Categories: Crawling, indexing & ranking :

Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results?

Showing 1-61 of 61 messages
Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Maile Ohye 9/15/11 5:07 AM
We just published a few pagination blog posts!

View-all in search results: 

Pagination with rel="next" and rel="prev":

Please let us know if we can provide clarification. :)

Thanks!
Maile
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Emanuele 9/15/11 5:56 AM
Is it useful to use rel next/prev into the footer links of a blog (after the posts) where is displayed "Next/previous page"? Or is better to use it only when an article is subdivide into multiple pages?
Thanks.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? milkiwayV12 9/15/11 7:17 AM
What about rel canonical ? Do we still have to implement a canonical on paginated pages ?
Wich page to choose canonical ?
Thanks
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? anthonydnelson 9/15/11 7:20 AM
Question about next/previous: What do you do when there are links to multiple pages?
Example: You are on page three, but there are links on the bottom to go to page 1, 2 as well as 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Do you use rel="previous" for the link to page 2 and rel="next" for 4, leaving the other pages w/out rel?
Or do you add it to all previous pages and all next pages?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? poooook 9/15/11 7:29 AM
@anthonydnelson you set it in the head, not on the a tag.. so you would put prev with a link to page 2 and a next with a link to page 4 to indicate it is part of a series.

I wonder if more than one next is supported though? I guess this is not technically paginated content, but say you had a series of pages and users could pick a different step and it branches to a different page depending on what they picked, could you do:

page1
- has relnext - page2 AND
- has relnext - page3

page2
- has relprev - page1
- has relnext - page4

page3
- has relprev - page1
- has relnext - page5

Would that be possible or is this only explicitly a one-to-one mapping as it were?

Thanks,

John
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? anthonydnelson 9/15/11 7:43 AM
@poooook Thanks John. I thought it was added to the link itself, but am glad you pointed out it goes in the head. I'm going to assume you just set the previous/next to the immediate pages before/after.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Stecki 9/15/11 8:32 AM
I *really* think it is plain wrong, making canonical and next/prev mutually exclusive.

The semantic meaning of canonical ist *not* view-all.

There could be scenarios like this, where there are

page/all
page/1
page/2

and duplicates like

otherpath/same-page-all -> canonical page/all
otherpath/same-page-1 -> canonical page/1
otherpath/same-page-2 -> canonical page/2

It would be wiser to introduce a correct semantic link relation for view-all, that works together with next/prev *and* canonical.

See https://plus.google.com/102951224065923126631/posts/MnDPFVrBkub (german)
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? kees-van-dieren 9/15/11 8:44 AM
Does Google crawler also look for the rel attribute with prev / next on anchor tags?  That would make sense as well.

For example: at the pagination of the forum category, e.g. here: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/label?lid=41234c84d9491af8&hl=en&start=20 on the Pagination block at the bottom the 'Previous' and 'Next' links could have a rel="prev" and rel="next" attribute.

Does Google use these rel attributes as well?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? cswere 9/15/11 8:45 AM
When sequential pages exist, is not a recommended best practice to not change the url? For example, on our site, one of the categories has about 26 pages of products. We do use "prev" and "next" links, but through coding the url does not change, new products are loaded. I'm thinking this may not be the best practice as this will make it difficult for SE Spider to index all of our products. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Chris
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Rob Fico 9/15/11 10:35 AM
Does using rel=next/prev make sense for an ecommerce catalog where there are pages of products for a specific brand/category? Would it enhance the online store?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? BrodyDodes 9/15/11 11:25 AM
Does rel=next/prev also work as a signal for only one page of the series (page 1 in most cases?) to be included in the search index? Or would noindex tags need to be present on page 2 and on?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? TheDonald 9/15/11 12:56 PM
Great series of articles. Pagination is an issue which extremely difficult to deal with. Thank You Webmaster Team for attempting to clarify.

A question which is often asked but not touched on in these latest articles:

What is the best practice regarding using rel=noindex, follow on page 2,3 of category product listing pages?

