Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

I believe Google's primary goal when analysing rel=prev and rel=next link elements is to (usually) return the first page of a series in the SERPs, and to avoid returning multiple results from the same series of paginated pages. It should be noted that: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. And... When ...


3

Yes, using rel-canonical for these URLs would be (most of the time) incorrect. RFC 6596 defines: The target (canonical) IRI MUST identify content that is either duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) IRI. This is not the case for your content. If you have a page that lists all products (without pagination), you could use ...


3

I agree that previous needs to be on the left and next on the right. You can probably find many sites that use that convention as evidence. One way of getting round the objection about screen readers is to place them the other way in the HTML and then use CSS floats so that they look the way you want (previous - next) on the screen. I see less and less ...


2

What are you hoping for from pagination? Users to click through multiple pages to find what they are looking for? Googlebot to be able to find all your items and crawl their pages? A way to distribute "pagerank" to each of your products so that the individual product pages work well? Organic search engine traffic to each of the paginated pages? These are ...


2

It does not pay to fight clients on UI - this is generally the one aspect of the project which the client feels he or she knows best about, particularly if he or she will be using the interface. Share your reservations and then implement exactly as requested - time will tell if the client reneges on his or her judgment call, but I can assure you that only ...


2

I don't want to add paginated results to search engines. But I need my index.php to be in search engines. If you want index.php to be indexed, but the paginated links not to be indexed, then noindex,follow will do the opposite: The noindex tells search engines not to index the page, and the follow tells them to follow links on the page. To tell search ...


2

You can use both, according to Google's documentation. Whether or not you should depends on the circumstances: if you've got other duplication problems, separate from the pagination problem (as per the example in the documentation), then you could set a canonical link element (CLE) for each page of the series – so the CLE manages duplication on each page, ...


2

You probably should not add a rel="canonical" element to your paginated pages, unless it is specifically required. The canonical link element is not required for pagination, it is used to resolve canonical URL issues. The canonical URL of a page in a series is probably not the first page of that series. Your rel="next" and rel="prev" elements already provide ...


1

If the paginated pages are useful (*) for searchers, your variant 2) offers the benefit of stable URLs. Thereby the ranking for each of those pages can (possibly) increase over time. If you’d use variant 1) instead, the content will change radically, i.e., some time later the same URL has totally different content (not merely changed/updated content, but ...


1

It is better to list the newest items in the first page, as your website will be more live, and most of the visitors will want to see the fresh arrivals. But it would be also good to provide an option for sorting items by popularity or better display some popular items at the sidebar (actually this is great usability + SEO). To make better user friendly ...


1

Neither. Not for SEO. However, I personally would chose option 1. That way your fist page is always 1 and not ?? The URI keywords item and page are not offering value from an SEO point of view. If you can change this to something more meaningful, then perhaps the answer would be different. Clear as mud?


1

I'd say one of the most common practices hear would be adding noindex to the listing pages, apart from the first one, so as you said they will still get crawled but will not get added to the index. I think this is preferable to blocking them in robots.txt as Google is still free to crawl through the site and can still follow links on the pages. Adding ...


1

Since Google is returning these URLs in their search results, it's unlikely that they're considering them to be duplicate content. As indicated here, if Google finds duplicate content on your site they: do a good job of choosing a version of the content to show in [their] search results. If you'd like only one of the URL's to be indexed though, as ...


1

If I start to utilise Rel="prev" and rel="next" should I set page 2 onwards as index,follow or noindex,follow? Neither. Use rel="prev" etc. throughout the entire paginated series. Obviously page 1 will only have rel="next", and the last page only rel="prev". There's no need to use noindex anywhere in a series which uses pagination markup. The whole ...


1

This is exactly what canonical URLs are for. In the example Google uses when they introduced them they showed a page where the content was the same but the sort order of a table was different. So pick the URL that will display all of the content available from the base URL and make that the canonical URL (i.e. the URL with no limit).


1

While using a specific page for Google isn't necessary a bad thing but what you should be aware of is that Google wants the same content that is served to your visitors. Since your using canonical links Google will care little how the order of the items since Google will know that the page there is purely for making navigation easier. Millions of sites use ...


1

Using rel prev and rel next isn't going to solve the duplicate title and meta description problem. Several people on Google's blog post that it doesn't prevent these errors in Webmaster Tools. For example: cynthiacoffield said... I've had similar duplicate title tag issues that are resolved with rel prev/next canonical. I would recommend putting ...


1

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html Try this Official Google Help to use rel="prev" and rel="next" right. In you situation you should use rel="prev" and rel="next" for your pagination.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible