So many options!! (:
Let’s say that I was concerned about different sorting combinations watering down my SEO.
While I understand how Slide #30 is saying that rel=“canonical” can hurt if not used properly, a few slides later on Slide #33 Google talks about something I have been wondering about all week.
See what you think about this hypothetical scenario…
I have two Sorting Groups…
Group 1: By-Date (Newest-to-Oldest)
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=1
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=2
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=3
Group 2: By-Title (A-to-Z)
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=1
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=2
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=3
Suppose that Group 1 is the default, and so that is where I want Google to place most of the “indexing weight”. But as mentioned in Slide #30, you want to be careful not to nix page 2 and 3 by using rel=“canonical” improperly.
However, let’s say I did what Slide #33 mentions…
Group #1: By-Date (Newest-to-Oldest) (**Preferred Group)
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=1
<link rel="next" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=2" />
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=2
<link rel="prev" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=3" />
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=3
<link rel="prev" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=2" />
Group #2:
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=1
<link rel="canonical" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=2" />
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=2
<link rel="canonical" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=2" />
<link rel="prev" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=1" />
<link rel="next" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=3" />
www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=3
<link rel="canonical" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=3" />
<link rel="prev" href="www.debbie.com/finance/markets/yellen-to-keep-rates-low?sortname=by-title&sortdir=asc&page=2" />
Based on my understanding of Google’s presentation - along with other materials - the end results should be…
1.) Google “clusters” Page 1, Page 2, and Page 3 together for each respective Group.
2.) Google treats sorting By-Date (Newest-to-Oldest) in Group #1 as the dominant group and thus gives it indexing priority or even exclusivity.
3.) As you add more ways to sort - or possibly even filter - using such a strategy should help Google to index the “default view” and it not ending up with 50 permutations of your web page!! (If this strategy seems correct, it would be very powerful for an e-commerce site!!)
How does all of that sound?!
Sincerely,
Debbie
P.S. At this point I think I have been re-convinced to have a full Query String like ?sortname=by-date&sortdir=desc&page=1.
Yeah, it isn’t the prettiest of things, but Google will like it better than other approaches, and to @Jeff_Mott ; last point, it is bookmarkable, and thus more human-friendly!
P.P.S. I think this may have been what @DaveMaxwell ; was alluding to in Post #14 above?!