How to solve JavaScript paginated content for SEO
-
In our blog listings page, we limit the number of blogs that can be seen on the page to 10. However, all of the blogs are loaded in the html of the page and page links are added to the bottom.
Example page: https://tulanehealthcare.com/about/newsroom/
When a user clicks the next page, it simply filters the content on the same page for the next group of postings and displays these to the user. Nothing in the html or URL change. This is all done via JavaScript.
So the question is, does Google consider this hidden content because all listings are in the html but the listings on page are limited to only a handful of them?
Or is Googlebot smart enough to know that the content is being filtered by JavaScript pagination?
If this is indeed a problem we have 2 possible solutions:
- not building the HTML for the next pages until you click on the 'next' page.
- adding parameters to the URL to show the content has changed.
Any other solutions that would be better for SEO?
-
thanks for the thorough response. I was leaning toward leaving it alone for the time being and this helps affirm my decision. I don't think we are going to see much benefit from tampering with it to make it more Googlebot-friendly
-
It will be strongly de-valued and the links may or may not even be noticed / seen at all. Googlebot can leverage headless browsers (something similar to Selenium or Windmill in Python, with targeting handled via XPath maybe). The only thing is, this takes ages longer than basic source-code scraping. To scrape the modified source with a headless browser can take, 5-10 seconds instead of less than 1 second
Since Google's mission is the 'index the web', you have to fathom that they wouldn't take this colossal efficiency hit all the time, or for everyone. Certainly looking at the results of many sites and their different builds, that's exactly what I see. Just because 'Google can' that doesn't mean that 'Google will' on all crawls and websites
Some very large websites rely on such technologies, but usually they're household name sites which offer a unique value-proposition of cultural trust signals for the specified audience. If you're not a titan of industry, then you're likely not one of the favoured few who gets such special treatment from Googlebot so regularly
This is an interesting post to read:
https://medium.com/@baphemot/whats-server-side-rendering-and-do-i-need-it-cb42dc059b38
... you may also have the option of building the HTML on the server side and then serving it in different URLs to the user. To me it sounds like a case where SSR might be the best option. That way you can still use your existing technologies (which are FAST) to render the modified HTML, but render it on the server side and then serve the static HTML (after the render) to users using SSR. That's personally what I would start looking at as it will keep the best of both worlds
Implementation could be costly though!
I don't think you'd get accused of cloaking but that doesn't change the fact, part of your site's architecture will 90% become invisible to Google 90% of the time which is not really very good for SEO (at all)
Another option, instead of building all the post listings on page-load (which will cause stutter between pages), just load all of them at once in the source code and use the JavaScript to handle the visual navigation (from page to page) only. Let JS handle the visual effect, but keep all listings in the HTML right from the get-go. That can work fine too, but maybe SSR would be better for you (I don't know)
...
after looking at your source code, it seems you have already done this. The only real problem would be if the links themselves were 'created' through the JS, which they are not (they all start visible in your non-modified source code). Yes, things which begin hidden, are slightly de-valued (but not completely). This might impact you slightly, but to be honest I don't think separating them out and making the pages load entirely separately would be much better. It would help architectural internal-indexation slightly, but likely would hamper content-loading speeds significantly
Maybe think about the SSR option. You might get the best of both worlds and you might be able to keep the JS intact whilst also allowing deep-linking of paginated content (which currently is impossible, can't link to page 2 of results)
Let me know if you have previously thought about SSR
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
-
SEO Adjustments Where Content Isn't Front And Centre...
