Ecommerce site product reviews, canonicals – which option to choose?
-
Recently, I discovered that only the first 4 reviews on our product pages are crawled and indexed. Example: http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/253432 I'm assuming it's due to the canonical that's on the product page http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/253432" />.
When you click on page 2 of the reviews, the url does not change, but the next batch of reviews appears on the product page. Same with page 3, etc… The problem is the additional pages are not being crawled and indexed.
We have to have the canonical on the product page because our platform creates multiple urls for each product page by including each category where the product resides, related link parameters, etc in the product url (example: http://www.improvementscatalog.com/eucalyptus-deep-seat-furniture-group/patio-furniture/outdoor-furniture/253432) – trust me, it gets ugly!
I've researched other Moz answers and I've found that there appears to be a couple of ways to fix the issue. Any ideas/help/guidance/examples on the below options is greatly appreciated!!!!
- Show only 4 reviews on the first page and place the remaining reviews on a new page by themselves (similar to how Amazon does it). However, I would rather keep all of the reviews on the product page if possible.
- Add page 2, page 3, etc parameters to the url to display the remaining reviews and adding rel=prev/next. If we chose option 2, would each product page have a different canonical? If so, would it create a duplicate content issue since the above-the-fold content, title tag and meta descriptions would all be the same? Also, would you include each additional page in the sitemap?
- We had a similar issue with our category pages and we implemented the "viewall" in the canonical. Would that work for our reviews?
Thanks in advance for your help!
-
Hey Cyndee,
Your issue has to do with how this is coded. Let me explain.
Here's what your paginated numbers at the bottom look like in the code:
<a title="2" data-bvcfg="3520493" name="BV_TrackingTag_Review_Display_PageNumber_2" data-bvjsref="http://improvements.ugc.bazaarvoice.com/0048-en_us/414441/reviews.djs?format=embeddedhtml&page=2&scrollToTop=true" <strong="">href="javascript://">2</a>
Notice that the "href" parameter of the anchor tag has no direct URL and because of that Google doesn't crawl to the next page in the series because there's no actual link. What would be ideal is if you had the actual URL to the second page so that it is accessible to Google as the href tag. Granted, Google will likely come back to these pages with the more feature-rich crawler and be able to access the content, but that could potentially take a long time or in fact never happen. I believe this is a function of how BazaarVoice operates, although I haven't had enough experience with it to know. A view-all page would help you get around the problem, but again, I'm not sure how that works with regard to BazaarVoice.
You can also use rel-prev and rel-next to connect the pages, but that directive often has spotty results.
-Mike
-
I was making that suggestion.
You can add an additional page for the reviews, but it might be hard to do correctly with your platform. I would look into going that route as well. A lot of times it comes down to how flexible the platform you are using is as to what you can do.
-
Thanks for the response! I see your point w/ the watering down of the content...
Are you saying to add them to one of our tabs? I'm not sure how feasible that is because, from what I understand, our platform can only house a limited number of tabs and we currently use them all. Another issue is that we have one platform for multiple brands/sites and we all have to use the same configuration with regards to reviews.
Would you recommend keeping all of the reviews on the same page or adding an additional page (ie Amazon) for the multiple reviews?
Thanks again helping me with this.
-
I personally would recommend redoing your review area if I was making a recommendation to a client. I cannot see a good reason why they should not be located here, http://screencast.com/t/s4HDE6GZJ0Cu Also I would shrink them down so you can fit more reviews in the same space too. Here is a quick mock up of what I mean, http://screencast.com/t/omzjxmvZ That way you could add more reviews in the same amount of space.
There are two things that are important to consider about your reviews though. If you are using them for SEO value, having them as low on the page as you have them shows that the value of them is not important. The other is the more reviews you have on the page the more watered down your content will be. They could even get to the point where they use keywords that are so different that your pages target different keywords as well.
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
-
URLs too long, but run an eCommerce site
Hi, When I started out I was pretty green to SEO, and didn't consider the usability/SEO impact of URL structure. Flash forward, I'm 5 years deep into using the following: mysite.com/downloads/category/premium-downloads/sub-category/ ("category" is quite literally one rung on the link - thanks, WordPress - however "sub-category" is a placeholder) I run a digital downloads store, and I now have 100s ofinternal links beholden to this hideous category linking structure. Not to mention external links at Google Ads, etc. I would LOVE to change this, but if I were to do so, what should I consider? For instance, is there a checklist for making a change like this? I was thinking of changing it to something like the following: mysite.com/shop/c/premium/sub-category/ And also, how much damage, if any, would this be doing to my SEO? Thanks in advance,
Technical SEO | | LouCommaTheCreator
Lou1 -
Product Listings - is it worth indexing the whole product catalogue?
I'm working on a site that has around 500 product listings. This is for a rental company without any sort of ecommerce platform, so, there's no prices, no adding a product to a cart, etc. Also, there are no different sizing / color options for each product, so each product is the canonical version. After some restructuring, we're starting to see a lot of 404s and just some general mess. I have a couple of thoughts. My first is to just noindex each product. We hardly get any direct traffic to an individual product page, and if they land anywhere related to products, it's usually a category page. If I noindex the products, I don't have to worry about the 404s. My second is to implement the rel=canonical tag on each product to correspond to its primary category. While this is sort of liberal use of the canonical tag, I'm thinking that it could help drive more organic traffic to the category pages. Does anyone have any insight or thoughts on this? Thank you very much!
Technical SEO | | Savage-Solutions0 -
Choosing Focus Keywords
Hello everyone! I am new to the community and I have a question about determining keywords. I have created a blog {LulusLikes.com} to practice my SEO. I have installed the Yoast SEO plugin and I have noticed the plugin always encourages you to choose a different focus keyword. So if my focus keyword is "Dog of the Week" and it's a weekly contest, wouldn't that be my focus keyword each time I had that type of post? How should I choose my focus keyword for that type of post? I hope that makes sense. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lulus_Likes0 -
Duplicate Content - Products
When running a report it says we have lots of duplicate content. We are a e-commerce site that has about 45,000 sku's on the site. Products can be in multiple departments on the site. So the same products can show up on different pages of the site. Because of this the reports show multiple products with duplicate content. Is this an issue with google and site ranking? Is there a way to get around this issue?
Technical SEO | | shoedog1 -
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 -
Technical question about site structure using a CMS, redirects, and canonical tag
I have a couple of sites using a particular CMS that creates all of the pages under a content folder, including the home page. So the url is www.example.com/content/default.asp. There is a default.asp in the root directory that redirects to the default page in the content folder using a response.redirect statement and it’s considered a 302 redirect. So all incoming urls, i.e. www.example.com and example.com and www.example.com/ will go to the default.asp which then redirects to www.example.com/ content/default.asp. How does this affect SEO? Should the redirect be a 301? And whether it’s a 301 or a 302, can we have a rel=canonical tag on the page that that is rel=www.example.com? Or does that create some sort of loop? I’ve inherited several sites that use this CMS and need to figure out the best way to handle it.
Technical SEO | | CHutchins1 -
Rel=canonical issue
Re. http://www.appetise.com. We have been alerted that we are "not making appropriate use of the rel=canonical tag". Please could someone just clarify this for us and let us know the recommended remedial action we need to take to rectify the issue? Many Thanks, RB
Technical SEO | | E-resistible0 -
Which is more accurate? site: or GWT?
when viewing urls in google's index, is it more accurate to refer to site:www.domain.com or google webmaster tools (urls in web index)?
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0