Is this the correct way of using rel canonical, next and prev for paginated content?
-
Hello Moz fellows,
a while ago (3-4 years ago) we setup our e-commerce website category pages to apply what Google suggested to correctly handle pagination.
We added rel "canonicals", rel "next" and "prev" as follows:
On page 1:
On page 2:
On page 3:
And so on, until the last page is reached:
Do you think everything we have been doing is correct?
I have doubts on the way we have handled the canonical tag, so, any help to confirm that is very appreciated!
Thank you in advance to everyone.
-
Fantastic, thank you Paul! Those links are very useful, and I might have already read those when I setup those canonicals (I jut forgot after a few years to have worked on that!)
I'll check them out carefully again
Appreciated your help and prompt reply
All the best,
Fabrizio
-
Yup, that's exactly correct - just the way you first proposed.
And if you want it straight from the horse's mouth, here's Google's own description of implementation best practice for your exact situation:
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:
Note the canonical for the page is self referential to the version of the page including the basic variable that defines the actual page, leaving out the more dynamic variable of sessionID - the same way you'd want to leave out the dynamic size or colour variables, for example, which are specific to only that visit.
From https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
With a big whack of followup confirmation in this discussion with Google Engineer Maile Ohye https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/YbXqwoyooGM/0XTh-gIxS7YJDon't forget you can also use the tools in GSC to help GoogleBot understand which of your URL variables are indexable and which should be ignored. Only helps Google itself, but hey, every little bit counts
Good luck!
Paul
-
Thank you Paul, so, what I have been doing so far is correct, right? Here it is again, please, confirm so I can close this thread:
On page 1:
On page 2:
On page 3:
And so on, until the last page is reached:
Is this the correct way to do it then?
-
You want to have each of your paginated category pages include a self-referential canonical tag, Fabrizo, for exactly the reason you mention - to protect the paginated pages from additional variables creating more dupe indexed pages.
Paul
-
Thank you for your reply, but I am sorry Logan, I am confused, you said:
Regarding your recent question about links, a self-referring canonical on those pages will handle that.
So, if I had to follow what you said above, I should add the following canonicals on these pages:
Page 1:
http://www.mysite.com/category/
Page 2:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=2
Page 3:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=3
But then you said that I don't have to put any canonicals except for the first page... so, I am confused... sorry!
Fact is, all pages may have extra parameters that could cause duplicates, therefore, how can I tackle that without adding a canonical on each page pointing to the "clean" URL without extra parameters? I hope you understand what I mean...
-
No, you do not need a canonical on any page other than page=1. Refer to Andy's set of examples above. What he laid out is exactly how I markup for pagination.
-
Thank you Logan.
So, even if I am on page 4, the canonical must points always to the root? I think I read somewhere that it should point to the page URL without the extra parameters like this:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4
Am I wrong?
-
Yes, you only need the canonical tag on the root (as a self-referring canonical) and on page=1 of your paginated URLs. Regarding your recent question about links, a self-referring canonical on those pages will handle that.
Example:
On this URL- http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4&orderby=title&view=list
Canonicalize to- http://www.mysite.com/category/
Hope that's helpful!
-
I am sorry, but I haven't received an answer to my last inquiry above, I can't close this thread.
-
Another question: what about links on those pages that can take the crawl to possible duplicate because of parameters added to the URL like:
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4&orderby=title
http://www.mysite.com/category/?cp=4&orderby=title&view=list
etc.? That's probably why we added the canonical I talked about above.... your thoughts?
-
Sorry, it is my understanding I have to leave the canonical just on the first page, is that correct?
Thank you again.
-
Oh, thank you Andy and Logan! So, can I remove the canonical tag altogether?
Thank you so much!
All the best,
Fabrizio
-
I'm with Logan here, Fabrizio. Rel next & prev pagination removes the need to canonical as well. So it would look like this:
Page 1:
Page 2:
Page 3:
It's Google way of understanding that there are similar pages that you wish to lead visitors to.
-Andy
-
Hi,
You don't need the self-referring canonical tags on each of the paginated URLs. Other than that it looks good to go.
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
-
Does Google frown on using 3 different page titles with same content to secure the top 3 results in SERPs?
Is it frowned upon by Google to create 3 different pages with the sames content yet different titles to secure the top three results in SERPs? For example: Luxury Care Homes in Liverpool Care Homes in Liverpool Private Care Homes in Liverpool The page titles are different with slightly different meta data but the user content is exactly the same, would this be considered a cheeky win or negative to rankings?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TrustedCare.co.uk1 -
Best way to "Prune" bad content from large sites?
