Link rel="prev" AND canonical
-
Hi guys,
When you have several tabs on your website with products, you can most likely navigate to page 2, 3, 4 etc...
You can add the link rel="prev" and link rel="next" tags to make sure that 1 page get's indexed / ranked by Google. am I correct?However this still means that all the pages can get indexed, right?
For example a webshop makes use of the link rel="prev" and ="next" tags.
In the Google results page though, all the seperate tabs pages are still visible/indexed..
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=1
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=24
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=19
etc.....Can we prevent this, and make sure only the main page get's indexed and ranked, by adding a canonical link on every 'tab page' to the main page --> www.domain.nl/watches/
I hope I explained it well and I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Tom
-
WOW, this is an interesting thread. In theory, rel next prev is what Google wants you to go with. In practice, however, I haven't not seen this work as advertised by Google, and end up going to rel canonical in most cases. Here's one way to think about it:
Allow non-filtered pagination for top-level categories to be followed, but NOT indexed. Give them their own rel canonicals (self referencing) and ensure the intro content (or any other static content on the page) only shows on the first page (which should rel canonical to / instead of /?page=1). This will ensure your product pages all have a path going to them. Use rel next prev here, which "may" help the main/first page rank better by consolidating ranking signals from the paginated set.
For sub-categories and/or filters/facets use rel canonical pointing to the canonical version of that category page.
None of this, however, takes care of the crawl budget issue on enterprise eCommerce sites with crawlable filtered URLs. Therefore, I also use the robot.txt file, or nofollow attributes in links to handle this. I don't often use the nofollow robots meta tag for a variety of reasons.
Again, in the real world rel next/prev doesn't seem to be working very well. I haven't tried it in awhile, but it just doesn't seem to do what Google says it's supposed to do. This is why you see a lot of sites using rel canonical instead. I think we should think about this in terms of where you are in the architecture instead of trying to fit all pages into a single scheme. For example, some sites may even want to allow the first facet/filter to be indexable - such as "Filter by Brand" - because people are searching for it. If that's the case, I'll often advise they turn that into a real category instead of a filter. Another example, if you sell kitchenware and Pots & Pans is a category but Material is a filter you're missing out on a lot of searches for things like "Copper Pots & Pans" or "Stainless Steel Pans". It all depends on the situation, and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
-
Hi Lesley,
Interesting indeed, I'd agree with the colours etc. having a canonical as essentially it would be Duplicated but when writing I was assuming unique products under each category (e.g. TV's each with different size or brand). This might also encompass filters etc. but it depends on how far down that road you want to go. I assume Tom's problem is more for just a categories with X pages all with unique things in. Hopefully you find the above somewhat helpful Tom!
Good conversation thanks Lesley.
-
Good pick up on the Walmart issue. I actually took that screen shot when I was making that post, so it kind of confused me to how it changed so quickly. I did a bit more digging and figured out what they are doing. It basically looks like their canonical on their category pages is broken. See this video, http://screencast.com/t/Azyjjuxor8 So when you change pages, the canonical stays the same as your entry page and the rel=next/previous does not change either. But that would lead me to suspect if Google is crawling the site, they see the canonical pointing to the top level of the category. But interestingly enough if they ever did a fetch as Google on a paginated page, or if the crawler started with page 5 that would lead to some weird results Google would have to deal with. So effectively I would say their is broken.
It also seems like Rand might have changed his tune a bit since that article. When I did an interview with him, he said to canonical back to the main category page in faceted navigation situations. "Having 28 separate category pages for women’s pants where the only variations are size and color is probably not a great idea. In faceted navigation scenarios like that, I’d make the color and size filtered pages use a rel=canonical back to the non-faceted women’s pants page." https://www.prestashop.com/blog/en/seo-expert-series-rand-fishkin-of-moz/
So for a better answer it might depend on how the category pages are structure with the navigation as well.
