[Resolved] Critical Navigational Issue for SEO Reasons & Proposal of a Change

Home Forums Support Critical Navigational Issue for SEO Reasons & Proposal of a Change

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  93487u5tr938ouh4trnos8fyoh 2 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1190463

    93487u5tr938ouh4trnos8fyoh

    Hi,

    I am an SEO from many years and I did some split testing on a subject that is currently an issue among many webmasters and marketers.

    I propose switching of “1,2,3…[last page] Next” type of navigation to just [Previous] and [Next] for categories by default.

    Google dropped support for “rel next” and “rel previous”. For that reason, right now Google cannot determine which page is previous and which is next, they all see the links as equally important for the user, including the last page, which confuses the bot even more.

    Subsequential numbers basically don’t represent page order for the search engines. That is confirmed by Google.

    That’s why many people see outdated content including from the last page outranking the fresher and more relevant content in the search results as the bot is confused in terms of relevance.

    As an SEO I successfully fixed and improved the rankings of clients by ditching that numbered navigation to “previous” and “next” in the categories.

    In the private video I do go into details, please watch it.

    Just few days ago there was an official confirmation on the official Google Webmaster hangouts by an employee of Google – John Mueller, watch at 27:12.

    That’s why I strongly suggest you to change the default category navigation from the numbers to previous and next by default and if you want to keep the classic but confusing for the bots navigation as a secondary option.

    The reasoning behind that is that not everyone is an SEO, but he should have the optimal setup by default.

    In the meantime, please provide me a solution how can I achieve that in your theme, preferably to change the actual output, not just hiding with CSS.

    P.S. 11 years of SEO experience. I am available to further discuss that if needed.

    P.S. II – It looks like there are few hours needed before Google uploads a higher quality 4K video that I shared in the private area. In case you don’t see it, I guess it would be made available in few hours.

    #1191092

    Tom Lead Developer

    Thanks for this, I’ll do some research.

    For now, CSS is the only way to disable the numbered pagination. I’ll see about adding an option in GP 2.5.0 🙂

    #1191109

    93487u5tr938ouh4trnos8fyoh

    What CSS code should I use in order to have “next” on right and “previous” one left without numbers? The idea is that if it is only hidden throw CSS, the bot would be still able to see the numbered links in the code, no?

    As you can see on my private video the issue is that Google doesn’t understand the important of 1 vs 2,3 and the last for example 99 page as if presented on a page below Google will treat them as equally important internal links with anchor texts being numbers, but Google doesn’t count them. While when you use previous and next, it could see the sequence and treat relevance and freshness more properly. I have did a bunch of tests on clients from other vendors where switching to previous and next improved their search positions. That’s especially true on larger sites.

    #1191320

    Tom Lead Developer

    This is the CSS you would use:

    .paging-navigation .nav-previous, 
    .paging-navigation .nav-next {
        display: block;
    }
    
    .nav-links {
        display: none;
    }

    Google shouldn’t follow the hidden links.

    I am surprised that Google isn’t able to recognize standard pagination like this. Is there an article somewhere that explains why?

    #1191449

    93487u5tr938ouh4trnos8fyoh

    Most of us SEOs knew that and it happened after they drop the support of rel next and rel previous.

    Before that things were fine. The video above is official and it was said many times, so you can be sure it’s 100%. This time it was the most clearest confirmation.

    You can imagine why they do not go into details about their algo, but the videos above and the employee of Google is vetted officially by their PR, so you can trust 100% when they are exact like that.

    —-

    Regarding CSS

    It’s not just about following, they check for hidden links with CSS as they considered cloaking and could be a minor negative factor, that’s why it’s always best to have a clean HTML output with the desired outcome. An algo could be confusing them for something sneaky.

    PS Infinite scroll could also be a solution but not for sites with more than few dozen or even less pages. The reason is that G doesn’t scroll indefinitely enough to see all articles and pages despite speeding JS on their own side.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.