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
-
Rel=canonical on landing page question
Currently we have two versions of a category page on our site (listed below) Version A: www.example.com/category • lives only in the SERPS but does not live on our site navigation • has links • user experience is not the best Version B: www.example.com/category?view=all • lives in our site navigation • has a rel=canonical to version A • very few links and doesn’t appear in the SERPS • user experience is better than version A Because the user experience of version B is better than version A I want to take out the rel=canonical in version B to version A and instead put a rel=canonical to version B in version A. If I do this will version B show up in the SERPS eventually and replace version A? If so, how long do you think this would take? Will this essentially pass page rank from version A to version B
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Tough SEO problem, Google not caching page correctly
My web site is http://www.mercimamanboutique.com/ Cached version of French version is, cache:www.mercimamanboutique.com/fr-fr/ showing incorrectly The German version: cache:www.mercimamanboutique.com/de-de/ is showing correctly. I have resubmitted site links, and asked Google re-index the web site many times. The German version always gets cached properly, but the French version never does. This is frustrating me, any idea why? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ss20160 -
Duplicate content problem
Hi there, I have a couple of related questions about the crawl report finding duplicate content: We have a number of pages that feature mostly media - just a picture or just a slideshow - with very little text. These pages are rarely viewed and they are identified as duplicate content even though the pages are indeed unique to the user. Does anyone have an opinion about whether or not we'd be better off to just remove them since we do not have the time to add enough text at this point to make them unique to the bots? The other question is we have a redirect for any 404 on our site that follows the pattern immigroup.com/news/* - the redirect merely sends the user back to immigroup.com/news. However, Moz's crawl seems to be reading this as duplicate content as well. I'm not sure why that is, but is there anything we can do about this? These pages do not exist, they just come from someone typing in the wrong url or from someone clicking on a bad link. But we want the traffic - after all the users are landing on a page that has a lot of content. Any help would be great! Thanks very much! George
Technical SEO | | canadageorge0 -
SEO Ultimate Plug in problems for SEO MOZ
Hi Newbee here! SEO ultimate seems to work ok for other url I have on this problem. http://www.pureescapism.co.uk and performing the on page grader for hair salon broadstairsI have canonicalizer on for the plug in and I have made it the rel=canonical targetIt tells me I haven't.Further down I don't get a tick also and am told : Remove all but a single canonical URL tag.Not aware I have more than one.I am also told : No More Than One Meta Description Element ( Cant see how I can do that either as I havent changed any code)Help please
Technical SEO | | Agentmorris0 -
Rel="canonical"
Hello guys, By fixing the duplicate meta description issues of my site I noticed something a bit weird.The pages are product pages and the product on each one of them is the same and the only difference is the length of the product. On each page there is a canonical tag, and the link within the tag points to the same page. www.example.com/Product/example/2001 <rel="canonical" href="www.example.com/Product/example/2001"></rel="canonical"> This happens on every other page. I read twice and I think I will do it again the post on GWT and I think that is wrong as it should point to a different url, which is www.example.com/ProductGroup/example/ which is the the page where all the product are grouped together. Cheers
Technical SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
Rel Canonical tag using Wordpress SEO plugin
Hi team I hope this is the right forum for asking this question. I have a site http://hurunuivillage.com built on Wordpress 3.5.1 using a child theme on Genesis 1.9. We're using Joost's Wordpress SEO plugin and I thought it was configured correctly but the Crawl Diagnostics report has identified an issue with the Rel Canonical tag on the sites pages. I have not edited the plugin settings so am surprised the SEOMoz Crawl has picked up a problem. Example: Page URL is http://hurunuivillage.com/ Tag Value http://hurunuivillage.com/ (exactly the same) Page Authority 39 Linking Root Domains 23 Source Code Considering the popularity of the plugin I'm surprised I have not been able to find tutorials to find what I'm doing wrong or should be doing better. Thanks in advance. Best Nic
Technical SEO | | NicDale0 -
Rel=Canonical Help
The site in question is www.example.com/example. The client has added a rel=canonical tag to this page as . In other words, instead of putting the tag on the pages that are not to be canonical and pointing them to this one, they are doing it backwards and putting the same URL as the canonical one as the page they are putting the tag on. They have done this with thousands of pages. I know this is incorrect, but my question is, until the issue is resolved, are these tags hurting them at all just being there?
Technical SEO | | rock220 -
Rel canonical question
Hi, I have an e-commerce site hosted on Volusion currently the rel canonical link for the homepage points to www.store.com/default.asp. I spoke with the Volusion support people and they told me that whether the canonical link points to store.com/default.asp or store.com does not really matter as long as there is a canonical version. I thought this sounded odd, so looked at other websites hosted on volusion and some sites canonicalize to default.asp and others .com. (volusion.com canonicalizes to .com fwiw). The question is...I have a majority of my external links going to www.store.com , and since that page has default.asp as it canonical version, am I losing link juice from those incoming links? If so, should I change the canonical link? If I do what are the potential issues/penalties? Hopefully this question makes sense and thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | IOSC0