Before Panda I was not using noindex,follow because I figured if page 2 is in Google's index then the items on page 2 are more likely to be in Google's index. After Panda and the emphasis on "thin content", well page 2 has no unique content only a list of links with a short excerpt from each item which can be found on each items page so it's not unique content, maybe that would contribute to a Panda penalty. Now I use noindex, follow.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Tiggerito2 9/15/11 5:03 PM
Love this new feature. I was at the SMX East session when it was announced :-)

I do have one potential issue. I and maybe some other people already use the rel attribute to indicate a series of articles and the order that they relate. Not a single article split into pages but several articled that lead into the next in a logical order.

For those I don't want this Google feature to take effect as I want to keep the articles separate in the eyes of Google.

I will turn it of for my website, but there maybe many other websites out there that will suddenly get their pages consolidated when it's not in its best interest.

Cheers
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Gustavo 9/15/11 5:48 PM
Hi Maile,
I have a site with the standard paging mechanism for views, which exposes list of content of different ways depending on user selection and sorting, that, some of them are already indexed by Google as ?page=n.
I've the possibility of implement "infinite" pagers, as Facebook or Twitter uses, with 2 options, one with the "more" at the end, and the other just triggers by he end of page detection. Do you consider this could be better? And, if affirmative, what would happen with my ?page=n already indexed? They will start to give "not found" for the crawler,and may be this will impact in a negative way, no matter of this could be an improvement.
thanks for your support
gustavo
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Gustavo 9/15/11 5:51 PM
Sorry, I omitted to say that this control uses AJAX for scrolling, so the URL remains unchanged.
thanks
Gustavo
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Grandmaster Flash 9/15/11 10:26 PM
Maile Ohye Thanks!  I knew something was up your sleeve when you got upset with the REI guy at SMX Advanced.

Gustavo - if you're serving AJAX exclusively you'll likely run into indexing issues, may want to serve an html version of the page for users with javascript turned off.  

TheDonald - I feel your pain.  But I also think it was a knee jerk reaction to Panda to assume paginated pages were "thin" content.  The sites that I see hammered by Panda typically have bigger issues, notably lack of return visits and other very poor user metrics (of course nasty duplicate content as well)

milkiwayV12 each page gets its own canonical to itself

Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Gustavo 9/16/11 5:31 AM
thanks!
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? iberoAmericaMedia 9/16/11 9:58 AM
What happens to websites, where we have many articles, and at the bottom of each article, there is a prev/next link that takes the user to the previous or next ARTICLE, not a part of a series?

How will these be affected by your new practice?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? jerenel 9/16/11 10:45 AM
Is it advisable to remove "noindex, follow" on paginated product pages and instead add rel="next" and rel="prev"?  Or should I keep the "noindex, follow" and add these in addition?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Grandmaster Flash 9/16/11 12:28 PM
jerenel - I can't answer as a Googler but I strongly suspect that they would say that if you introduce this new markup you should remove the noindex.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? SEO Alien 9/18/11 11:29 PM
Hi Maile Ohye,

This is another question. Since I am using rel="next" and rel="prev", should I need to write unique meta title and description for internal pages. Or will Google manage it itself? Looking for your feedback.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? SEO Alien 9/18/11 11:30 PM
Hi Maile Ohye,

I think people at Google have made a typo here:

http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4

On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the <head> section:
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2/> "

Check - <link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2/> - here the URL misses the ending quote ("") and there is no space after the end of the URL.

What you say?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Maile Ohye 9/19/11 4:38 AM
@everyone: Thanks for your questions! I'll soon post again with many of the responses.

@debdulalday: Good catch! Really appreciate it.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? matthew_mok 9/19/11 6:29 PM
Hi, Maile, thanks for posting this
What about the "sort by" pages, e.g.  http://www.example.com/article?sort-by-price=up      
                                                        http://www.example.com/article?sort-by-quantity=up
Thanks
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Maile Ohye 9/20/11 8:43 AM
Hello webmasters, thanks for your great questions!

@Emanuele, @anthonydnelson, @kees-van-dieren: @poooook is correct that for Google indexing of paginated content, rel="next" and rel="prev" declarations belong in the <head> section, not in the <body> as anchor links. As an example, the second page of a series may show this:

<head>
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3" />
<title>My article, page 2</title>
</head>

rel="next" and rel="prev" values specified in the <body> section will be ignored with regard to pagination.