So I am wondering what people think for a SEO strategy for sites where (1) the interaction is a one-off event and (2) content is not often shared or something that people want. Specificially regarding two sites this applies to: Site 1 is basically a mortgage site. So customers interact with the site once and then most likely never again once their mortgage is sorted. Mortgages aren't great content pieces and customers don't really read a lot of the content - it's part of the reason loan officers/mortgage professionals exist... Site 2 is also for a one off purchase but it's an embarrassing problem that nobody would share content for because they don't want people to know that they sought help for this. This also makes getting backlinks hard. Also it is a one off purchase, never to be made again... Am interested in how people would adapt their SEO strategies to these circumstances - where content development and promotion is limited...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GTAMP0 -
Re-using content
Hi, I've just sold the domain for a website, so I'm free to re-purpose the content over to another website I own. How can I make sure that Gg doesn't deem it as duplicate? Do I need to let Gg naturally realise that the 'original' website no longer has the content on it? Do I need to hold-off putting the content live again? Should I notify Gg by-way of a de-index request, etc (assuming the domain won't incur any difficulty if I do this)? Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | newstd1000 -
Blog content and panda?
If we want to create a blog to keep in front of our customers (via email and posting on social) and the posts will be around 300 - 1000 words like this site http://www.solopress.com/blog/ are we going to be asking for a panda slap as the issue would be the very little shares and traction after the first day or two. Also would panda only affect the blogs that are crap if we mix in a couple of really good posts or would it affect theses as well and possibly even the site? Any help would be appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Content Aggregation Site: How much content per aggregated piece is too much?
Let's say I set up a section of my website that aggregated content from major news outlets and bloggers around a certain topic. For each piece of aggregated content, is there a bad, fair, and good range of word count that should be stipulated? I'm asking this because I've been mulling it over—both SEO (duplicate content) issues and copyright issues—to determine what is considered best practice. Any ideas about what is considered best practice in this situation? Also, are there any other issues to consider that I didn't mention?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kdaniels0 -
SEO and former site
Hi, my client had a site built and hosted with Avvo but we now shut it down and are using a new server. My concern is that Avvo's internal link structure is causing SEO issues. For example, his site will list for "San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney", but is then removed for no reason. Far worse, while he had the AVVO site, it would never rank at all on Google. He's got great content, and no spammy links. This is the site: www.thesandiegocriminallawyer.com. Any thoughts of what I could do to disavow the AVVO pages that Google still has indexed? Does it matter? Or, is it simply a function of time? Thank you for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mrodriguez14400 -
Advanced SEO question.
Hi, I manage and do the SEO for this site: www.aerlawgroup.com. If you Google "Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney", you can see I rank well (1st page). I have managed to achieve similar rankings for interior pages within the site: www.aerlawgroup.com/domestic-violence.html (Google: "Los Angeles Domestic Violence Attorney".) Here is my question. No matter how hard I try, I cannot get to the first page on Google for the search term: "Los Angeles DUI Lawyer", for the following interior page: www.aerlawgroup.com/dui.html. Is there anyway that I can pass the authority/ranking (not sure what to call it) that I have for www.aerlawgroup.com to www.aerlawgroup.com/dui.html so that internal page ranks higher for "Los Angeles DUI Lawyer"? I apologize if my question doesn't make sense. In a nutshell, I'm trying to understand if there is anyway to use the ranking I have for www.aerlawgroup.com to help me rank higher for Los Angeles DUI lawyer for the dui interior page. If not, are there any other suggestions anyone has to achieve a higher ranking? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mrodriguez14400 -
Duplicate content reported on WMT for 301 redirected content
We had to 301 redirect a large number of URL's. Not Google WMT is telling me that we are having tons of duplicate page titles. When I looked into the specific URL's I realized that Google is listing an old URL's and the 301 redirected new URL as the source of the duplicate content. I confirmed the 301 redirect by using a server header tool to check the correct implementation of the 301 redirect from the old to the new URL. Question: Why is Google Webmaster Tool reporting duplicated content for these pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEOAccount320 -
SEO Feedback Please
Hi, I was hoping to get some feedback on this site's SEO: http://www.chantre.com/ I also have different URLs which can be accessed from the left side of the site under "Quick Search Links" that go to the different offices within this company. Thoughts on how to improve would be great. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gXe0