Would reviews being served to a search engine user agent through a noscript tag (but not shown for other user types) be considered cloaking?
-
This one is tough, and I've asked it once here, http://www.quora.com/Search-Engine-Optimization-SEO/Is-having-rich-snippets-placed-below-a-review-that-is-pulled-via-javascript-considered-bad-grey-hat-SEO, but I feel that the response was sided with the company.
As an SEO or digital marketer, it seems that if we are pulling in our reviews via iframe for our users, but serving them through a nonscript tag when the user agent is a search engine, that this could be considered cloaking.
I understand that the "intent" may be to show the same thing to the bots as the user sees, but if you look at the view source, you'll never see the reviews, because it would only be delivered to the search engine bot.
What do you think?
-
I can't speak to the BV implementation aspect as I have no experience with it, however I will echo and agree with Takeshi on the other points as they are the best practice scenario
-
BV does provide a newer format for their reviews, if your server allows server side scripting such as PHP. I believe it's called "Cloud SEO". This is the simplest solution.
If you can't run PHP, then I would recommend talking to YourStoreWizards (http://www.yourstorewizards.com/). They provide customized solutions that can automate the data pulling and updating process.
As far as reviews.mysite.com, you want to get that de-indexed as soon as you get the HTML reviews on your site. Otherwise, not only will the subdomain compete with your main site for traffic, bu tall the reviews on your site will be seen as duplicate content.
-
Alright, this is where we are with this. What Takeshi recommended is a work around. Yes, it works, but it takes more man hours to constantly upload the info. If someone wanted to do this more seamlessly, how could we do that? I don't have an answer quite yet (but wanted to post our follow-up in case someone else stumbles upon this Q&A), but we're going to the company with these questions:
- We need someone on the phone that understands SEO and the BV installation on our site being SEO friendly; i.e. not a developer that knows about implementing BV, but an SEO person that understands the difference between cloaking and duplicate content with product pages.
- We want to know how we can get our product reviews on our product pages that can be seen in the html of the page; i.e. I can view source and see the review content there. This is inline with Takeshi's work around, but is there an easier way to do this where it's automatic?
- Having the reviews sent over via javascript when the bot requests the info seems to be inline with cloaking behavior that is considered bad with the search engines.
- We don’t want to add a ~1.5 second delay to getting the info pulled over for the bots to see it, as this will increase our PageSpeed. However, this seems to be the next best solution for getting up-to-date reviews in the code of the product page.
I know, not every tool is perfect, but if there is a gap here, I'd imagine that one of largest companies in review management would be able to tackle this - don't you think?
To me, this feels like our content is being hi-jacked. I have my reviews in iframes (sort of speak) on my product pages, but also at reviews.mysite.com/product-reviews, which is essentially duplicating my product pages... we're competing with ourselves. Is the best fix to NOINDEX that subdomain and not let the reviews be seen at all, or keep the pages up and just compete with ourselves in the SERPs? Or is there an easy way to get those reviews (our reviews) seen on our site from users and bots?
-
Perfect! Thanks again for the follow-up!
-
Yup. Once you have the GWT verification in the header, you should be able to deindex the entire subdomain instantly.
-
That sounds like the answer Takeshi! We were worried about manually doing it because the user wouldn't see their reviews instantly, but with how you're doing it, it doesn't matter, and (like you said) it shouldn't muddy the user experience.
Are you referring to the "Remove URLs" tool in Google Webmaster for deindexing?
-
Yes, we manually bulk upload the HTML reviews every couples weeks or so to keep them fresh. We also had BV noindex the review.subdomain so that it wasn't competing with us in the SERPs (have them add a noindex tag in the header as well as your Google Webmaster Tools verification code, so you can instantly deindex all the pages).
-
Great idea for having a link to an html version. How do you keep those updated? Is it manual? And do you just block the pages that they create over on the review.mysite.com sub-domain?
That is actually where we started looking at fixing things. I see that sub-domain they created as basically competing with our product pages. Why would that ever be the way a business would want to operate their site, it doesn't make sense to do that. But all I keep hearing is name drops of big brands. It's frustrating really.
-
I'm pretty sure that it's structured markup, but I will definitely be double checking before simply guessing on this one! Thanks Alan.
-
We use BazaarVoice reviews for our ecommerce site too. What we do is right below the iframe reviews, we have a link that says "click here to see more reviews". When you click the link, it opens up a div with the html version of the reviews. So similar idea to what you are proposing, but less "cloaky" than a noscript tag, and it doesn't impact user experience much.
BazaarVoice can also do html reviews that are not iframed if you have a server that can handle server side scripting like PHP (which unfortunately our legacy Yahoo store does not).
-
Ah to have 100% guarantees for anything related to SEO.
Alas, that's not the world we live in. However, we can apply critical thinking to each choice and with that, we are more likely to be safe from the wrath of Google.
SO - for this question let's consider the following:
A "Noscript" version of a site is designed first and foremost for people who have scripts turned off, including those who have browsers set up for either security reasons or for visual impairment needs.
So if you provide content within a noscript block that essentially mirrors what visitors get when scripts are turned on, you are not likely in violation of any Google cloaking policy.
Cloaking comes into play when you generate content purely for Googlebot exclusively or Googlebot and Bingbot.