@milkiwayV12: Because we consider rel="next" and rel="prev" as an independent concept from rel="canonical", you can still include a rel="canonical" value on your pages (or you can also choose to omit it). For example, for the URL:
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2

I might include:
<head>
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3" />
<title>My article, page 2</title>
</head>

If the above URL also existed with a session ID:
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123
because it’s a duplicate, I could include rel="canonical" to the URL without the session ID, as well as rel="next" and rel="prev" values that include the session ID:

<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2” />
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1&sessionid=123" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3&sessionid=123" />
<title>My article, page 2</title>
</head>

@poooook/John: We recommend no more than one value for rel="next" and no more than one value for rel="prev". The meaning of next/prev is “the *immediately* following/preceding page.” Therefore, page 2 should not mark all pages 3, 4, 5, etc., as "next" pages, but only page 3.

@Stecki: rel="canonical" and rel="next"/"prev" aren't mutually exclusive, they're independent concepts.

With our rel="next" and rel="prev" pagination announcement, paginated component URLs (pages that are part of a series) can either:
1. Include rel="next" and rel="prev" values in the <head> of their page
2. Not include rel="next" and rel="prev" values in the <head> of their page

Separate from this announcement, each of these component URLs can still:
1. Not specify a canonical value
2. Specify the canonical value as the view-all page
3. Specify the canonical value as a similar URL, but say, one without extraneous parameters such as session ID

@cswere: It's fine if your paginated content works like Google Image Search results where pagination doesn't create a new URL (so there's no way you can add rel="next"/"prev"), but instead dynamically loads content. However, you may want to make sure that Googlebot and users without JavaScript can still easily discover your content.

@Rob Fico: Yes, you can specify rel="next" and rel="prev" values on individual components/URLs of a brand or category on an e-commerce site.

@BrodyDodes: When you implement rel="next" and rel="prev" on component pages of a series, we'll then consolidate the indexing properties from the component pages and attempt to direct  users to the most relevant page/URL. This is typically the first page. There's no need to mark page 2 to n of the series as noindex unless you're sure that you don't want those pages to appear in search results.

@TheDonald, @jerenel: If you've marked page 2 to n of your paginated series as "noindex, follow" to keep low quality content from affecting users and/or your site's rankings, that's fine, you can additionally include rel="next" and rel="prev." Noindex and rel="next"/"prev" are entirely independent annotations.

This means that if you add rel="next" and rel="prev" to noindex'd pages, it still signals to Google that the noindex'd pages are components of the series (though the noindex'd pages will not be returned in search results). This configuration is totally possible (and we'll honor it), but the benefit is mostly theoretical.

If you believe the user experience on page 2 to n provides little value -- so much so that you've already marked these pages as noindex -- then to ensure that these low-quality pages aren't returned to users and/or considered in ranking updates such as Panda, even if you choose to add rel="next" and rel="prev," you may want to consider keeping the noindex (or "noindex, follow").

@iberoAmericaMedia, @TiggerFish: Is your site’s existing use of rel="next" and rel="prev" located within the <body> section of the page? For the feature described in our blog post, Google indexing looks at rel="next" and rel="prev" within the <head> section. So you don't need to remove your existing rel="next" and rel="prev" tags if they’re found in the <body> -- those will continue to be treated the same way as prior to our rel="next" and rel="prev" pagination announcement on September 15, 2011, and we will not consolidate their indexing properties.

For rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup that isn’t intended to work with Google indexing, we’ll develop more heuristics over time to understand which attributions to trust.

@thericker: Ah yes, SMX Advanced... Thanks for following our updates!

@debdulaldey: It's always best to have a unique title and meta description for each page. Ideally, the title and description are descriptive of the page's content. For example:

http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
<title>rel="next" and rel="prev": Background on pagination</title>

http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
<title>rel="next" and rel="prev": Sample cases</title>

http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
<title>rel="next" and rel="prev": FAQs</title>

If that descriptive a title isn't possible, you could also have something like:

http://www.example.com/product?category=abc&page=1
<title>Google t-shirts</title>

http://www.example.com/product?category=abc&page=2
<title>Google t-shirts, page 2</title>
or
<title>Google t-shirts (items 10-20)</title>

Take care,
Maile
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Maile Ohye 9/20/11 12:01 PM
@matthew_mok: First, I'd like to mention that if URLs on your site contain parameters, it's always great to help Googlebot more efficiently crawl your site by using Webmaster Tools URL parameters feature. When it comes to indexing, with paginated content (whether or not the URLs also contain sort parameters), you can include values for rel="next" and rel="prev" and we'll consolidate the indexing properties.

