: Canonical URLs in sortable paginated lists How should one use rel="canonical" in sortable paginated lists? An unsorted list of products is not the same as the same list sorted, nor are lists
How should one use rel="canonical" in sortable paginated lists?
An unsorted list of products is not the same as the same list sorted, nor are lists sorted in different ways equivalent. For example, compare:
www.example.com/desktops?sort=p.price&order=ASC&limit=5&page=2 with www.example.com/desktops?sort=p.price&order=DESC&limit=5&page=2
These are two very different pages, but they have the same canonical URL. Surely this is incorrect?
More posts by @Gail5422790
2 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
I think we should not use rel="canonical" on pages with duplicate content that seek to merely "play" the search engines.
I believe that rel="canonical" is to be used in situations where duplicate content is necessary to better explain a certain product on a site.
Yes, using rel-canonical for these URLs would be (most of the time) incorrect. RFC 6596 defines:
The target (canonical) IRI MUST identify content that is either duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) IRI.
This is not the case for your content.
If you have a page that lists all products (without pagination), you could use its URL as the canonical URL for the paginated URLs. If you don’t have such a page, don’t use rel-canonical.
Terms of Use Create Support ticket Your support tickets Stock Market News! © vmapp.org2024 All Rights reserved.