Rel="prev" / "next"
-
Hi guys,
The tech department implemented rel="prev" and rel="next" on this website a long time ago.
We also added a canonical tag to the 'own' page.We're talking about the following situation:
However we still see a situation where a lot of paginated pages are visible in the SERP.
Is this just a case of rel="prev" and "next" being directives to Google?
And in this specific case, Google deciding to not only show the 1st page in the SERP, but still show most of the paginated pages in the SERP?Please let me know, what you think.
Regards,
Tom -
Interesting development which may be of interest to you Ernst:
Google admitted just the other day that they "haven't supported rel=next/prev for years." https://searchengineland.com/google-apologizes-for-relnext-prev-mixup-314494
"Should you remove the markup? Probably not. Google has communicated this morning in a video hangout that while it may not use rel=next/prev for search, it can still be used by other search engines and by browsers, among other reasons. So while Google may not use it for search indexing, rel=prev/next can still be useful for users. Specifically some browsers might use those annotations for things like prefetching and accessibility purposes."
-
I was looking into this today and happened across this line in Google's Search Console Help documents:
rel="next" and rel="prev" are compatible with rel="canonical" values. You can include both declarations in the same page. For example, a page can contain both of the following HTML tags:
Here's the link to the doc - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
But I wouldn't be using a canonical to somewhere else and the rel="next" directives.
-
I had never actually considered that. My thought is, no. I'd literally just leave canonicals entirely off ambiguous URLs like that. Have seen a lot of instances lately where over-zealous sculpting has led to loss of traffic. In the instance of this exact comment / reply, it's just my hunch here. I'd just remove the tag entirely. There's always risk in adding layers of unrequired complexity, even if it's not immediately obvious
-
I'm going to second what @effectdigital is outlining here. Google does what they want, and sometimes they index paginated pages on your site. If you have things setup properly and you are still seeing paginated pages when you do a site: search in Google then you likely need to strengthen your content elsewhere because Google still sees these paginated URLs as authoritative for your domain.
I have a question for you @effectdigital - Do you still self-canonical with rel= prev / next? I mean, I knew that you wouldn't want to canonical to another URL, but I hadn't really thought about the self-canonical until I read something you said above. Hadn't really thought about that one haha.
Thanks!
-
Both are directives to google. All of the "rel=" links are directives, including hreflang, alternate/mobile, AMP, prev/next
It's not really necessary to use a canonical tag in addition to any of the other "rel=" family links
A canonical tag says to Google: "I am not the real version of this page, I am non-canonical. For the canonical version of the page, please follow this canonical tag. Don't index me at all, index the canonical destination URL"
The pagination based prev/next links say to Google: "I am the main version of this page, or one of the other paginated URLs. Did you know, if you follow this link - you can find and index more pages of content if you want to"
So the problem you create by using both, is creating the following dialogue to Google:
1.) "Hey Google. Follow this link to index paginated URLs if they happen to have useful content on"
*Google goes to paginated URL
2.) "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE Google!? I am not canonical, go back where you came from #buildawall"
*Google goes backwards to non-paginated URL
3.) "Hey Google. Follow this link to index paginated URLs if they happen to have useful content on"
*Google goes to paginated URL
4.) "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE Google!? I am not canonical, go back where you came from"
*Google goes backwards to non-paginated URL
... etc.
As you can see, it's confusing to tell Google to crawl and index URLs with one tag, then tell them not to with another. All your indexation factors (canonical tags, other rel links, robots tags, HTTP header X-Robots, sitemap, robots.txt files) should tell the SAME, logical story (not different stories, which contradict each other directly)
If you point to a web page via any indexation method (rel links, sitemap links) then don't turn around and say, actually no I've changed my mind I don't want this page indexed (by 'canonicalling' that URL elsewhere). If you didn't want a page to be indexed, then don't even point to it via other indexation methods
A) If you do want those URLs to be indexed by Google:
1) Keep in mind that by using rel prev/next, Google will know they are pagination URLs and won't weight them very strongly. If however, Google decides that some paginated content is very useful - it may decide to rank such URLs
2) If you want this, remove the canonical tags and leave rel=prev/next deployment as-is
B) If you don't want those URLs to be indexed by Google:
1) This is only a directive, Google can disregard it but it will be much more effective as you won't be contradicting yourself
2) Remove the rel= prev / next stuff completely from paginated URLs. Leave the canonical tag in place and also add a Meta no-index tag to paginated URLs
Keep in mind that, just because you block Google from indexing the paginated URLs, it doesn't necessarily mean that the non-paginated URLs will rank in the same place (with the same power) as the paginated URLs (which will be, mostly lost from the rankings). You may get lucky in that area, you may not (depending upon the content similarity of both URLs, depending whether or not Google's perceived reason to rank that URL - hinged strongly on a piece of content that exists only in the paginated URL variant)
My advice? Don't be a control freak and use option (B). Instead use option (A). Free traffic is free traffic, don't turn your nose up at it
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
-
What counts as a "deeper level" in SEO?