Thanks for asking!
Maile
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? iberomedia 9/20/11 3:00 PM
@Maile yes, you are right. The rel="next" and rel="prev" is within the body, and not inside of <head> element. Thank you,
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? kb0000 9/20/11 9:43 PM
It seems to be useful, but one thing which is not yet clear is how helpful and in what way it will be helpful for a website. Will it be used for showing Pagination Links in Google search results?

When I first read the first few part of this article: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html, I thought that we have to specify it in URLs. Then a thought came, how to implement it when we have buttons instead of links for Next and Previous. On further reading this article, I learnt that we need to specify this in head section.

So, when putting these inside the <head> section, I need to process my results before outputting any thing. In many websites what we see is that we first output the head, then body and then process the page logic. So, in such cases outputting rel="next" and rel="prev" would be difficult to achieve as execution structure of website needs to be changed.

@Maile Is there a way so that I can specify them in <body> and Google can recognise it. Also, when I am using buttons for Next and Previous using POST and not GET (because I am passing many other variables too), then my page URL remains the same for all pages. What should I do in such a case.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? abrahamcovelo 9/21/11 12:26 AM
Following the question of @kees-van-dieren
Are you planning to extend this feature to the rel, rev attributes in anchor tags? This follows standards as well
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Emanuele 9/21/11 3:27 AM
@Maile Ohye: so, should I use the rel next/prev into the <head> section of a blog even if the two contents are not strictly correlated (but they are just time-sequential)?
Thanks,
Emanuele
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Sorano 9/21/11 5:10 AM
Is it useful to add the rel attribute in the body ? Ex : <a rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3">Next page</a>.

It's kind of the same issues of kb0000 so and I think it could be more relevant to do it like that.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? kgraves 9/21/11 7:09 AM
Hey Maile!

I've had a few days to digest the information presented in both of the articles.

In the article "View-all in search results" it says that Google recommends against using canonical tags on the component pages as they don’t actually contain duplicate content.

To me, If I had an e-commerce category page for shoes which had 4-5 paragraphs of good content on it, which is displayed on pages 2 to n(to me this improves the user experience), this seems like it would be duplicate content between the paginated pages.  Thus I would think having a canonical tag pointing to the first series of the pages makes the most sense.  However, is this specifically also what the next and prev link tags understand when it does come to situations where there is both pagination and duplicate content?  How should these be handled.

Thanks!
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Spyderweb 9/21/11 12:17 PM
Okay I am little confused....We operate a real estate rental website. Our files display results based on numerous parameters that affect the order and the specific results that display. Examples of such parameters are “page number”, “records per page”, “sorting” and “area selection”. Results on page 2 when “records per page” is 15 and “sorting” is lease term is very different from the results on page 2 results when “records per page” is 25 and “sorting” is by price. The varying parameters create exponential URLS for google to index, many of which are showing similar data in different order. We have set “one representative URL” in WMT for any parameters that do not change page content; however, we believe that the best user experience is to start on page 1 with all parameters removed and allow the user to select any parameters they want. This page 1 with all parameters removed is really our “View All” page. Unfortunately, to keep page load time low, we need to set our “view all” page to be a series of numbered pages in areas where we have many rental results. In addition, using the “rel=prev” and rel=next” parameters only resolve this issue for page numbering, not for the variations that come from selected parameters.


OUR QUESTION: Should we use canonical header to tell google to index the main URL which “shows all” data, but in serious of page #s and consequently may require the user to navigate to subsequent pages OR should we not set a canonical header and let google process the exponentially numerous variations of the same URL and try to show the best results. (we believe that directing users to page 1 of the “view all” sequence is the best users experience, but we want to comply with google best practices)

http://www.example.com/california/moutainview.aspx?page=2&rec_per_page=15&areaids=10772,10804,10780,10791,10794,10824&results=all

(clean URL) http://www.example.com/california/moutainview.aspx
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? kb0000 9/21/11 9:01 PM
I do have similar issues of records per page, sorting etc. and that too using a button (not a link). What I think is that you can simply give rel="next" and rel="prev" parameters, because all the results are basically of same result set (but with a different ordering).
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Deniss Fedotovs 9/22/11 4:21 PM
I just wanted to mention, that rel="next" and rel="prev" is not something invented by Google, it existed long time ago.

