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
-
thanks, good to know we were on the right tracks
-
-
Hi,
I might not have explained our project sufficiently, sorry.
We are paginating a into a1, a2 and so on, that's a given.
My question is 'how best do i canonicalise these new pages?'
would you recommend using rel next and prev across the different alphabet pagination pages OR keeping the rel next and prev circulating in their own letters?
Please see the diagram, which hopefully explains this better!
-
Please, lets separate canonical from pagination.
On one hand, pagination. Yes, i´ve suggested to paginate a,a1,a2,b,b1,b2,c... and so on.
On the other hand, canoincals. Use them to self-canonicalize each page from any parameter or whatever you might use.
Am i clear?
I think we are confusing too much one with anotherHope it helps.
Best luck.
GR -
I guess what we're doing is going from canonicalising via alphabet - a to b to c.
but now we're splitting up a into a mini-pagination. do I split canonicals up too?
-
Hi, so you're recommending linking through the whole structure a, a1, a2, b, b1, b2, c, c1, c2 and so on?
Or would you suggest we loop within a, a1, a2 and not canonicalise a2 to b?
Thanks
-
Hi there!
To what im understanding from what you´ve said, looks fine to me.
Just finished reading a really great source about pagination:
Pagination attributes: link rel=”prev” and rel=”next" - ContentKing AcademyAlso, canonicals and pagination attibutes are orthogonal concepts. As google describes it in the notes here:
Indicate paginated content - Google Search Console Help (It's nearly at the end of the page)rel="next"
andrel="prev"
are orthogonal concepts torel="canonical"
. You can include both declarations.Hope it helps.
Best luck.
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
-
Whats the negative effect of incorrect canonical to first page in paginated set?
Hi, I have a new client that has pagination handled incorrectly on their website.... They have it setup as follows: example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=1 example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=2 example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=3
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | QubaSEO
etc etc rel=canonical from page 2 to page 1
rel=canonical from page 3 to page 1
etc etc i.e. they aren't using rel=prev, rel=next To get them to invest in the development time need to change this I need to explain to the client how what they have is negatively affecting things? Anyone? Thanks in advance!0 -
Google Page Speed
Is it worthwhile going after a good score on Google page speed? Had prices but a LOT of money, and don't know if it's worth it or not. Also to add to the complication it is a new site. Does anyone have any experience if it helps rankings? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Can Googlebots read canonical tags on pages with javascript redirects?
Hi Moz! We have old locations pages that we can't redirect to the new ones because they have AJAX. To preserve pagerank, we are putting canonical tags on the old location pages. Will Googlebots still read these canonical tags if the pages have a javascript redirect? Thanks for reading!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DA20130 -
Canonical use when dynamically placing items on "all products" page
Hi all, We're trying to get our canonical situation straightened out. We have a section of our site with 100 product pages in it (in our case a city with hotels that we've reviewed), and we have a single page where we list them all out--an "all products" page called "all.html." However, because we have 100 and that's a lot for a user to see at once, we plan to first show only 50 on "all.html." When the user scrolls down to the bottom, we use AJAX to place another 50 on the page (these come from another page called "more.html" and are placed onto "all.html"). So, as you scroll down from the front end, you see "all.html" with 100 listings. We have other listings pages that are sorted and filtered subsets of this list with little or no unique content. Thus, we want to place a canonical on those pages. Question: Should the canonical point to "all.html"? Would spiders get confused, because they see that all.html is only half the listings? Is it dangerous to dynamically place content on a page that's used as a canonical? Is this a non-issue? Thanks, Tom
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomNYC0 -
Canonical and On-Page Report Card
Hello, One quick question about rel canonical. If i use SeoMoz amazing on-page optimization tool i get a grade B if i use www.mydomain.com and my keyword. I get a grade A if i use https://www.mydomain.com and same keyword. I get the grade B coz i don't get the check mark to "Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical" box. Should i use this rel canonical stuff if i am 301 redirecting www. version to https://www. version already. Regards, OÜInigo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | InigoOU0 -
Canonical url question
i just search seomoz tooll it say duplicate content for www.mysite.com and www.mysite.com/index.php should i use canonical url for this ? is yes then is this right ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Amount of pages indexed for classified (number of pages for the same query)
I've notice that classified usually has a lots of pages indexed and that's because for each query/kw they index the first 100 results pages, normally they have 10 results per page. As an example imagine the site www.classified.com, for the query/kw "house for rent new york" there is the page www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york and the "index" is set for the first 100 SERP pages, so www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york-1 www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york-2 ...and so on. Wouldn't it better to index only the 1st result page? I mean in the first 100 pages lots of ads are very similar so why should Google be happy by indexing lots of similar pages? Could Google penalyze this behaviour? What's your suggestions? Many tahnks in advance for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nuroa-2467120 -
SEO Penalties for Splitting Page for Two Store Locations
Hello fellow SEO'ers! I have a question regarding the overall SEO implications of using a single page to describe the services/products offered at two different locations. The locations are in two different states/cities. I have tried to explain to the client that I working with that this is essentially splitting the page in two from a search ranking perspective. I have a feeling that Google sees this page as partially dedicated to one city, and partly to another... meaning that it won't rank as well as it could for either city. Is my thinking correct? Seems logical. The client has done this site-wide for every service/product that they offer in their facilities. I'm offering some title/description recommendations for the entire site right now, and I'm going back and forth with myself whether to include the city names in the titles and descriptions at all. Let me know what you smart folks think. I appreciate it. Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theBREWROOM0