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
-
Should 'View All' filters on ecommerce sites be indexable?
Hi, I’m looking at a site at the moment that has a lot of products. For some of their category pages they have a ‘View All’ feature available. The URL uses this structure: domain.com/category/sub-category/product domain.com/category/sub-category/view-all < currently noindex applied Should the view all page be available for indexing? The individual sub-categories and products are indexable My immediate reaction is no, so long as the individual sub-cats are?
Technical SEO | | daniel-brooks0 -
PWA for Desktop Site (Ecommerce)
Hi Folks, Need guidance about using PWA on desktop site. As I know PWA is basically used for mobile site to engage visitor more and let them surf your site like an app. Would it be good SEO practice to use PWA on desktop site(E-commerce site) by calling everything through Javascript and let google Crawler cache only site logo and Hide everything else?
Technical SEO | | Rajesh.Prajapati1 -
Another Duplicate Content - eCommerce Question!
We are manufacturers of about 15 products and our website provides information about the products. We also offer them for sale on the site. Recently we partnered with a large eCommerce site that sells many of these types of products. They lifted descriptions from our site for theirs and are now selling our products. They have higher DA than us. Will this cause a ranking problem for us? Should we write unique descriptions for them? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Chris6610 -
Doctype language declaration problem
Hello,
Technical SEO | | Silviu
I have a problem with an SEM Rush warning on a website audit, for www.enjoyprepaid.com. It tells me "5852 pages are lacking language declaration", but I don't understand what it means and how to actually fix this problem. Also I run a W3 validator and have a doctype and language problem but again don't understand what they mean and how to fix them https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enjoyprepaid.com%2FAfghanistan-calling-cards-2.html0 -
Problem www/non-www domain rewrite
Hello, I've made a site for a client about 1 year ago. The rankings are quite okay, but the home page suffers from a penalty I think. I found out via OSE that PageAuthority strangely is higher on the 301-ed page www.myanmar-rundreisen.de - PA 32
Technical SEO | | hgw57
myanmar-rundreisen.de/ - PA 33 I don't understand what is happening here as I am using the usual htaccess 301-redirect: Rewrite domain.com -> www.domain.com RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} .
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.myanmar-rundreisen.de [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/$1 [L,R=301] which is working fine with other domains ... I tried also (last line) RewriteRule (.*) http://www.myanmar-rundreisen.de/$1 [L,R=301] So thanks to anyone who can share an idea on that ... Guenter K04xy.jpg0 -
Does it make sense to use rel=author on every page?
If you assume that rel=author increases click through rate in SERPs, would it be a good or bad idea to implement it on every page on your site?
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs0 -
Code problem and the impact on links
We have a specific URL naming convention for 'city landing pages': .com/Burbank-CA .com/Boston-MA etc. We use this naming convention almost exclisively as the URLs for links. Our website had a code breakdown and all those URLs within that naming convention led to an error message on the website. Will this impact our links?
Technical SEO | | Storitz0 -
Product ratings causing 302 redirect problem
I am working on an ecommerce site and my crawl report came back with 7000+ 302 redirects and maxed out at 10,000 pages because of all the redirects. The site really only has maybe 1500 pages (dynamic content aside). After looking into it a little more I see it is because of the product rating system. They have a star rating system that kinda looks like amazons. The only problem is that each star is a link to a dynamic address that records the vote and then 302's back to the original page the vote was cast from. So virtually every page on this site links out anywhere from 15 to 45 times and 302's back to itself, losing virtually all of its PR. Am I correct in that assumption or am I missing something? I don't see the links being blocked by robots.txt or noindex, nofollowed. Also it is an anonymous rating system where a rating can be cast from any category page displaying a product or any product page. To make matters worse every page links to a printable version which duplicates the issue by repeating the whole thing over again. So assuming I am correct that is site has a major PR leak on virtually every page, what is the best recommendation to fix this. 1. Block all of those links in robots.txt, 2. no index, nofollow these links or 3. put the rating system behind a submit button or disallow anon ratings 4. something else??? Looking at their product ratings on the site virtually everything is between 2-3 starts out of 5 and has about the same number of votes except less votes on deeper pages. I dont believe this is real at all since this site gets almost no traffic and maybe 1 sale a week, there is no way that any product has been rated 50 times. I think the crawler is voting as it crawls and doing it 5 times for every product which is why everything is rated 2.5 out of 5. This is an x-cart site in case anyone cares. Any suggestions?
Technical SEO | | BlinkWeb0