Check this W3C recommendation for HTML 4.01 specification here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.1.2

It's also in HTML5 (there are also rel="first", rel="up" and rel="last"):
http://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-link-relations#rel-first

BTW it's not only for SEO purposes but, what's more important, for accessibility (there is also rel="home"):
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_9_providing_additional_navigation_aids.html
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? wotaewer 9/25/11 5:39 AM
Does the pagination with rel="next/prev" also apply to search results, for example when showing the user a list of hotels that make up several pages?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? cristina 9/25/11 7:27 AM
Hi Maile, this is excellent news.
Is this feature already appearing in search results, can you give some examples?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? katty22 9/26/11 1:23 AM
Hi, Maile. Thank you for useful information about next/previous tag.
Another question. If URL doesn't contain parameter and not possible to control in Google webmaster Tool, which is the best practice?

 A http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=1/
 B http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=down/page=1/
 C http://www.example.com/story=abc/quantity=up/page=1/
 D http://www.example.com/story=abc/quantity=down/page=1/

 ->Main URL is "A". "B"to"D" are not necessarily need to be appeared in search result.

Choice
 1. Put next/previous tag in all pages, and put canonical tag in just 1st page of "A" to "D".
    Canonical URL is "http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=1/".

 2. Put next/previous tag in all pages, and put canonical tag in "A" to "D" from 1st page to n.
    Canonical URL of 1st page is "http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=1/".
    Canonical URL of 2nd page is "http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=2/".

 3. Put next/previous tag in all pages, and put canonical tag only in "A".
    Canonical URL is "http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=1/".
    Put "noindex,follow" in "B","C","D" from 1st page to n.
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? jestrik 9/28/11 9:26 AM
I have a question posted on stackoverflow.com (see below) relating to this subject and whether it's a valid alternative to output a "Link" HTTP header in the response instead of using a tag in the . Can you please help? Thank you! http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7586361/seo-of-pagination-using-rel-next-rel-prev
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Jarrod1937 9/29/11 6:06 AM
What is the point of requiring it to be in the <head>? Couldn't you parse this just as well in the body with an associated anchor tag? Putting it in the header causes even more code bloat, as well as the fact that pagination in code is often not generated until further in the code flow, after the <head> section has been generated. Now, it is always possible to buffer the head section until the pagination is generated, then alter the head section with the appropriate url's.. but that makes for worse performance. For performance sake we have a very little processing going on to produce the head section, then we flush it to the browser early and continue generating the rest of the page (and flushing periodically there as well). So, i'm sorry to say, that while i want to add these tags, your method is not flexible enough to allow me to do so, as i will not worsen performance for the users to add these tags.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? competitions 9/29/11 6:05 PM
Hello Maile, I'm in the process of finalising the implementation and have one question.
I have a forum and the first page might be like:
example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400
and the second page
example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400&page=2
Is it ok on the 2nd page to use
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400page=3" />
or do I have to define the page number for the first page like
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400page=3" />
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Maarten Klanderman 10/1/11 5:21 AM
Isn't there a small error in the second picture on the page?

I read there a page with the name "page-all.html" and the rel="canonical" is referring to "view-all.html".

The text is clear though. But I thought you might like to change the picture.

Thanks for the helpful article!

Maarten
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Tiggerito2 10/2/11 11:35 PM
@Maile In my case the next/prev links were in the head section so would have probably been picked up by the pagination feature. They are gone now.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Deniss Fedotovs 10/3/11 5:50 PM
@competitions: Of course it is ok. You have unique URLs for each page and it doesn't really maters if it's in form example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400&page=2 or example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400&page=previous or example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400 or example.com/dont_go_here as long as you are pointing to the previous/next page by using rel="prev"/rel="next" in the html head section. And I think it makes sense to go to Google Webmaster Tools and double check under URLs parameters how google handles "page" parameter when indexing your URLs.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Tiggerito2 10/12/11 9:08 PM
My concerns are a reality, and maybe on a big scale.

