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
-
Creating country specific pages to show pricing in local currencies
For our product page, we want to be able to show the pricing in the local currency of the visitor. I discussed this with our web developer and he said that we can create country-specific pages, so one for UK, Australia, etc. I am afraid that this solution might hurt our SEO as Google might see this as duplicated content. What are your thoughts about this? The website runs on WordPress.
Technical SEO | | Maggie.Casas0 -
SERPs started showing the incorrect date next to my pages
Hi Moz friends, I've noticed since Tuesday, November 9, half of my post's meta dates have changed in regards to what appears next to the post in the search results. Although published this year, I'm getting some saying a random date in 2010! (The domain was born in 2013; which makes this even more odd). This is harming the CTR of my posts and traffic is decreasing. Some posts have gone from 200 hits a day to merely 30. As far as on our end of the website, we have not made any changes in regards to schema markup, rich snippets, etc. We have not edited any post dates. We have actually not added new content since about a week ago, and these incorrect dates have just started to appear on Tuesday. Only changes have been updating certain plugins in terms of maintenance. This is occurring on four of our websites now, so it is not just specific to one. All websites use Wordpress and Genesis theme. It looks like only half of the posts are showing weird dates we've never seen before (far off from the original published date as well as last updated date -- again, dates like 2010, 2011, and 2012 when none of our websites were even created until 2013). We cannot think of a correlation as to why certain posts are showing weird dates and others the correct. The only change we can think of that's related is back in June we changed our posts to show Last Updated date to give our readers an insight into when we changed it last (since it's evergreen content). Google started to use that date for the SERPs which was great, it actually increased traffic. I'm hoping it's a glitch and a recrawl soon may help sift it around. Anybody have experience with this? I've noticed Google fluctuates between showing our last updated date or not even showing a date at all sometimes at random. We're super confused here. Thank you in advance!
Technical SEO | | smmour2 -
Getting a ton of "not found" errors in Webmaster tools stemming from /plugins/feedback.php
So recently Webmaster tools showed a million "not found" errors with the url "plugins/feedback.php/blah blah blah." A little googling helped me find that this comes from the Facebook comment box plugin. Apparently some changes recently have made this start happening. The question is, what's the right fix? The thread I was reading suggested adding "Disallow: /plugins/feedback.php" to the robots.txt file and marking them all fixed. Any ideas?
Technical SEO | | cbrant7770 -
From page 1th to page 18th @ Google
Hello Mozzers! I have a question, you may help.. How may it be possible that a page ranking well (1th result) goes from 1th result to the 18th page just in 1 day? It doesnt seem to be any kind of penalization.. I now had all suspicious outgoing links to be nofollow (they were not before), this may be a cause .. (?) Do you have any other suggestion? Thanks
Technical SEO | | socialengaged0 -
Missing Meta Tags - "thousands" using WooCommerce?
Recently took a site live for a client using WP/WooCommerce to replace their antiquated shopping cart site and have encountered thousands of "Missing Meta Description Tag" errors. Have researched and tried a couple different approaches, but nothing really seems to fix this problem. I'm happy to continue to research, but have never encountered this problem before. Anyone else encountered similar? If so, how did you fix? Which resources to start with? 2VKDRVx
Technical SEO | | twelvetwo.net0 -
Why does this page show it has 166 links in the crawll?
http://ensoplastics.com/theblog/?p=213 This is a page that shows up as having over a 100 links in the crawl, however I don't understand where those links are coming from?
Technical SEO | | ENSO0 -
Discrepency between # of pages and # of pages indexed
Here is some background: The site in question has approximately 10,000 pages and Google Webmaster shows that 10,000 urls(pages were submitted) 2) Only 5,500 pages appear in the Google index 3) Webmaster shows that approximately 200 pages could not be crawled for various reasons 4) SEOMOZ shows about 1,000 pages that have long URL's or Page Titles (which we are correcting) 5) No other errors are being reported in either Webmaster or SEO MOZ 6) This is a new site launched six weeks ago. Within two weeks of launching, Google had indexed all 10,000 pages and showed 9,800 in the index but over the last few weeks, the number of pages in the index kept dropping until it reached 5,500 where it has been stable for two weeks. Any ideas of what the issue might be? Also, is there a way to download all of the pages that are being included in that index as this might help troubleshoot?
Technical SEO | | Mont0 -
Is having "rel=canonical" on the same page it is pointing to going to hurt search?
i like the rel=canonical tag and i've seen matt cutts posts on google about this tag. for the site i'm working on, it's a great workaround because we often have two identical or nearly identical versions of pages: 1 for patients, 1 for doctors. the problem is this: the way our content management system is set up, certain pages are linked up in a number of places and when we publish, two different versions of the page are created, but same content. because they are both being made from the same content templates, if i put in the rel=canonical tag, both pages get it. so, if i have: http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp and http://www.myhospital.com/professional-condition.asp and they are both produced from the same template, and have the same content, and i'm trying to point search at http://www.myhospital.com/patient-condition.asp, but that tag appears on both pages similarly, we have various forms and we like to know where people are coming from on the site to use those forms. to the bots, it looks like there's 600 versions of particular pages, so again, rel=canonical is great. however, because it's actually all the same page, just a link with a variable tacked on (http://www.myhospital.com/makeanappointment.asp?id=211) the rel=canonical tag will appear on "all" of them. any insight is most appreciated! thanks! brett
Technical SEO | | brett_hss0