-
I still disagree, a middle ground might be a view all section that you can canonical the downside might be some page load speeds but there are some ways to reduce that. I had a quick look for my self and found that Walmart seems to have updated their game http://i.imgur.com/RvMboWG.png
A few of the examples you posted are more filters(Query string) than they are true pagination but I get what your leaning towards.
We're also an e-commerce specialist, the problem with copying bigger companies is if something goes wrong they can afford to get through it, can you? Just because they are a bigger company doesn't mean they know better, don't follow what everyone else is doing try to set your self apart, it is possible to set meta tags on paginated content, create more content to make each page unique etc. if 99% of the CMS's you found didn't do it keep looking for the 1% as it is possible
Finally I'll point to Rands own blog here - https://moz.com/blog/pagination-best-practices-for-seo-user-experience
"Whatever you do, DO NOT:
- Put a rel=canonical directive on paginated results pointing back to the top page in an attempt to flow link juice to that URL. You'll either misdirect the engines into thinking you have only a single page of results or convince them that your directives aren't worth following (as they find clearly unique content on those pages)."
Thanks for the reply I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the above, i guess I'm somewhat stuck in my ways for pagination and canonical tags!
Hope some of the above helps Tom.
-
Tom,
I think you are seeing two differing view points on the issue. We only do e-commerce work, so we have gleaned our suggestions from the best practices in the e-commerce industry. I have done some pretty extensive research around this issue just to see what other companies do, that is why I suggested pointing your canonical back to your category landing pages. One issue I think is thin content. Do people really want to land on page 4 of a pagination?
With paginated category pages you actually run into a lot of SEO problems that are not addresses in 99% of all e-commerce platforms. Duplicate content, meta descriptions, and titles are some of the biggest. I am not familiar with any e-commerce package that will let you have different meta title or meta descriptions for paginated pages. Some might add "Page number x" to the title and descriptions, but that will still trigger duplicate content errors.
Lets look at what other sites in the industry do and how they do it.
Walmart
Walmart points all of their paginated pages back to the main category page. But they also do something interesting worth noting. They use rel=next on everyone as well. Even if the rel=next points to the page itself. See this screenshot of their TV category on page 2.
http://screencast.com/t/eZb9zbgA0u
If you notice the rel=next at the bottom actually points to the page you are on and the canonical points back to the category root.
Target
Target uses a filtering navigation on their category pages. It makes some really unpretty urls too. Below is a screenshot of a page 2 of their TV category.
http://screencast.com/t/oolK0hZy
They also point their category pagination back to the main category landing page as well. Also note that they do not use the rel=next or previous in their page as well.
Macy's
Macy's also points their canonical back at their category root page too. For some reason they have a query string on it as you can see in the image below. But in the next screenshot you can see where that page actually goes.
http://screencast.com/t/l3Jp2lxeBhTK
http://screencast.com/t/sDLTuAOa
Also it it is worth note that they don't use the rel next/previous on any of their pages as well.
Tiger Direct
Tiger Direct is another company that follows pretty much the same pattern as well. You can see by the image below that they point their paginated page back to the root category.
http://screencast.com/t/PsGft6CCgJ
I think the main reason of doing things like this works out two fold for companies. First you are putting more power into the category landing page and second you are providing better user experience. What does a paginated page of a category have to offer that the main page doesn't?
Sure Google might call using them the best practice, but that does not mean they will penalize you for not using them. We personally recommend to people to not use them and to point everything at the category root because that seems to be the standard in the industry. When you are trying to rank a page against other big e-commerce competitors you want to use every trick in the book to get ahead. Generally by not using this one it seems you won't.
-
Hi Tom,
To break it down into the two areas:
Option A
Pagination - Google recommends this option it involves a similar set up that you have at the moment (the above links can help with this) you might find you canonical each page to its self perhaps but for the most part canonical is not used. Pros of this is its within Google guidelines and all content is indexed, the negative is that all the content is indexed and you might not have a way to get the page you want ranked (but you can tweak this)
Option B
You canonical all the pagination pages to a category page, this is not within Google guidelines as the pages are not duplicated nor would they really have duplicated content (with some exceptions). This bonus of this is technically you can sculpt all the link juice from all the pages to one place but the negative of this is you don't have a lot of content indexed.
