ECommerce Problem with canonicol , rel next , rel prev
-
Hi
I was wondering if anyone willing to share your experience on implementing pagination and canonical when it comes to multiple sort options . Lets look at an example
I have a site example.com ( i share the ownership with the rest of the world on that one ) and I sell stuff on the site
I allow users to sort it by date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on . So now we have
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value
- etc
example.com/for-sale/stuff1 **has the same result as **example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added ( that is the default sort option )
similarly for stuff2, stuff3 and so on. I cant 301 these because these are relevant for users who come in to buy from the site. I can add a view all page and rel canonical to that but let us assume its not technically possible for the site and there are tens of thousands of items in each of the for-sale pages. So I split it up in to pages of x numbers and let us assume we have 50 pages to sort through.
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=price&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=a-z&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=z-a&page=2 to ...page=50
- example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=umph-value&page=2 to ...page=50
- etc
This is where the shit hits the fan. So now if I want to avoid duplicate issue and when it comes to page 30 of stuff1 sorted by date do I add
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
or
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=29
None of this feels right to me . I am thinking of using GWT to ask G-bot not to crawl any of the sort parameters ( date_added, price, a-z, z-a, umph-value, and so on ) and use
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
My doubts about this is that , will the link value that goes in to the pages with parameters be consolidated when I choose to ignore them via URL Parameters in GWT ? what do you guys think ?
-
Thanks Peter .
-
Thanks for your input.
IMHO...If I exclude ? , then paginated pages like ?page=xx wont be crawled , thus the rel=next prev tags on the page are rendered useless.
-
Yeah, it gets ugly fast, and even done "by the book" you're often going to need to monitor your index and make adjustments, I've found. That said, the official Google stance (at least the last I heard) is that you should canonical to the page with no parameters and rel=prev/next to the parameterized versions (your 2nd-to-last example):
- rel canonical = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?page=30
- rel next = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=31
- rel prev = example.com/for-sale/stuff1?sortby=date_added&page=29
See the bottom of this Google blog post:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
The other option would be to use rel=prev/next on the paginated URLs and then dynamically Meta Noindex anything with parameters. Honestly, it really depends on what works, and it can take a while to sort out. Also, keep in mind that Bing doesn't handle rel=prev/next quite the same way as Google.
-
First of all: did you check this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=njn8uXTWiGg
-
You can set the ? as exclude from searches in Webmaster Tool
-
I would always set rel="canonical" to the main page (category page): .
Check how big sites work with this issue.
-
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
-
As a beginner in SEO, how do I do 302 redirects/ rel="canonicals"
One of the things Inseem to leave undone is failure to do 302 redirects or rel="canonicals" on my site www.johannesburg.today. Please help .
Technical SEO | | Gain40 -
Index problems
“The website http://www.vaneyckshutters.com/nl/ does not show in the index of Google (site:vaneyckshutters.com/nl/). This must be the homepage in the Netherlands. Previously, the page www.vaneyckshutters.com was redirected to /nl/. This page is accessible now with a canonical tag to http://www.vaneyckshutters.com/nl/ in the hope to let /nl/ be indexed. When we look at the SERPS for keyword ‘shutters’, the page http://www.vaneyckshutters.com/ is shown in Google.nl on #32 and in Belgium #3. Problem & question: Why is it that /nl/ has not been indexed properly and why is it that we rank with http://www.vaneyckshutters.com on ‘shutters’ instead the/nl/ page?”
Technical SEO | | Happy-SEO1 -
Does rel="canonical" support protocol relative URL?
I need to switch a site from http to https. We gonna add 301 redirect all over the board. I also use rel="canonical" to strip some queries parameter from the index (parameter uses to identify which navigation elements were use.) rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but Google recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. So here my question, did you see any issue using relative protocol in rel="canonical"? Instead of:
Technical SEO | | EquipeWeb0 -
Why am I getting rel= canonical?
I'm getting 14 rel=canonical tags on my site. Could someone offer me an insight as to this is happening? http://cool-invent.com Thanks, Lorraine
Technical SEO | | coolinvent0 -
Multiple redirects a problem?
When product is sold out I will 301 redirect to a category page if a similar product is not available, but now our web developer has changed all the url's of the category pages so I need to redirect them all to the new category pages but that means there are some products that are first being redirected to the no longer existent category and then being redirected again to the new category page. This seems like it might me be a problem having two 301 redirects so I wanted to find out for sure if it is. Unfortunately our system for redirecting pages is archaic so it will be difficult and time consuming to go back and redo all the redirects that are going to pages that no longer exist so I wanted to get some additional opinions before I do that.
Technical SEO | | KentH0 -
Advice on strange URL problem
I'm considering doing some pro bono work for a local non-profit and upon initial review they have a number of serious issues but there is one in particular I'd like to check my thinking on. The developer who set up the site some years ago implemented a javascript redirect on their root domain so that it redirects to: http://domain.com/wordpress This is wrong for all kinds of reasons and I want to recommend eliminating this redirect and getting rid of the 'wordpress' part of the path altogether. However, the site is quite established with good PR and they would take a hit by changing the path. I'd do 301 redirects to the new URLs that would not have 'wordpress' in the path in addition to other remediation. My question - is my thinking here good? It's worth it, right? The other option is just get rid of the weird redirect and keep 'wordpress' in the path but this seems unacceptable to me. Any opinions?
Technical SEO | | friendlymachine0 -
Is the same content posted under different international TLDs a problem?
Dear all, I have a site which owns .be, .cn, .biz, .com.mx, .de, .us, .info, .net, .org and all run from the same server and have no difference in content i.e. .com.mx/our-services is the same as .com/our-services Google webmaster help created a video that said multiple international TLDs, same content 'should be ok' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ets7nHOV1Yo - however, I would like confirmation from practitioners! What is the best practice in this case? Considering none of the content is customised, should I create root level redirects to our .com, or leave as is? Thanks! Christian watch?v=Ets7nHOV1Yo
Technical SEO | | ChristianMKTG0 -
Problem with canonical url and session ids
Hi, i have a problem with the following website: http://goo.gl/EuF4E Google always indexes the site with session-id, although i use canonical url in this page. Indexed sites: http://goo.gl/RQnaD Sometimes it goes right, but sometimes wrong. Is it because we separate our session-id with ";" as separator? In the Google Webmaster Tools, i can´t choose jsessid as a parameter, so i think google does not recognize this. But if we have to change it (f.e. ? as separator) we have to spend many days in programming. Any ideas? thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | tdberlin0