I am in process of pruning my sites for low quality/thin content. The issue is that I have multiple sites with 40k + pages and need a more efficient way of finding the low quality content than looking at each page individually. Is there an ideal way to find the pages that are worth no indexing that will speed up the process but not potentially harm any valuable pages? Current plan of action is to pull data from analytics and if the url hasn't brought any traffic in the last 12 months then it is safe to assume it is a page that is not beneficial to the site. My concern is that some of these pages might have links pointing to them and I want to make sure we don't lose that link juice. But, assuming we just no index the pages we should still have the authority pass along...and in theory, the pages that haven't brought any traffic to the site in a year probably don't have much authority to begin with. Recommendations on best way to prune content on sites with hundreds of thousands of pages efficiently? Also, is there a benefit to no indexing the pages vs deleting them? What is the preferred method, and why?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | atomiconline0 -
No content using Fetch
Wooah, this one makes me feel a bit nervous. The cache version of the site homepage shows all the text, but I understand that is the html code constructed by the browser. So I get that. If I Google some of the content it is there in the index and the cache version is yesterday. If I Fetch and Render in GWT then none of the content is available in the preview - neither Googlebot or visitor view. The whole preview is just the menu, a holding image for a video and a tag line for it. There are no reports of blocked resources apart from a Wistia URL. How can I decipher what is blocking Google if it does not report any problems? The CSS is visible for reference to, for example, <section class="text-within-lines big-text narrow"> class="data"> some content... Ranking is a real issue, in part by a poorly functioning main menu. But i'm really concerned with what is happening with the render.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MickEdwards0 -
Medical / Health Content Authority - Content Mix Question
Greetings, I have an interesting challenge for you. Well, I suppose "interesting" is an understatement, but here goes. Our company is a women's health site. However, over the years our content mix has grown to nearly 50/50 between unique health / medical content and general lifestyle/DIY/well being content (non-health). Basically, there is a "great divide" between health and non-health content. As you can imagine, this has put a serious damper on gaining ground with our medical / health organic traffic. It's my understanding that Google does not see us as an authority site with regard to medical / health content since we "have two faces" in the eyes of Google. My recommendation is to create a new domain and separate the content entirely so that one domain is focused exclusively on health / medical while the other focuses on general lifestyle/DIY/well being. Because health / medical pages undergo an additional level of scrutiny per Google - YMYL pages - it seems to me the only way to make serious ground in this hyper-competitive vertical is to be laser targeted with our health/medical content. I see no other way. Am I thinking clearly here, or have I totally gone insane? Thanks in advance for any reply. Kind regards, Eric
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_Lifescript0 -
Using Canonical Attribute
Hi All, I am hoping you can help me? We have recently migrated to the Umbraco CMS and now have duplicate versions of the same page showing on different URLs. My understanding is that this is one of the major reasons for the rel=canonical tag. So am I right in saying that if I add the following to the page that I want to rank then this will work? I'm just a little worried as I have read some horror stories of people implementing this attribute incorrectly and getting into trouble. Thank you in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Creditsafe0 -
What do I do about sites that copy my content?
I've noticed that there are a number of websites that are copying my content. They are putting the full article on their site, mentioning that it was reposted from my site, but contains no links to me. How should I approach this? What are my rights and should I ask them to remove it or add a link? Will the duplicate content affect me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnPeters0 -
Canonical links apparently not used by google
hi, I do have an ecommerce website (www.soundcreation.ro) which in the last 3 months had a drop in the SERP. Started to look around in GWT what is happening. Google is reporting a lot of duplicate meta-tags (and meta-titles problem). But 99% of them had already canonical links setted. I tried to optimize my product listings with the new "prev", "next" tags and introduced also the "view-all" canonical link to help Google identify the appropiate product listing pages. SeoMoz is not reporting thos duplicate meta issues. Here is an example of the same page with different links, but with the same common canonical and reported by GWT "duplicate title tag": http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10-pageall/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-chitari-electroacustice-cid10_999/http://www.soundcreation.ro/chitare-electro-acustice-cid10_1510/What could be the issue?- only that gwt is not refreshing as should be, keeping old errors?- if so, then there is an other serious issue because of why our PR is dropping on several pages?- do we have other problem with the site, which ends up with google penalizing us? Thank you for your ideas!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjutas0