i thought I need
/index/ as well as all
/index/page:1...x/
and I dont need
/index/page:2/sort:name/direction:desc/ etc
so what should been used is an url cleaned of all params except "page"
to pass on to the canonical tag
example:
/index/some:named/ => canonical link to: /index/
/index/page:1/sort:name/direction:desc/ => canonical link to: /index/
/index/page:2/sort:name/direction:desc/ => canonical link to: /index/
page:2/
/index/sort:name/direction:desc/page:3/ => canonical link to: /index/
page:3/
etc
but I can see your argument to link everything back to the index as
long as all links are followed and all /view/ID links are correctly
indexed. and it would make it way easier than my approach.
thx.
On 25 Okt., 10:11, AD7six <andydawso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 5:39 pm, euromark <dereurom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > this site states pretty clearly on how to use canonicalhttp://www.johnfdoherty.com/do-bing-and-google-treat-relcanonical-dif...
>
> > "
> > When should I definitely NOT use the canonical tag?
> > A few times exist when you should not use the canonical tag, and
> > instead use a different tactic:
>
> > On paginated results (use rel=prev or rel=next instead
> > When the page is no longer necessary. Use a 301 redirect to a relevant
> > page instead.
> > "
>
> > Currently we use "canonical"=>url without any named params.
> > But this seems to be the quick and dirty hack.
>
> > The problem is that "page" is mixed in with "sort" etc
> > For "sort" we should use canonical.
> > There can be quite a few combinations of the above params...
>
> > How do you handle this?
> > Extract the page and display the canonical link in combination with
> > this single param if available?
>
> > I think it is pretty important to get this right because otherwise
> > everything after page 1 does not get indexed.
>
> I would say the absolute most important thing to keep in mind when
> thinking about SEO is: is this page (not the things it links to)
> important to search engines; if it's a choice do I want this page
> showing up in search results instead of <other pages>? In context that
> means is the list itself important or, if appropriate, the individual
> item pages?
>
> You are not going to prevent links on your paginated lists from being
> followed and indexed by putting a canonical meta tag pointing at page
> 1 of your list pages. If you are paginating /foos/index and each item
> has a link to /foos/view/<id>, you really want search engines to index
> the individual foos (probably), not the list which is just a means to
> find them. This is where using a canonical on the list pages to point
> at page 1 makes sense -especially if the listing is constantly
> changing; It is a simple tactic to prevent search engines indexing
> pages that are SEO-irrelevant, whilst not preventing them from finding
> all the individual items, and ensuring that any links that point to
> page >1 still give SEO-value to your site.
>
> If there is no /foos/view/<id> then the information you've found
> regarding - rel=prev and rel=next and don't use canonical - is a lot
> more relevant, but personally I canonical => page 1, the list pages as
> they are no where near as important as the things they link to, and do
> not consider it a dirty hack to do so.
>
> AD
--
Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org
Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
cake-php+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
No comments:
Post a Comment