Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Sarah, First of all, Martijn is right, any of your solutions are definitely not cloaking. Google understands the complications of pagination. Your solution is probably the simplest, as long as that extra content doesn't slow page load too much. You can also paginate in a way that's even between mobile and desktop, so multiple mobile pages can canonical to the same desktop page. For example, if the desktop version of review pages lists 10 reviews per page, and the mobile version lists 5, then mobile pages 1 and 2 would refer to desktop page 1; mobile pages 3 and 4 would refer to desktop page 2; etc. Either way, you're on the right track! Kristina

Hi Don, Normally it's not really necessary to put a canonical on each the pages with different pageid - the most important reason to put a canonical url on a page is to let Google know that if the same content is published under different url's which url needs to be indexed. In your example - a canonical url on http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3 would be needed if the same content would also be available under http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3&sessionid=123456 (or any other additional parameter). Strictly speaking the canonical is not to indicate Google that the content is unique but to indicate on which preferred url you want the content to be indexed. That is also the reason why you can implement both together. If you check the example from Google  - they use the rel next/previous to indicate that the different pages belong together - the canonical is basically used to indicate that the session id needs to be ignored when indexing the page. If you are sure that there is only one version of http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3 the canonical url is not really necessary. Note that e-commerce platforms have a tendency to add additional parameters to url's depending on the view - example when sorting on price etc - if this is the case the canonical would be needed. Hope this helps, Dirk

In short - It's probably worth proactively disavowing those links since it's a quick and easy task, but the possibility of them actually causing you any harm is ultimately very small. I wouldn't worry about asking the webmasters to remove the links unless you're under manual penality, as this won't be a particularly good use of time.

Hi Everett, Thanks for the clear and concise information, and for the additional helpful tips! The text to write on the page is interesting, although I might not use it since I am not sure how helpful it is for UX as it pushes the things they were looking for (images of jewelry for sale) further down, and possibly below the fold. The internal links for the gold category were changed quite a while ago, since we found it more helpful for users to have two separate categories. External links were seen from the mozbar. The problem is that I had a similar problem with another KW which was in top 10 and then fell out and now the ~ #11 result is a completely different page (product page not category), while the original category page that was showing on SERP is MIA. I don't think it was over-optimized, since it fell out before many of the optimizations were done, and there were no significant changes done to the original page. Any other ideas on how to solve, or how to best prevent (as much as a webmaster can) it in the future?