Personal I'm in favor of option A, its in the guidelines its what the whole thing was designed for and if done correctly shouldn't cause you too many problems. The second option whilst i can work can also backfire especially if you not a large company and like most things is a matter of weighing up the pros and cons.
Hope that somewhat helps give you an idea. Really with the canonical (with some exceptions) its an either or scenario.
-
Hi Lesley,
Thx. But I'm still confused, Chris says 'use pagination' , you say 'use canonical'.
I don't really know what the best practice is tbh.Can you explain why you wouldn't use the rel next/prev with this?
Regards,
Tom
-
Tom,
What we do with most of our clients is to point the canonical tag on paginated category pages to the root category page like you are wanting to do. It helps with duplicate content issues generated for category pages and also makes your landing page stronger. I would not use the rel next/previous with this though.
If you look around the industry at the bigger ecommerce sites this is what is done. Walmart, Target, and all of the big players with the exception of Amazon use this practice.
-
You shouldn't use both as the canonical tag kinda cancels out the pagination which is not ideal.It means some of the products wont be getting indexed, you can always create a view all page and aim to make that the main ranking page however its never a garuntee. The pagination sounds like its the best option to me. All that is happening is Google is giving what it thinks is the best results by trying to sculpt it you might cause more problems than its worth.
Edit okay just to expand some more, you may want to read some more into pagination here - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
it should help you clear up getting ti correct.
-
Hi Chris, Thx for your quick reply. We have a similar situation as the one I described earlier. Currently the code below is on the page. What are your thoughts on this contruction? Because, we use the prev and next AS WELL AS the canonical tag. The canonical to prevent duplicate content. The link prev and next to prevent Google indexing all the seperate /?tab=.. as inidivual pages. I'm looking forward to your response. Regards, Tom
-
Hi Tom,
You may find the following helpful - :http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
In short if you do canonical you would loose the pages (sort of) as technically they are not duplicated. You could try a "view all" page and hope that replaces some of the problems.
Seems to be pagination is working fine on your site so I wouldn't worry too much, if you did add canonical it may do more harm than good for the sake of making a URL look more appealing.
Hope that somewhat helps.
Good luck.
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
-
Disavow links old links
We have built a lot of sites and there a few sites we no longer manage or want any association with. When I have looked at webmasters I can see 20 to 200+ odd links back to our site. The page however at source has no reference to our website. I have searched the code but there isn't anything. Is it safe to disavow these or just leave them?
Technical SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0 -
Organic search traffic stats "leaking" into other channels?
Hi Everyone I have a website and am slowly getting to grips with SEO. Last week I enabled a new channel in google analytics which was "email" so I could track effectiveness of the weekly emails we send out. The good news is that a ton of traffic is now being assigned to the email "channel" in GA but my organic search traffic in channels is now down week on week. That feels odd as my overall traffic to the site is up, week on week. Does anyone have any experience of new channels coming on stream and canniballising old ones? Could it be that some of the traffic associated to organic search previously was actually coming from my email, I just didn't know it? thanks all!
Technical SEO | | NappyValleyNet1 -
Redundant categorization - "boys" and "girls" category. Any other suggestions than implementing filtering?
One of our clients (a children's clothing company) has split their categories (outwear, tops, shoes) between boys and girls - There's one category page for girls outwear, and one category for boys outwear. I am suspecting that this redundant categorisation is diluting link juice and rankings for the related search queries. Important points: The clothes themselves are rather gender-neutral, girl's sweaters don't differ that much from the boy's sweaters. Our keyword research indicates that norwegians' search queries are also pretty gender neutral - people are generally searching after "children's dresses", "shoes for kids", "snowsuits", etc. So these gender specific categories are not really reflective of people's search behavior. I acknowledge that implementing a filter for "boys" and "girls" would be the best way to solve this redundant categorization, but that would simply be to expensive for our client. I'm thinking that some sort of canonicalisation would be the best approach to solve this issue. Are there any other suggestions or comments to this?
