net - rand omf act gene rator Each one of those clips returns copious results AND the On-Page Report Card does not credit the domain name as containing "random facts" as keywords**,** whereas www.business-sales-sarasota.com does get credit for "business sales sarasota" in the URL. This seems an obvious situation - unhyphenated domains can scramble the keywords and confuse the bots, as they search all possible combinations. YES - I know the content should carry it but - I do not believe domain names are irrelevant, as many say. I don't believe that hyphenated domain names are not more efficient than non hyphenated ones - as long as you don't overdo it. I have also seen where a weak site in an easy market will quickly top the list because the hyphenated domain name matches the search term - I have done it (in my pre Seo Moz days) with ft-myers-auto-air.com. I built the site in a couple of days and in a couple weeks it was on page one. Any thoughts on this?
Technical SEO | | dcmike0