Specific question about pagination prompted by Adam Audette's Presentation at RKG Summit
-
This question is prompted by something Adam Audette said in this excellent presentation:
http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/top-5-seo-conundrums/08062012/
First, I will lay out the issues:
1. All of our paginated pages have the same URL. To view this in action, go here: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica , scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "Next" - look at the URL. The URL is: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher, and for every page after it, the same URL.
2. All of the paginated pages with non-unique URLs have canonical tags referencing the first page of the paginated series.
3. http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher has been instructed to be neither crawled nor indexed by Google.
Now, on to what Adam said in his presentation: At about minute 24 Adam begins talking about pagination. At about 27:48 in the video, he is discussing the first of three ways to properly deal with pagination issues. He says [I am somewhat paraphrasing]: "Pages 2-N should have self-referencing canonical tags - Pages 2-N should all have their own unique URLs, titles and meta descriptions...The key is, with this is you want deeper pages to get crawled and all the products on there to get crawled too. The problem that we see a lot is, say you have ten pages, each one using rel canonical pointing back to page 1, and when that happens, the products or items on those deep pages don't get get crawled...because the rel canonical tag is sort of like a 301 and basically says 'Okay, this page is actually that page.' All the items and products on this deeper page don't get the love."
Before I get to my question, I'll just throw out there that we are planning to fix the pagination issue by opting for the "View All" method, which Adam suggests as the second of three options in this video, so that fix is coming.
My question is this: It seems based on what Adam said (and our current abysmal state for pagination) that the products on our paginated pages aren't being crawled or indexed. However, our products are all indexed in Google. Is this because we are submitting a sitemap? Even so, are we missing out on internal linking (authority flow) and Google love because Googlebot is finding way more products in our sitemap that what it is seeing on the site? (or missing out in other ways?)
We experience a lot of volatility in our rankings where we rank extremely well for a set of products for a long time, and then disappear. Then something else will rank well for a while, and disappear. I am wondering if this issue is a major contributing factor.
Oh, and did I mention that our sort feature sorts the products and imposes that new order for all subsequent visitors? it works like this: If I go to that same Audio-Technica page, and sort the 125+ resulting products by price, they will sort by price...but not just for me, for anyone who subsequently visits that page...until someone else re-sorts it some other way. So if we merchandise the order to be XYZ, and a visitor comes and sorts it ZYX and then googlebot crawls, google would potentially see entirely different products on the first page of the series than the default order marketing intended to be presented there....sigh.
Additional thoughts, comments, sympathy cards and flowers most welcome. Thanks all!
-
Hi Dana,
The problem when it comes to passing authority internally is that properly paginated and crawled listing pages can be one of the primary routes via which Google finds and assigns authority to internal pages. Unless those products are linked to elsewhere, they're not going to be found if they cannot be found on a URL like http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica?page=2, ?page=3 etc.
The lack of a unique URL with content changed dynamically also means that there never could be a good flow of authority through the site as Google does not have new pages to crawl and new outbound links to index / follow on those pages.
Your diagram is correct - the second option (Page 1 ---authority---> page 2 ----authority---> page 3... ) is what you're looking for with pagination.
-
Thanks so much Jane. I believe that URL is blocked from being crawled by our .htaccess file, although that's something I need to verify with IT. I just know from past discussions that it is blocked from crawling and indexing and it isn't in Google's index.
Would you mind describing, perhaps with a diagram, how this setup is a problem for passing authority internally? I am thinking it breaks the flow kind of like this:
Page 1 of Series -----> passing authority to page 2 --------> authority stops dead in its tracks due to non-unique URL
Instead of looking like this:
Page 1 of Series -----> passing authority to page 2 --------> page 2 passes authority back to home page, page 1 and page 3 of the Series....and so on
Would that be a somewhat accurate description? Thanks so much for responding. It is greatly appreciated!
-
Hi Dana,
Just to be clear, what I'm seeing is that if I visit a page like http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/led-stage-lights with 107 products, and I click "next", I do not receive the same URL with different products, but rather the URL changes to http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher with the next set of results. I think I'm just being blind, but how did you block that URL from crawling and indexing? I can't see a meta tag or a line in the site's robots.txt file.
This set-up definitely needs a modern pagination solution - glad Ryan's post at Ayima helped! This current set-up is definitely very detrimental to passing authority throughout the site to all products effectively.
-
Thank you Jane.
To answer your first question, no, we don't plan on continuing using the current method, however, I am concerned that whatever we decide to change is implemented properly.
To answer the second question, yes, all of our unique product pages return 200 OK status codes. I think the scenario your described is a very plausible scenario and it makes perfect sense to me. Especially you describe something else that I have seen happen, which I didn't even mention in my question. This is, the swapping out of ranking pages. I have seen this many times when one page might rank for a particular term for a while, then drop, and another page will take it's place and may do a lot better or a lot worse, and then in a few months time they will flip flop again.
One thing you didn't speak to was the fact that we have "no crawl, noindex" set up on this URL that is home to all of our paginated series pages. I am wondering what kind of havoc that could be wreaking on our internal linking and authority flow throughout the site? I am thinking it can't possibly be a good thing, no matter how you slice it.
Thank you very much for the link to the Pagination for SEO post. It contained a most excellent flow chart for pagination that I think every SEO should blow up, print out and post on a wall somewhere where developers and IT can see it. I am sharing a small version here:
-
Wow, I had never heard of this method of sorting before! Is this something you plan on keeping?
I would not be surprised if this is somewhat related to why Google sometimes finds and ranks some products, only to drop them for others. If the CMS serves it a different canonical version of the website every time it visits, it will index different products at different times.
