I am confused about what would be the proper markup for a paginated series, even after reading quite a lot of advice, from google included.
The common wisdom seems to be this:
rel="next"to point to each subsequent page in a series,
rel="prev"to go backwards.
rel="canonical"each paginated page to itself OR
rel="canonical"all of them to a "wiew all" version OR don't do it at all.
My problem is that this setup seems to assume a rather static setup, such as online stores.
But how about blogging/publishing?
1st of all, posts are displayed newest first so rel="next" for previous posts is not too intuitive, to say the least. Wolud it be more useful if it were rel="prev" for older entries?
2nd, with content being updated constantly, the content of a paginated url will change with every post published until eventually page 2 becomes page 3 and so on. Do these pages even deserve an indexed link of their own?
3rd, a "view all" is certainly not an option with hundreds of posts or more.
So what's the best route to take?
Follow common wisdom.
Just reverse direction to make sure that older posts are "prev" and newer are "next".
Rel-canonical pages to entry page without prev / next.
Rel-canonical to entry page but also use prev / next.
Noindex and/or nofollow all subsequent pages and forget about them.
Or something else?
Update - expected user behavior:
Paginated archives are not unique content but rather a quick reference for what else a site (or an author etc.) wrote in the past.
So readers would e.g. click on an authors name to see what else they wrote and thus get the latest entries. If they want to see even more, they'd use pagination.
If somebody gets to the list via google (after let's say searching for "articles by X") that's fine too. But I see little point in people landing on example.com/author-X/page/3 just because they searched about "articles by X about zebras" and that's where one of the zebra posts is currently index. In this case, I'd rather have google take the searcher to the zebra post itself.