WordPress seems to add the rel prev/next links to articles by default, indicating the order the articles got added.

This could potentially cause all the separate articles to get merged together as if they were one.

I have one client who recently saw a big drop in traffic from Google. I wonder if it is because of those tags being there. I will be removing them and seeing what happens.

One way to stop WordPress doing this is to add the following line to the functions.php file

remove_action( 'wp_head', 'adjacent_posts_rel_link_wp_head', 10, 0 );
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Maile Ohye 10/18/11 9:29 PM
Thanks for even more questions!

@everyone: rel=”next” and rel=”prev” can be still used when there are a large number of component pages in the series. It’s unnecessary to fear that “this article is too large” or “this category is too large” for rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. If anything, more content with accurate markup means more helpful signals to properly index your information. And proper indexing means we’ll likely return more relevant results to users and more targeted traffic to your site.

@kb0000: If your paginated content remains on the same URL, you won’t need to use rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. However, if you’re using AJAX, you might want to get an idea of whether search engines can crawl and index your content displayed through JavaScript. Perhaps check the cached version of a page in search results or turn off JavaScript and CSS and see what content remains. Playing it safe, you can assume that the remaining content is what most less-capable browsers and bots will also be able to understand.

@kb0000, @abrahamcovelo, @Jarrod1937: With regard to extending this feature within the <body> section of a page, we completely understand your request, however, we’re concerned that links in the <body> section make it possible for spammers to find less secure user-generated content (UGC) sites and then inject irrelevant links totally unbeknownst to the webmaster.

@Jarrod1937: Thanks for your feedback. It’s probably helpful to think of prioritizing pagination markup relative to the other improvements you might make on your site (e.g., performance, adding more content, or creating unique titles from duplicates). There are costs and tradeoffs with most features, but you seem in a great position to understand your users’ needs.

@Emanuele: In regard to using rel=”next” and rel=”prev” for entries in your blog that “are not strictly correlated (but they are just time-sequential),” pagination markup likely isn’t the best use of your time -- time-sequential pages aren’t nearly as helpful to our indexing process as semantically related content, such as pagination on component pages in an article or category. It’s fine if you include the markup on your time-sequential pages, but please note that it’s not the most helpful use case.

@kgraves: In the case of an e-commerce site with paginated content that also has some duplicate text within each component page, rel=”next” and rel=”prev” would still be the better choice over rel=”canonical.”

@Spyderweb: It sounds like your real estate rental site encounters many of the same issues that e-commerce sites face. First of all, your idea of a “view-all sequence of pages” isn’t the same as our definition of view-all page, where we mean that users can see the entire contents of the page by only navigating locally. Here are some ideas on your situation:

1. It’s great that you are using the Webmaster Tools URL parameters feature to more efficiently crawl your site.

2. It’s possible that your site can form a rel=”next” and rel=”prev” sequence with no parameters (or with default parameter values). It’s also possible to form parallel pagination sequences when users select certain parameters, such as a sequence of pages where there are 15 records and a separate sequence when a user selects 30 records. Paginating component pages, even with parameters, helps us more accurately index your content.

3. While it’s fine to set rel=”canonical” from a component URL to a single view-all page, setting the canonical to the first page of a parameter-less sequence is considered improper usage. We make no promises to honor this implementation of rel=”canonical.”

@wotaewer: It’s fine to use rel=”next” and rel=”prev” on a series of search result pages, or even on a series of content that’s auto-generated. Perhaps the larger question is whether these pages provide value to the user. Most often, Google users dislike performing a search, then clicking on a result only to be taken to a site with more search results. We recommend making sure that pages on your site, especially the search result pages, provide unique value. For pages with very little or no value, until you’re able to add good content, using noindex is a viable option.

@cristina: Detection of rel=”next”/rel=”prev” and/or a view-all page is already implemented by our Indexing team, and the effects are live in search results. However, there’s no change to the user interface in search results (i.e., there isn’t a new visual display) that indicates this indexing capability.