The subsequent paginated pages are canonicalised back to the first page, but do you have unique product pages still returning 200 OK? I take it you do, due to the wording of your question but just to clarify: To use Amazon as an example, if a page like this is paginated, is a product page it links to still available even if it is listed on a deeper paginated page? If so, Google won't necessarily drop the product page if it doesn't see it linked to by the paginated listing pages, but it might do if it never sees it again due to pagination and canonicalisation. So you might end up with a situation where Googlebot found the Glastonbury coffee mug in January, keeps ranking it well for a few months, has not seen it again by April and drops it. But a white coffee mug set was found a few times in March, so it ranks that instead.
Have a look at this pagination post from one of my former colleagues as well - it has some comprehensive solutions to ecommerce pagination problems.
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
-
No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag
Pages on my site show No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag. However, when I inspect the pages html, it does not show noindex. In fact, it shows index, follow. Majority of pages show the error and are not indexed by Google...Not sure why this is happening. The page below in search console shows the error above...
Technical SEO | | Sean_White_Consult0 -
Will a Robots.txt 'disallow' of a directory, keep Google from seeing 301 redirects for pages/files within the directory?
Hi- I have a client that had thousands of dynamic php pages indexed by Google that shouldn't have been. He has since blocked these php pages via robots.txt disallow. Unfortunately, many of those php pages were linked to by high quality sites mulitiple times (instead of the static urls) before he put up the php 'disallow'. If we create 301 redirects for some of these php URLs that area still showing high value backlinks and send them to the correct static URLs, will Google even see these 301 redirects and pass link value to the proper static URLs? Or will the robots.txt keep Google away and we lose all these high quality backlinks? I guess the same question applies if we use the canonical tag instead of the 301. Will the robots.txt keep Google from seeing the canonical tags on the php pages? Thanks very much, V
Technical SEO | | Voodak0 -
Moving Blog Question
Site A is my primary site. I created a blog on site B and wrote good content and gave links back to site A. I think this is causing a penalty to occur. I no longer want to update site B and want to move the entire blog and it's content to sitea.com/blog. Is this a good idea or should I just start a fresh/new sitea/blog and just remove the links from site B to site A?
Technical SEO | | CLTMichael0 -
Why is Google's cache preview showing different version of webpage (i.e. not displaying content)
My URL is: http://www.fslocal.comRecently, we discovered Google's cached snapshots of our business listings look different from what's displayed to users. The main issue? Our content isn't displayed in cached results (although while the content isn't visible on the front-end of cached pages, the text can be found when you view the page source of that cached result).These listings are structured so everything is coded and contained within 1 page (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/). But even though the URL stays the same, we've created separate "pages" of content (e.g. "About," "Additional Info," "Contact," etc.) for each listing, and only 1 "page" of content will ever be displayed to the user at a time. This is controlled by JavaScript and using display:none in CSS. Why do our cached results look different? Why would our content not show up in Google's cache preview, even though the text can be found in the page source? Does it have to do with the way we're using display:none? Are there negative SEO effects with regards to how we're using it (i.e. we're employing it strictly for aesthetics, but is it possible Google thinks we're trying to hide text)? Google's Technical Guidelines recommends against using "fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash." If we were to separate those business listing "pages" into actual separate URLs (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/contact/ would be the "Contact" page), and employ static HTML code instead of complicated JavaScript, would that solve the problem? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Technical SEO | | fslocal0 -
As a wholesale website can our independent retailer's website use (copy) our content?
As a wholesaler of villa rentals, we have descriptions, images, prices etc can our agents (independent retailers) use the content from our website for their site or will this penalize us or them in Google rankings?
Technical SEO | | ewanTHH0 -
What does it mean by 'blocked by Meta Robot'? How do I fix this?
When i get my crawl diagnostics, I am getting a blocked by Meta Robot, which means that my page is not being indexed in the search engines... obviously this is a major issue for organic traffic!!! What does it actually mean, and how can i fix it?
Technical SEO | | rolls1230 -
Pagination question
I have a website http://www.example.com with pagination series starting with page1.html upto page10.html. With backlinks to some of the pages ( page1.html, page2.html----page7.html). If i include rel="next" and rel="prev" on page1.html to page10.html pages. Will value of those links will be transfered to http://www.example.com This is what i interpret from http://bit.ly/mUOrn2 Am i right ?
Technical SEO | | seoug_20050 -
Does 'framing' a website create duplicate content?
Something I have not come across before, but hope others here are able offer advice based on experience: A client has independently created a series of mini-sites, aimed at targeting specific locations. The tactic has worked very well and they have achieved a large amount of well targeted traffic as a result. Each mini-site is different but then in the nav, if you want to view prices or go to the booking page, that then links to what at first appears to be their main site. However, you then notice that the URL is actually situated on the mini-site. What they have done is 'framed' the main site so that it appears exactly the same even when navigating through this exact replica site. Checking the code, there is almost nothing there - in fact there is actually no content at all. Below the head, there is a piece of code: <frameset rows="*" framespacing=0 frameborder=0> <frame src="[http://www.example.com](view-source:http://www.yellowskips.com/)" frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0> <noframes>Your browser does not support frames. Click [here](http://www.example.com) to view.noframes> frameset> Given that main site content does not appear to show in the source code, do we have an issue with duplicate content? This issue is that these 'referrals' are showing in Analytics, despite the fact that the code does not appear in the source, which is slightly confusing for me. They have done this without consultation and I'm very concerned that this could potentially be creating duplicate content of their ENTIRE main site on dozens of mini-sites. I should also add that there are no links to the mini-sites from the main site, so if you guys advise that this is creating duplicate content, I would not be worried about creating a link-wheel if I advise them to link directly to the main site rather than the framed pages. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | RiceMedia0