As you know page numbers is like 1 2 3 4 ...
And when 10 nodes added and if the page limit is 10 then the page numbers stay as they are and the nodes move from one page to the other.

to avoid this i tried to create the page numbers like : 45 44 43 42 .... instead of 1 2 3 4 .... if we have 45 pages. This way when new nodes are added the ones on the last page will have still the same page number. Of course i am talking about a view with tons of nodes and where the nodes are ordered by descending creation time.

There are mainly 2 reasons why i try to reverse the page numbers:

1- users memorise the page numbers, and after some time when they come back, all the nodes are moved to other pages since lots of nodes are added.

2- google bot and other bots memorises the page numbers, and when it comes back it sees that all pages with the same url have different pages, and thinks that it should reindex reindex reindex.... keep indexing. and when displaying result to its' users bots always point to a wrong page. And this i believe drops the page rank of the site.

I wonder if anyone can help me to reverse the page numbers.

thank you


csc4’s picture

An excellent idea - should all the pager code offer this either as an option or standard?

Coldice4678’s picture

Yes, someone thinking the same way I am thinking, with the reverse order the site automatically becomes a index. I remember when embaumsworld was popular, they we used to search out the content was looking between a 3 page spread of where we thought we saw it. without the reverse after a year the site is completely changed. (I wonder which is better for SEO, I think it sort of removes duplicate content to a degree, idk)

Slimer’s picture

I think revers page order is good for SEO and for people to bookmark.
It would be greate if developers include this feature to core pager of Drupal.

merlinofchaos’s picture

Project:Views» Drupal core
Version:5.x-1.5» 7.x-dev
Component:User interface» base system
Category:support» feature

If you want the core queue modified, then this hsould be filed against Drupal.

pvasili’s picture

There is progress on this issue?
One of the solutions (6.x): http://drupal.ru/node/25387#comment-141042

Kiphaas7’s picture


geerlingguy’s picture

Subscribe - would be great for SEO, bookmarking, etc...

SlyK’s picture

I was hoping this feature will be in Drupal 7... but not :(

I'm using this code changes on my multisite drupal installation to make reversed pagination on all Drupal pagers:

jcisio’s picture

Version:7.x-dev» 8.x-dev

Sounds good, but I can't imagine how to do it. We have nodes 1-10 in page 1, node 11-20 in page 2...? So if there is 25 nodes, we display the first 10 nodes (16-25), in which page are we (for bookmark)?

Is there any CMS/forum that does it?

SlyK’s picture

Issue tags:+pagination

It was the question for me too.

I think filled pages don't need to be changed, but the first, not fully filled page, that don't have number (its address will be "/node") must get additional nodes from previous page to show 10 nodes.

There will be only one problem - user will read some nodes twice :(
But benefits are more important as for me.
Users just need to think about "/node" address not like this is a regular other pages in list, but like the list of last 10 nodes added.

Of course for implementing in Drupal core we have to try find better solution of this problem, but I can't remember right now sites with this type of pagination.

droplet’s picture

sub first, may add patch soon

no2e’s picture

Threads about this on d.o:

Which pagers exactly does this issue affect? Taxonomy and 'Promoted to front page'?
Would each contrib module offering pagination have to implement this, too? Or is core offering some kind of API that contrib could use?

droplet’s picture

- Anyone could post some ref about the benefit.
- use cases
- and what will it look like..?
I took an example from gdo.
First Previous 5 [4] 3 2 1 Next Latest

Previous is linking to ?? Page 3 or 5.

no2e’s picture

- Anyone could post some ref about the benefit.
- use cases

@droplet: Let me try to explain it.

I think this feature request only makes sense for content sorted reverse chronological ("newest first"). The most prominent use-case would be any kind of news section/blog.

Let's say we have a blog with 27 entries, 10 entries per page (entry 1 is the oldest one):

Page № Entries
1 18–27
2 8–17
3 1–7

Now the blogger publishes 11 more entries:

Page № Entries
1 29–38
2 19–28
3 9–18
4 1–8

No entry (teaser) is on the same page anymore. The first entry was on page № 1, now it is on page № 2.

Consequence: all pager URLs are broken (well, the URL is still there, but with totally different content)

  • all search engines have to re-index the content of all pages, every time the blogger posts some entries
  • visitors (coming from search engines) expect different content (if the seach engine didn't yet re-index)
  • all bookmarks are broken (Bob wants to read all blog posts, stops at page № 7, bookmarks it, comes back some days later, and … woosh, not where he stopped anymore)
  • no chance to link to a certain page, if you want to discuss exactly that selection of entries ("look, my first ten entries")

With a reverse page order, you get:

Page № Entries
3 21-27
2 11-20
1 1-10

And after 11 new entries:

Page № Entries
4 31-38
3 21-30
2 11-20
1 1-10

= 3 more entries on page № 3 and a new page № 4. All old entries are still linked at the same page (and will be there forever, until you delete some entries, of course).

- and what will it look like..?
First Previous 5 [4] 3 2 1 Next Latest

Previous is linking to ?? Page 3 or 5.

In this example, "Previous" on page № 4 would link to page № 5.

I think __for (reverse) chronological sorted content__ it would make more sense to name the links "Newer" and "Older" (instead of "Previous" and "Next").
And it's a (much discussed) question if you want to go left (for LTR languages) for the newest or for the oldest content. There is no undisputed answer to this (I think that would better fit into an own issue, if there is need to discuss it).

jcisio’s picture

@no2e If we have 27 entries then we display only 7 for the first page? If we have 21, then we display only 1?

no2e’s picture

@jcisio: Yes, I'd think so.
With ascending page order, the last page could be "incomplete".
With descending page order, the first page could be "incomplete".

I don't think is a big problem. It is this first page most users will encounter first, so they won't know at this point how many entries per page should be displayed usually.