@katty22: One thing I’d like to mention is that for interchangeable/filterable options, it’s more search engine friendly to keep the options as parameters, not as subdirectories. For example, we’d prefer this URL:
http://www.example.com/item?story=abc&price=up&page=1
rather than:
http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=1

URL parameters with standard encoding helps us both crawl your site more efficiently (especially with proper setttings in Webmaster Tools’ URL parameters), as well as better understand your content from an indexing standpoint. This is further explained in our blog post:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html

Back to your question, you proposed the configuration:


->Main URL is "A". "B"to"D" are not necessarily need to be appeared in search result. ]

Of your options, we would advocate for your second choice of self-referential canonicals:

[ 2. Put next/previous tag in all pages, and put canonical tag in "A" to "D" from 1st page to n.
Canonical URL of 1st page is "http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=1/".
Canonical URL of 2nd page is "http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=up/page=2/". ]

This means that URL B, http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=down/page=1/, could also have:
Canonical URL of 1st page is http://www.example.com/story=abc/price=down/page=1/
Canonical URL of 2nd page ishttp://www.example.com/story=abc/price=down/page=2/

Because URLs A, B, C, D will likely contain different items according to how they’re sorted, it’s likely you’ll be unable to rel=”canonical” from B to A, or C to A, or D to A (even though A is your “main” URL).

@estrik: We support rel=”next” and rel=”prev” in the HTTP header. For example, for page=2 of an article, you could respond with the HTTP header:

Link: <http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1>; rel="prev"
Link: <http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3>; rel="next"

@competitions: Yes, it’s absolutely fine to have:

<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400&page=3" />
rather than:
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400&page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/viewthread.php?tid=260400&page=3" />

@TiggerFish: We really appreciate your effort to help the webmaster community. Such an effort is part of what makes working in Search so rewarding. :) In regard to Wordpress’ current non-standard use of rel=”next” and rel=”prev,” we’re very aware of the Wordpress issue (thanks also to the heads-up from fellow webmasters like Joost de Valk). Our indexing team already implemented heuristics to test/verify webmaster-provided rel=”next” and rel=”prev” pagination annotations, and we’re confident that with these heuristics were not erroneously detecting subsequent Wordpress blog entries as a series. Thanks again!
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? matthew_mok 10/26/11 3:37 AM
Hi, Maile
Again, if a category contains many parameters like price sort, rate sort, name sort,  pagination, display type,  records sort, etc.
Each sort may lead to different amounts of pagination. Using the equal products with combination to generate many pages,  is it like search result exactly?  
How to deal with this? Is it ok to as long as I use the right pagination method, and canonical attributes  Tech?
Thanks
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? ACSI Camping 10/28/11 12:47 AM
Hi Maile,

I was looking around for some technical support on this subject and i stumbled upon the next phrase on somebody's blog:

The quote above ("linking to most relevant page") is how Google hopes to interpret the prev/next values for its search engine, hinting that it will try to redirect people to the first page of the sequence if it thinks this is appropriate. Looking back at the pagination examples I've given though, this is definitely not what I would consider preferred behavior. Not as a site owner, but also not as a user of the Google search engine. Worst case this would mean that if Google found a match in one of my latest articles, it would throw the person back to the first article I've ever written. Or if it would find a hit in a result list, it would send you back to page 1 of the results. How this is useful is beyond me.

Is this correct? Could you please comment.

One technical question. If i have 20 pages of search result about camping-sites within our website and i add a few camping-sites so in the future there will be 21 or 22 pages of search result. Is it possible to automatically add the right tag to the new pages?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? sivakumar99 10/29/11 4:13 AM
@ACSI Camping  . I have a solution for you.

If you do reverse paging. like in the site. tips.alldata.in  . then there will not be any issue .

