interesting 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 24, 5:39 pm, euromark <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
