For pagination SEO, give each result page a real URL and link to the sequence with ordinary crawlable links. Check that page two opens directly, shows its own results, and can lead to later pages. A “Load more” button alone does not establish that a crawler can follow the collection.
This matters when useful public pages sit beyond the first screen of a directory or archive. Before adding more content, test the path that leads to the content you already have. The goal is reliable discovery of relevant pages, not making every possible filtered view eligible for search.
Define the collection you intend to expose
Start with one public collection, such as a directory of integration guides. Write down which detail pages belong in it and which views serve a real reader need. A pagination review should not quietly turn thousands of arbitrary sort and filter combinations into a search strategy.
Use a small hypothetical fixture for the review: 23 directory entries, ten results per page, and three result pages. Number the entries internally so you can compare the sequence. These are test values, not a claim about any live website or an engine's preferred page size.
Decide what a complete pass through that collection means. A reader should be able to reach every included detail page, understand where they are, and move through the list without losing the selected context. Those requirements give the review a clear finish line.
Check the documented discovery behavior
Google's pagination guidance says its crawlers generally follow links in anchor elements with href attributes. They generally do not click buttons that trigger more results. The guide recommends crawlable links between pages in a sequence and a unique URL for each page.
The same guide says each paginated page should have its own canonical URL, rather than pointing every page back to page one. It also advises against using URL fragments for page numbers. Google no longer uses rel="next" and rel="prev" as pagination signals.
Keep the scope of that evidence clear. These are Google's documented practices. They do not establish how every AI crawler handles every framework. A public link path is a sound thing to test, but it is not proof that an answer engine will cite an entry.
Open page two in a fresh tab
Use the actual page-two link from the live interface. Open it in a fresh tab and copy the observed URL into your review notes. Do not start from a URL you invented because the route looks predictable. You are checking what the product actually exposes.
A path such as /guides?page=2 can identify the second page. The exact route format is less important than whether it is stable and represents the intended view. Confirm that the second page shows entries 11 through 20 in the hypothetical fixture, with the same relevant collection context.
Now reload that URL. Try it without first visiting page one. If the results only exist after earlier clicks or session state, the URL is not yet a dependable representation of page two. Record the visible result and the condition that caused it to fail.
Check the rendered title or page label too. A person arriving directly should know this is a later part of a collection. They should have a way to return to the beginning and enough context to understand what the collection contains.
Inspect the path to later entries
From page one, inspect the real next-page control. Is it a link with a destination, or only a button that runs an event handler? Then inspect the control on page two. The first link being crawlable does not establish that the rest of the sequence is connected.
For a load-more interface, ask whether a usable link-based route exists alongside the interaction. You can preserve the reader's preferred browsing experience while giving result pages stable destinations. Review the actual implementation instead of treating a visual button label as evidence.
Follow the sequence to page three. In the fixture, it should contain entries 21 through 23. Open one detail page from each result page. Confirm the links lead to the intended public content rather than a placeholder, sign-in wall, or unrelated redirect.
Record a short path in the review: collection start, second page, last page, and a detail page from each. This makes the finding reproducible. “Deep pages seem hard to find” is much harder for another developer to investigate.
Test the end of the sequence
The final page deserves a separate check. It should not offer a next link that returns the same results forever. A misleading endless sequence wastes a reader's time and makes it harder to tell which URLs represent distinct pages.
Test an out-of-range page using your own site's approved development or review process. Decide with the team what a valid response should be when a requested page no longer exists. The important point is to avoid silently presenting an unrelated page as if the request succeeded.
Also test what happens after the collection changes. If a new entry moves existing items to later pages, can readers still find the relevant detail pages through stable item links? Pagination is a way into the content; it should not be the identity of the content itself.
Review URLs, canonicals, and sort order together
Read the canonical URL on each sampled result page and compare it with the view shown. If every later page declares page one as canonical, record that as a mismatch with Google's pagination guidance. Include both the observed page URL and declared canonical in the issue.
Check that the sort order is defined well enough for the sequence to make sense. If two entries share a sort value, a consistent tie-breaker can prevent confusing movement during a review. This is an implementation recommendation for predictable lists, not a documented search ranking factor.
Keep sorting and filtering separate in your notes. A page number identifies a position within a particular collection state. Losing a required filter when moving to page two changes the question the page answers. Test one supported filtered sequence when that behavior matters to the reader.
Write a fix request another person can verify
A useful issue includes the starting URL, the control used, the destination observed, the expected entries, and the actual result. Add a screenshot when it clarifies the failure. Avoid an issue title such as “Fix SEO” when the defect is a missing destination link.
State an acceptance check in ordinary terms: opening the observed second-page URL directly shows the intended entries; a crawlable link leads to the next valid page; the final page stops the sequence; each sampled detail page opens correctly. The implementation can then be reviewed against visible behavior.
After the fix, repeat the same small sample. Expand the test only if a new failure suggests a wider problem. A focused collection review is easier to maintain than a huge checklist nobody repeats after a routing change.
Keep the outcome honest. You can verify that the pages and links work and that they follow the documented Google guidance you checked. Indexing, organic ranking, and AI citations require separate observations. Making page two findable removes a discovery problem; it does not promise what any engine will do with the content.
Hey I'm Uriel Bitton. I write about SEO, AEO, GEO, and helping brands get found in AI answers.
Subscribe for practical ways to grow your brand's visibility in search and AI answers.
Explore HoneyWeRank for SEO and AI visibility.
Sources
Google Search Central: Pagination, incremental page loading, and SEO
Top comments (1)
The fresh-tab check is the right habit. One more cheap test for the same question: view the page source (not the inspected DOM) or fetch it with curl, and look for the page-two link in the raw HTML. If the link only exists after JavaScript runs, a crawler that doesn't run it never sees it, even though everything looks fine in the browser.
On your 23-entry fixture, I'd also check that page three's canonical points to page three, and that the last page doesn't link forward to a page that doesn't exist.