12

There is a microdata for breadcrumb links: http://www.data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb/ But is there a similar microdata for page links, like: [<-] 3 4 5[prev] 6[current] 7[next] 8 9 10 11 [->]

CharlesB
  • 86,532
  • 28
  • 194
  • 218
alemjerus
  • 8,023
  • 3
  • 32
  • 40

1 Answers1

19

Yes, there's the pagination attribute for the Article item, for instance..

But for collection pages there's no direct way, at least not that I know of. Thees sort of pages are often not ment for indexation anyway. But if you feel strongly about it...

1.) Schema.org / SiteNavigationElement

You could use Schema.org's SiteNavigationElement and extend it as a pagination element:

Example:

<!-- The container for your pagination markup -->
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement/Pagination">
  ...

2.) Schema.org / WebPage / relatedLink

A link related to this web page, for example to other related web pages.

The WebPage item has an attribute called relatedLink that arguably could be used for pagination purposes. Use CollectionPage, that's an extension of the WebPage item, and you still be able to state that there's related pages. This property could also be extended to achieve an higher semantic:

Example

<!-- The pagination link -->
<a itemprop="relatedLink/pagination" href="...">...</a>

The Relation attribute

Also, have a look at rel="next" and rel="prev" to accomplish a markup that touches the subject.

Example:

...
<head>
  <link rel="prev" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1" />
  <link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3" />
  ...

Have a look at Google Webmaster Central Blog or WHATWG for additional information.

superhero
  • 6,281
  • 11
  • 59
  • 91
  • Thanks, superhero. I added an algorithm into my script that checks the pagination, for rather the number is lower or higher. It then adds the REL in the appropriate place. Thanks for this post. I am currently trying to get the pagination Schema working correctly. Google tool is giving me a fit. Either way. Thanks for this post. Really helped a lot even almost 4 years later. Proves knowledge will continues to be shared, no matter how long it is before the share. Wayne – Wayne Barron Apr 02 '17 at 03:03
  • It's questionable whether the same approach to extend schema.org is still usable. Please have a look at this guidance: https://schema.org/docs/extension.html – Hassan Baig May 11 '19 at 15:59