Pagination & Canonicals
-
Hi
I've been looking at how we paginate our product pages & have a quick question on canonicals.
Is this the right way to display..
Or should the canonical point to the main page http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/euro-containers-stacking-containers, so Google doesn't pick up duplicate meta information?
Thanks!
-
Thanks everyone
-
I'd recommend pagination over scrolling. The primary reason being load time. If you've got 8 pages worth of content displaying on one page, it's going to take forever to load.
-
Great thank you for your advice.
Does anyone have an opinion on pagination vs. scroll instead?
-
Yeap i got it wrong.
I'll leave it, so as others my learn from me. -
Definitely agree with Logan - Google's own engineers also explain that rel-next and rel-previous are implemented independent of rel-canonical. (Meaning each page in a paginated series should have it's own self-referential canonical tag, not one pointing to the first page of the series.)
"rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page.
For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain:
"
~~ from https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
Paul
-
Sorry, this response is incorrect. Canonicals used in this way will simply be ignored.
-
According to this article by Rand, you should not point a canonical back to the main page. If you're marking up pagination correctly, you do not need a canonical tag on the paginated URLs, only on page=1 pointing back to the main page since these are actually the same thing.
-
You've asked what about duplicate meta information.
In the case that page 2 has different information than page 1, then you should't worry.
Still, you may want just to get indexed the main page (if that's the case), apply the canonical. -
My only question is, what about the products on page 2 which aren't duplicate listings?
-
Hi Becky,
As you said, the canonical has to point to the main page so Google doesn't index duplicate information.
Hope it helps.
GR.
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
-
Rel=Canonical Vs. 301 for blog articles
Over the last few years, my company has acquired numerous different companies -- some of which were acquired before that. Some of the products acquired were living on their previous company's parent site vs. having their own site dedicated to the product. The decision has been made that each product will have their own site moving forward. Since the product pages, blog articles and resource center landing pages (ex. whitepapers LPs) were living on the parent site, I'm struggling with the decision to 301 vs. rel=canonical those pages (with the new site being self canonicaled). I'm leaning toward take-down and 301 since rel=canonicals are simply suggestions to Google and a new domain can get all the help it can to start ranking. Are there any cons to doing so?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mfcb0 -
Issue with AMP pages
Hello, We have implemented AMP on our blog pages, but now some of the Web pages are also being shown like AMP pages. ( no footer and no navigation ) What could have gone wrong ? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Johnroger0 -
Canonicals for Splitting up large pagination pages
Hi there, Our dev team are looking at speeding up load times and making pages easier to browse by splitting up our pagination pages to 10 items per page rather than 1000s (exact number to be determined) - sounds like a great idea, but we're little concerned about the canonicals on this one. at the moment we rel canonical (self) and prev and next. so b is rel b, prev a and next c - for each letter continued. Now the url structure will be a1, a(n+), b1, b(n+), c1, c(n+). Should we keep the canonicals to loop through the whole new structure or should we loop each letter within itself? Either b1 rel b1, prev a(n+), next b2 - even though they're not strictly continuing the sequence. Or a1 rel a1, next a2. a2 rel a2, prev a1, next a3 | b1 rel b1, next b2, b2 rel b2, prev b1, next b3 etc. Would love to hear your points of view, hope that all made sense 🙂 I'm leaning towards the first one even though it's not continuing the letter sequence, but because it's looping the alphabetically which is currently working for us already. This is an example of the page we're hoping to split up: https://www.world-airport-codes.com/alphabetical/airport-name/b.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
Title & Keywords
Hi Quick question on arrangement of keywords in titles. I know the order isn't so important anymore, but would there be a real issue if I want to rank for 'Henry Xtra' but my title reads 'Numatic Henry Xtra Vacuum Cleaner' Rather than 'Henry Xtra Vacuum Cleaner' ?? Will it really make much difference? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
DeIndexing pagination
I have a custom made blog with boat loads of undesirable URLs in Google's index like this:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rich_Coffman
.com/resources?start=150
.com/resources?start=160
.com/resources?start=170 I've identified this is a source of duplicate title tags and had my programmer put a no index tag to automatically go on all of these undesirable URLs like this: However doing a site: search in google shows the URLs to still be indexed even though I've put the tag up a few weeks ago. How do I get google to remove these URLs from the index? I'm aware that the Search Console has an answer here https://support.google.com/webmasters/topic/4598466?authuser=1&authuser=1&rd=1 but it says that blocking with meta tags should work. Do I just get google to crawl the URL again so it sees the tag and then deindexes the URLs? Or is there another way I'm missing.0 -
Switching from HTTP to HTTPS: 301 redirect or keep both & rel canonical?
Hey Mozzers, I'll be moving several sites from HTTP to HTTPS in the coming weeks (same brand, multiple ccTLDs). We'll start on a low traffic site and test it for 2-4 weeks to see the impact before rolling out across all 8 sites. Ideally, I'd like to simply 301 redirect the HTTP version page to the HTTPS version of the page (to get that potential SEO rankings boost). However, I'm concerned about the potential drop in rankings, links and traffic. I'm thinking of alternative ways and so instead of the 301 redirect approach, I would keep both sites live and accessible, and then add rel canonical on the HTTPS pages to point towards HTTP so that Google keeps the current pages/ links/ indexed as they are today (in this case, HTTPS is more UX than for SEO). Has anyone tried the rel canonical approach, and if so, what were the results? Do you recommend it? Also, for those who have implemented HTTPS, how long did it take for Google to index those pages over the older HTTP pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Steven_Macdonald0 -
Canonical Meta Tag
Can someone explain how this works and how necessary is it? For example, I have a new client, who is ranking WITHOUT the www in their domain, but they have a good deal of backlinks already that have www in it. When I set up google webmaster tools I made 2, one for WWW and one for WITHOUT and there are diffenet numbers of backlinks for each. I have no idea what do about this or if I should even do anything. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheGrid0 -
How to Specify Canonical Link Element for Better Performing?
I read Google webmaster centeral's blog post and help article about rel="canonical" which was compiled by Matt. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394 I am working on eCommerce website and found too many duplicate pages with same product as follow. 1. www.lampslightingandmore.com/50_62_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit
2. www.lampslightingandmore.com/48_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
3. www.lampslightingandmore.com/48_55_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
4. www.lampslightingandmore.com/48_57_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
5. www.lampslightingandmore.com/50_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
6. www.lampslightingandmore.com/50_56_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
7. www.lampslightingandmore.com/50_63_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
8. www.lampslightingandmore.com/63_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
9. www.lampslightingandmore.com/68_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
10. www.lampslightingandmore.com/68_58_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html
11. www.lampslightingandmore.com/68_59_10133/java-bronze-floor-lamp-with-walnut-shade.html I have consider 1st product as a primary product and set following rel canonical tag on remaining products. Primary product also contain following rel canonical tag. This was my experience to set canonical tag. But, I am not able to see any improvement on crawling. I was in that assumption due to duplication Google did not crawled my pages. But, Now what is problem with it? How can I fix it and specify proper canonical link element for better crawling? Note: I am working to compile unique content on each product pages and make it live very soon.0