First page will have the maximum page number and next page will be one less so on, So that the content in page 20 will always be in page 20 even if you add content in the future.
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? stevusuk 11/22/11 2:04 AM
I'm in the middle of constructing a single-page site which is effectively a series of sections of different content and wondered about the use of rel="prev" and rel="next" tags for the internal page links which a user will be able to use to navigate through the page content.  The links will all point to sections elsewhere on the same page (never off page), so wondered if it was even worth considering the rel tag to be of any benefit at all in this scenario?  Any advice?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? andfl1 11/23/11 6:31 PM
Hello,

What if on my website page 1 is equal to not having a page parameter:
EX: example.com/category.html = example.com/category.html?page=1

What should I do on this case:

1. On example.com/category.html?page=2 put a rel="prev" to example.com/category.html
or
2. On example.com/category.html?page=2 put a rel="prev" to example.com/category.html?page=1 and on example.com/category.html?page=1 put a canonical to example.com/category.html

Thanks,
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? KnitHat 12/28/11 7:18 AM
I'm curious about one thing in the example provided by Google (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html).

Why include the sessionid in the rel=next/prev tags in this example?

<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2”/>
<link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1&sessionid=123" />
<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3&sessionid=123" />

If you're just going to slap the canonical tag on them anyways, why put the sessionid in the rel=next/prev tags at all?

Thanks!
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? vaibhav12 3/27/12 3:13 AM
Hey Maile

Do we have to put Rel next & prev tag in Body or Head. Currently M using in Body while linking to 2nd page rel="next">Next, Is it fine or shall i specify in Head.

In My site we have 1 article with 100 comments posted under. We show 30 in 1 page & we use canonical tag from 2,3rd page pointing towards main page because main content is same only comments are different, Please help is it right or shall we remove canonical as google will itself track through rel next & prev tag
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Carlos M 4/3/12 7:25 AM
Hello,

This is a real case, we run a website offering hotel booking and we have the hotel information and the user reviews in two or more sepparated url's because of the number of reviews:

Hotel information:

Review (1 or more pages):

Due to the high value that the user reviews provide, we think that we are losing this weigth by splitting our content in sepparated url's one for the hotel and one for the reviews.

Do you think that adding the rel=next and rel=prev from the hotel entry url to the reviews can benefit us and help google to identify the related content?
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? friendly12345 4/23/12 8:31 PM
Hi,

Can I use canonical link to view all pages and pre/next link in pagination pages

If I define canonical link in all pagination pages to view all pages
and define the pre/next link in all pagination pages
Then What page will be display in search result.
Also I don't want to display the view all pages in the search result cause it it too much products.
But if I don't use Canonical link in all pagination pages then I have the duplicated title and meta description.
So what is the best solution for this.
Thanks,
Yuan Chen
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? vyznev 5/2/12 6:28 AM
Hi, Maile.

I know you've already answered this question (or at least something close to it) several times, but could you please still take some time to clarify this once and for all:

Is it OK to have a substantial duplicated header on each page of a paginated sequence, or could this be interpreted by Google as duplicate content?  Also, if someone searches for some text found in this header, will they (typically) see multiple pages in their search results or just one?

The context I'm asking this is that Stack Overflow and the other Stack Exchange Q&A sites paginate question threads if a question gets too many (over 30) answers, but the question itself is always shown on top of every page.  Currently, they have rel="canonical" links pointing to the first page in each thread.  I recently proposed that they should switch to rel="next" / "prev" as you suggest in your post, but this proposal was declined, with some of the arguments being that this would mean "not marking duplicate content as such" and so "risking Google punishing us" for it, and that "we're not even the use case that Google talks about", not being either a blog or an e-commerce site.  Is there any chance you could shoot some of these arguments down (or confirm them, if that's the case)?

Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? CC-Cato 5/10/12 10:50 AM
Hey Maile,

We are trying to figure out if the first url of a pagination series in the example below would break the series. So far, we have been unable to find any conclusive information regarding this.

Here is the generic example:

Question: Would the above url-scheme work with the pagination markup or would it break the series?

Any conclusive feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? Pawel Klosinski 7/26/12 10:28 AM
Thanks for your video Maile,

I have a question regarding paging on blog home page. Basically it is a bit different situation than with one article divided into sections. On front page of my blog I list 10 my recent posts. Since I have over 100 posts I also have paging allowing users to access my previous posts. There is no view all page so I think I should get rid of rel="canonical" and implement rel prev and next. Am I right?

Kind regards,

Pawe 
LutzSchroeer 9/18/12 11:29 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Questions about pagination, rel="next" and rel="prev", or view-all in search results? LutzSchroeer 9/18/12 11:32 AM
Should the relations also be added to a WordPress post with paginated comments?
More topics »