Opened 13 years ago
Last modified 5 years ago
#18672 new enhancement
Implement rel="prev" and rel="next" for archives
Reported by: | joostdevalk | Owned by: | joostdevalk |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Future Release | Priority: | normal |
Severity: | normal | Version: | 3.3 |
Component: | Permalinks | Keywords: | needs-patch |
Focuses: | Cc: |
Description
As can be seen here:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html
Google now uses rel="prev" and rel="next" to navigate paginated archives. As we already do a lot of these types of links (rel="index", rel="start" etc.) I think we should add these. I'll come up with a first version of a patch.
Change History (18)
#2
follow-up:
↓ 3
@
13 years ago
Should also consider how we use next and prev in relation to posts now. If a post is paginated, according to how Google now treats it, if you're on page 1, next should lead to the 2nd page of that post, and I don't think we do that.
#3
in reply to:
↑ 2
@
13 years ago
Replying to joostdevalk:
Should also consider how we use next and prev in relation to posts now.
Considering this, shouldn't we remove next and prev altogether from singular pages, and keep them only for "real" pagination, such as the archive pages?
#6
follow-up:
↓ 7
@
13 years ago
- Cc 24-7@… added
I added this to my example pagination plugin some time ago. Point is that I added it to the link itself. What would be the reason to add another function and add it to the head?
#7
in reply to:
↑ 6
@
13 years ago
Replying to F J Kaiser:
Point is that I added it to the link itself. What would be the reason to add another function and add it to the head?
Google seems to prefer the link added to the head, rather than on the link itself. Here is what they say in their annoucement:
rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the <head> section, not within the document <body>.
#12
@
10 years ago
- Keywords 2nd-opinion removed
- Milestone changed from Awaiting Review to Future Release
#13
@
10 years ago
I'd be happy to write a patch for this but when I discussed it with @nacin I got the idea this would need to incorporate rewriting some of the link generation / paginated link generation code as well... If I can get some guidance on that bit I'm happy to write the patch.
#17
@
6 years ago
Related: #meta4142
Related to #18128, should probably fix in one pass.