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
WMT "Index Status" vs Google search site:mydomain.com
Hi - I'm working for a client with a manual penalty. In their WMT account they have 2 pages indexed.If I search for "site:myclientsdomain.com" I get 175 results which is about right. I'm not sure what to make of the 2 indexed pages - any thoughts would be very appreciated. google-1.png google-2.png
Technical SEO | | JohnBolyard0 -
Rel="canonical" in hyperlink
Inside my website, I use the rel = "canonical" but I do not use it in the but in a hyperlink. Now it is not clear to me if that goes well. See namely different stories about the Internet. My example below link: Bruiloft
Technical SEO | | NECAnGeL0 -
Rel=Canonical for filter pages
Hi folks, I have a bit of a dilemma that I'd appreciate some advice on. We'll just use the solid wood flooring of our website as an example in this case. We use the rel=canonical tag on the solid wood flooring listings pages where the listings get sorted alphabetically, by price etc.
Technical SEO | | LukeyB30
e.g. http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/?orderBy=highestprice uses the canonical tag to point to http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/ as the main page. However, we also uses filters on our site which allows users to filter their search by more specific product features e.g.
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm/
http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/natural-lacquered/ We don't use the canonical tag on these pages because they are great long-tail keyword targeted pages so I want them to rank for phrases like "18mm solid wood flooring". But, in not using the canonical tag, I'm finding google is getting confused and ranking the wrong page as the filters mean there is a huge number of possible URLs for a given list of products. For example, Google ranks this page for the phrase "18mm solid wood flooring" http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm,116mm/ This is no good. This is a combination of two filters and so the listings are very refined, so if someone types the above phrase into Google and lands on this page their first reaction will be "there are not many products here". Google should be ranking the page with only the 18mm filter applied: http://www.kensyard.co.uk/products/category/solid-wood-flooring/f/18mm How would you recommend I go about rectifying this situation?
Thanks, Luke0 -
Should I consider webmaster tools links and linked pages ratio to remove unnatural links?
I don't know this is a suitable place for post this question. Anyway I have done it. According to the Google webmaster tools, Links to your site page. My blog has considerable amount of links, from linked pages (from certain domain names). For an instance please refer following screenshot. When I am removing unnatural links, should I consider these, links from linked pages ratio? Almost all of these sites are social bookmarking sites. When I publish a new bookmark on those sites, they automatically add a homepage link. As a result of that, I got a huge number of home page links from linked pages. What is your recommendation? Thanks! webmaster.png web_master_tools.png
Technical SEO | | Godad0 -
Linking out?
First of all, sorry this Q is all in one block, but iPads don't like this site or vc/vs. When using the SEOmoz on-site keyword optimizer tool, it suggests at least one link to be to an off-site page. Would it be considered a link exchange if we linked out to an niche SUPER Authority sit that had a link back to our website? It seems like a naturally good strategy, but I'm afraid google may not agree. If the answer is no, there are many similar sites that mention our company in ver good ways, awards, etc.., but with no links. I would think this is a no-brainer. Personally I would like to eventually harvest all this press coverage to benefit our site. Btw, I was grey before I learned about SEOmoz, just like the rest of our niche. Now I'm shooting to be Snow White! Hopefully it works out. 🙂 I also wrote two landing pages that I tried to SEO the right way. I would love to hear your feedback to know if they are truly effective and if they are actually white. I think they are, but don't know "all" the rules of being white http://jamproa.com/ideology/product-innovation.php http://jamproa.com/industrial-design/what-is.php Thanks!
Technical SEO | | dmac0