Hi, I am trying to make our site more crawlable and get link juice to the "bottom pages" in an ecommerce site. Currently, our site has a big mega menu - and we have: Home > CAT 1
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs2010
SUBCAT 1
SUBSUBCAT 1
PRODUCT Our URL Structure looks:
www.domain.com/cat1/subcat1/subsubcat1/ and here are the links to the products but the URL's look like: www.domain.com/product.html Obviously the ideal thing would be to cut out one of the CATEGORIES. But I may be unable to do that in the short term - so I was wondering if by taking CAT1 out of the equation - e.g., just make it a static item that allows the drop down menu to work, but no page for it - Does that cut out a level? Thanks, Ben0 -
Using a 302 re-direct from http://www to https://www to secure customer data
My website sends Customers from a http://www.mysite.com/features page to a https://www.mysite.com/register page which is an account sign-up form using a 302 re-direct. Any page that collects customer data has an authenticated SSL certificate to protect any data on the site. Is this 302 the most appropriate way of doing this as the weekly crawl picks it up as being bad practise? Is there a better alternative?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ubique0 -
Is it possible to "undo" canonical tags as unique content is created?
We will soon be launching an education site that teaches people how to drive (not really the topic, but it will do). We plan on being content rich and have plans to expand into several "schools" of driving. Currently, content falls into a number of categories, for example rules of the road, shifting gears, safety, etc. We are going to group content into general categories that apply broadly, and then into "schools" where the content is meant to be consumed in a specific order. So, for example, some URLs in general categories may be: drivingschool.com/safety drivingschool.com/rules-of-the-road drivingschool.com/shifting-gears etc. Then, schools will be available for specific types of vehicles. For example, drivingschool.com/cars drivingschool.com/motorbikes etc. We will provide lessons at the school level, and in the general categories. This is where it gets tricky. If people are looking for general content, then we want them to find pages in the general categories (for example, drivingschool.com/rules-of-the-road/traffic-signs). However, we have very similar content within each of the schools (for example, drivingschool.com/motorbikes/rules-of-the-road/traffic-signs). As you could imagine, sometimes the content is very unique between the various schools and the general category (such as in shifting), but often it is very similar or even nearly duplicate (as in the example above). The problem is that in the schools we want to say at the end of the lesson, "after this lesson, take the next lesson about speed limits for motorcycles" so there is a very logical click-path through the school. Unfortunately this creates potential duplicate content issues. The best solution I've come up with is to include a canonical tag (pointing to the general version of the page) whenever there is content that is virtually identical. There will be cases though where we adjust the content "down the road" 🙂 to be more unique and more specific for the school. At that time we'd want to remove the canonical tag. So two questions: Does anyone have any better ideas of how to handle this duplicate content? If we implement canonical tags now, and in 6 months update content to be more school-specific, will "undoing" the canonical tag (and even adding a self-referential tag) work for SEO? I really hope someone has some insight into this! Many thanks (in advance).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JessicaB0 -
REL prev/next on pages with additional sort parameters
We need a bit of advice on a site we are working on. Currently, the site displays items in the categories in order of date and all of the pages of the category listing are rel prev/next tagged correctly. This is great, and works really well - however we want to include some more sorting options (by popularity, name, file size... etc) into the mix. What's the best way to go about this using the correct tags? Is it better to NOINDEX all of the sorting options and just leave the default by date listings indexed? Also, we cannot canonical the sorted options to their counterparts because the page content would be different. Any ideas? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640 -
End of March we migrated our site over to HubSpot. We went from page 3 on Google to non existent. Still found on page 2 of Yahoo and Bing. Beyond frustrated...HELP PLEASE "www.vortexpartswashers.com"
End of March we migrated our site over to HubSpot. We went from page 3 on Google to non existent. Still found on page 2 of Yahoo and Bing under same keywords " parts washers" Beyond frustrated...HELP PLEASE "www.vortexpartswashers.com"
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mhart0 -
Tumblr the next Squidoo?
What does SEO Moz think of all this SEO abuse that is happening on tumblr lately? I mean, it doesn't take much time to look around tumbler and realize pretty much every page looks like this: http://staff.tumblr.com/post/454906416/blackberry-app Below the post check out the "reblogged". With the correct settings in your tumblr profile, all you gotta do is click reblog on a couple tumblr pages and you get instant backlinks to your website from tumblr pages. Some examples from this page: aticards reblogged this from staff mymuffincorner reblogged this from staff contextual-links reblogged this from staff It's actually a followed link if you reblog. if you just 'like' you end up with a nofollowed link. Questions: Why is tumblr so blind to allow this to happen Surely google must be aware of this and devaluing links that come from tumblr posts? Thoughts? edit: 50 views and no responses. maybe my question isnt clear enough?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adriandg0 -
How are pages ranked when using Google's "site:" operator?
Hi, If you perform a Google search like site:seomoz.org, how are the pages displayed sorted/ranked? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | anthematic0 -
Shall I fix "most Common Errors" for a website that ranked top 3 on Google (difficult KW)?
How can SEOmoz "most Common Errors*" under "Crawl Diagnostics" advice can be right for a good site organic? Site is well ranked top 3 on Google (difficult KW). If I go ahead and fix these errors, I might hurt my SEO , no? like: Too Many On-Page Links 302 (Temporary Redirect) Title Element Too Long (> 70 Characters) Missing Meta Description Tag
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Elchanan0