So if the content you are provided via that zip file (which I assume you then need to manually cut and paste into the noscript portion of the code) is pure content and not over-optimized, you can proceed with confidence that you'll be okay.
Where I DO have concern is this:
"The daily snapshot files contain UGC with SEO-friendly markup tags." (emphasis mine). Exactly what do they mean by that specific wording? That's the concern point. Are they referring to proper structured markup for reviews, from Schema.org or at the very least RDFa reviews markup? If not, that would be problematic because only proper "reviews" specific structured markup should wrap around reviews content.
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
-
3 word brand name + SEO. Will I be losing out on organic searches with spaces?
Hello, Starting a new website and the company name has three words. We've made the decision for the brand guide that we will not have spaces when the name is included in copy. Are we going to have difficulties ranking for both instances? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jessicarechkemmer0 -
How do you deal with Scam-Type SEO businesses?
One of our potential clients is a limousine rental service. His current "Marketer" is going about his business in a seemingly sketchy way. I'm pretty new to having to compare myself to other SEO/Marketing competition. So, this guy has 100's of websites that are nearly identical. Quite a few have duplicate content, but all of them generally look the same. He leases these websites as lead generators: Think of it like this: he probably has 15-20 websites all geared for different parts of the DFW area. Denton Limo Service, Plano Limo Service, Dallas Limo Service, Etc. He also has a bunch of websites for other industries. Every "business" has its own phone number via a Google Number that he forwards to the actual business line. Every "business" has a Google My Business Listing setup as well with no address listed. When someone fills out the contact form on one of these sites, it is forwarded to the business who is leasing it. He also creates his own backlinks on his websites to all of his other websites. I imagine that eventually he will be caught, right? I mean, this has to be Black Hat SEO. Have any of you encountered an SEO/Marketer like this? If so, what do you do about it?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | roger2050 -
Does type of hosting affect SEO rankings?
Hello, I was wondering if hosting on shared, versus VPS, versus dedicated ... matter at all in terms of the rankings of Web sites ... given that all other factors would be exactly equal. I know this is a big question with many variables, but mainly I am wondering if, for example, it is more the risk of resource usage which may take a site down if too much traffic and therefore make it un-crawlable if it happens at the moment that a bot is trying to index the site (factoring out the UX of a downed site). Any and all comments are greatly appreciated! Best regards,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | uworlds
Mark0 -
Cloaking for better user experience and deeper indexing - grey or black?
I'm working on a directory that has around 800 results (image rich results) in the top level view. This will likely grow over time so needs support thousands. The main issue is that it is built in ajax so paginated pages are dynamically generated and look like duplicate content to search engines. If we limit the results, then not all of the individual directory listing pages can be found. I have an idea that serves users and search engines what they want but uses cloaking. Is it grey or black? I've read http://moz.com/blog/white-hat-cloaking-it-exists-its-permitted-its-useful and none of the examples quite apply. To allow users to browse through the results (without having a single page that has a slow load time) we include pagination links but which are not shown to search engines. This is a positive user experience. For search engines we display all results (since there is no limit the number of links so long as they are not spammy) on a single page. This requires cloaking, but is ultimately serving the same content in slightly different ways. 1. Where on the scale of white to black is this? 2. Would you do this for a client's site? 3. Would you do it for your own site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
Geotag city different from postal address. Can I mention both cities together in title tags?
This boundary thing seems to be haunting me at the mo. Oh what I'd give for somewhere within a defined boundary! Anyway, just noticed a client has one city in its official postal address, and another city under its geotag. So I'm looking at the title tags and I'm thinking of mentioning both cities on the main entry pages (6 of them) then dividing mention in sub pages. Is this acceptable to Google? Might they see mention of both cities in homepage title tag (and other entry pages) as spammy. I don't want to upset Google!!! PS. Both cities are core markets. I would say they're of equal importance in terms of current business bookings and business potential.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Showing pre-loaded content cloaking?
Hi everyone, another quick question. We have a number of different resources available for our users that load dynamically as the user scrolls down the page (like Facebook's Timeline) with the aim of improving page load time. Would it be considered cloaking if we had Google bot index a version of the page with all available content that would load for the user if he/she scrolled down to the bottom?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CuriosityMedia0 -
Are paid reviews gray/black hat?
Are sites like ReviewMe or PayPerPost white hat? Are follow links allowed within the post? Should I use those aforementioned services, or cold contact high authority sites within my niche?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 10JQKAs0 -
Disqus integration and cloaking
Hey everyone, I have a fairly specific question on cloaking and whether our integration with disqus might be viewed as cloaking. Here is the setup. We have a site that runs off of drupal and would like to convert the comment handling to disqus for ease of our users. However, when javasrcript is disabled the nice comment system and all of the comments from disqus disappear. This obviously isn't good for SEO, however the user experience using disqus is way better than the native comment system. So here is how we are addressing the problem. With drupal we can sync comments between the native comment system and disqus. When a user has javascript enabled the containing div for the native comment system is set to display:none. hiding the submission form and all of the content and instead displaying it through the disqus interface. However when javascrip is not enabled the native comment form and the comments will be available to the user. Could this be considered cloaking by google? I know they do not like hidden div's, but it should be almost exactly the same content being displayed to the user (depending on when the last sync was run). Thanks for your thoughts, and if anyone has familiarity with a better way to integrate drupal and disqus I am all ears. Josh
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | prima-2535090