Cloaking?
-
We have on the home page of our charity site a section called "recent donations" which pulls the most recent donations from a database and displays them on the website via an asp write, (equivalent of php echo) . Google is crawling these and sometimes displays them in description tags -- which looks really messy. Is there a way to hide this content without it being considered cloaking?
-
I agree with the others about using a description tag properly to avoid your donations showing up in the Meta Description for the page. If you want to post a link to the site, I'd be happy to take a look at the page and see if there's a quick fix / work around for you...
Thanks,
- Jeff
-
Question one might be - why is Google deciding that's the most important information on the page? If you have a well-worded description tag and quality content, what is missing from what you're doing that this donations area is what they're grabbing onto?
Generally I've found that if the wrong information is being displayed as a description int he SERPs, it's generally a shortcoming in the description tag or content.
Assuming that's all working, heck you could use something as simple as an iframe to "hide" the content. Technically Google can crawl iframe data but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (whatever that means) that if you did this it certainly wouldn't show up in your description tag. The perk to this being, it is kinda-crawlable so it's not "hidden".
-
I don't see a huge issue here if its changing. Cloaking would be providing something different then what an user is looking for.
I have a site that is extremely dynamic with new content being published all the time and purely white hat. This would not be considered cloaking. However, maybe it could have an indirect affect where bounce rates go up because the searcher didn't get what they were looking for.
To fix this as Lesley mentioned, you can easily just put a default meta description and it will never appear in the SERPs again...unless someone somehow specifically looks for those donation names/amounts.
-
I would use a user agent detect to block it. More than likely what you are talking about is a small insignifigant portion of the website and no one will be any the wiser. Also I would make sure that the meta description is set up properly.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is this Link Black Hat SEO Cloaking or is it OK?
I am a relatively new SEO professional, Can someone please look at this link and tell me if this is white or black hat SEO cloaking practices? http://loghomeconstructionpro.com/ It has an overlay landing page over a html page. I had a partner promote this to me as a proprietary software when really it just looks like cloaking. I want to do my business above board and this doesn't feel right. However, I would like some opinion on it before i pull the plus on my partner. Thanks all for the advice and the help. GD
Technical SEO | | gdavey0 -
Cloaking? Best Practices Crawling Content Behind Login Box
Hi- I'm helping out a client, who publishes sale information (fashion sales etc.) In order for the client to view the sale details (date, percentage off etc.) they need to register for the site. If I allow google bot to crawl the content, (identify the user agent) but serve up a registration light box to anyone who isn't google would this be considered cloaking? Does anyone know what the best practice for this is? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nopadon
Technical SEO | | nopadon0 -
How to defend against link cloaking
Hi, I own a website where recently a lot of backlinks have been going to my old domain that 301's to my new domain. During the past 2 months I have noticed a massive amount of links pointing to my old domain. When I go to look at the links and go to the page all I see is a search bar which to me this seems like link cloaking. I am not sure what I should do. Obviously I am not doing the link building and someone is targeting anchor specific keywords from multiple domains that all look the same. My question is should I report it myself in google webmaster tools before I get hit with a filter or penalty, or would this force them to penalize me. And if I do get caught up in a penalty I would not know how to fix this since I doubt the webmaster is linking to me out of the kindness of his heart. Any advice? Thanks
Technical SEO | | dreamfire0 -
Great UX/Cloaking Concerns?
A company in a space related to ours just launched the other day. One thing I noticed was how well designed their site was and how beautiful their UI was. http://eventup.com/venues/los-angeles/. There's a lot of dynamic content here. When I click "inspect element" in chrome I just get a few placholders--no content. When inspecting the source the dynamic content does show up, but I'm not sure what Google would be crawling here. Would there be concerns about cloaking?
Technical SEO | | eVenuesSEO0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0 -
301 Redirect & Cloaking
HEllo~~~~ People. I have a question regarding on cloaking. I will be really greatful if you can help me with question. I have a site www.example.com and it is targeting for multi countries. So I use sub directories for targeting multi countries. e.g. www.example.com/us/ www.example.com/de/ www.example.com/hk/ ....... so on and on. Therefore, when people type www.example.com, I use IP delivery to send users to each coutries. Here is my question. I use 301 redirect for IP delivery, which means when user enter www.example.com, my site read user's IP and send them to right country site by 301 redirect. In this case, is there any possibility that Google considers it as cloaking? Please people.... share me some ideas and thoughs.
Technical SEO | | Artience0 -
Cloaking quesation
On this page - /design-templates/invitation-cards-come-celebrate-708.aspx the image file location in the source code is src="/design-templates/come-celebrate-708.jpg". But in a browser > right click > save the image, the image file name/location is different "http://www.psprint.com/psp/r//708/708.jpg-001.jpg?1308862042145" Does it consider cloaking and does this impact to SEO in any ways? Thanks Tom
Technical SEO | | tomchu1 -
Honeypot Captcha - rated as "cloaked content"?
Hi guys, in order to get rid of our very old-school captcha on our contact form at troteclaser.com, we would like to use a honeypot captcha. The idea is to add a field that is hidden to human visitors but likely to be filled in by spam-bots. In this way we can sort our all those spam contact requests.
Technical SEO | | Troteclaser
More details on "honeypot captchas":
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/09/11/honeypot-captcha.aspx Any idea if this single cloaked field will have negative SEO-impacts? Or is there another alternative to keep out those spam-bots? Greets from Austria,
Thomas0