Mobile Redirect - Cloaking/Sneaky?
-
Question since Google is somewhat vague on what they consider mobile "equivalent" content. This is the hand we're dealt with due to budget, no m.dot, etc, responsive/dynamic is on the roadmap but still a couple quarters away but, for now, here's the situation.
We have two sets of content and experiences, one for desktop and one for mobile. The problem is that desktop content does not = mobile content. The layout, user experience, images and copy aren't the same across both versions - they are not dramatically different but not identical. In many cases, no mobile equivalent exists.
Dev wants to redirect visitors who find the desktop version in mobile search to the equivalent mobile experience, when it exists, when it doesn't they want to redirect to the mobile homepage - which really isn't a homepage it's an unfiltered view of the content. Yeah we have push state in place for the mobile version etc.
My concern is that Google will look at this as cloaking, maybe not in the cases where there's a near equivalent piece of content, but definitely when we're redirecting to the "homepage". Not to mention this isn't a great user experience and will impact conversion/engagement metrics which are likely factors Google's algorithm considers.
What's the MOZ Community say about this? Cloaking or Not and Why?
Thanks!
-
Thomas
great info above, quick follow up question for you.....I have always wonder why is Google using the "640px" in the ?
many people have been asking the question lately if 640px is an old example or is it the required size? (phones are larger nowaway)the website I manage are non-responsive ocated in a /mobile/ folder such as: http://www.example.com/mobile/page1
and our mobile size cut off is actually 1023px..... should we be using 640 or 1023px in the rel="alternate" tag?
thank you! -
Thanks Thomas, I've pushed back and said no, part of my original SEO requirement was to eliminate the blanket redirect but there's always pushback and wanted to have more ammo in my back pocket.
Definitely will be implementing vary http header, etc when we do have mobile version. I did not know about the apex/ CNAME/ Aname, I appreciate the tip.
-
"Dev wants to redirect visitors who find the desktop version in mobile search to the equivalent mobile experience, when it exists, when it doesn't they want to redirect to the mobile homepage - which really isn't a homepage it's an unfiltered view of the content. Yeah we have push state in place for the mobile version etc."
Tell your developer absolutely not and create the multiple versions of the site then redirect them properly if he does what is stated below your site will lose visitors and Google will be less than happy.
I strongly suggest that you tell him no. The only thing he has right is redirect to the mobile version if it exists. If it does not exist do not redirect to the homepage or any page UNLESS IT IS THE mobile version of that original page.
If they find it via search Google has already deemed it not mobile friendly any URLs that are up for debate place through this: https://varvy.com/mobile/ and you will have your answer brother their mobile friendly or not
if there is not a valid mobile version you should not force the mobile version to be used it will not benefit you it will hurt you in fact.
-
if there is not a valid mobile version you should not force the mobile version to be used it will not benefit you it will hurt you in fact. when you do have a 100% mobile friendly version you can utilize the tactics below
Different methods apex records or Aname records /Cname flattening whatever you want to call it can do the trick as well as see below.
Cname flattening
https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200168336-About-CloudFlare-Mobile-Redirect
"All mobile traffic to
example.com
(the root/zone apex) andwww.example.com
is redirected to the mobile-optimized home page. Those records (root and www) must have CloudFlare's performance service enabled ("orange cloud" in the DNS Settings) for the redirect to be active."Add
https://varvy.com/mobile/vary-user-agent.html
Vary: User-Agent
Desktop page
Mobile page
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
-
Google says Geolocation Redirects Are Okay - is this really ok ?
Our aim is to send a user from https://abc.com/en/us to** https://abc..com/en/uk/ **if they came to our US English site from the UK So we came across this document - https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/05/creating-right-homepage-for-your.html We are planning to follow this in our international website based on the article by google : automatically serve the appropriate HTML content to your users depending on their location and language settings. You will either do that by using server-side 302 redirects or by dynamically serving the right HTML content. Will there be any ranking issues/ penalty issue because of following this or because of 302 redirects ? **Another article - **https://www.seroundtable.com/google-geolocation-redirects-are-okay-26933.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | NortonSupportSEO0 -
Sitename in Mobile SERPS is Incorrect
Our site is being presented in mobile SERPS with a completely wrong sitename. Screenshot is attached. Despite confirming multiple times that "HYPR Biometrics" does not actually appear anywhere in the back-end, schema markup, or webmaster tools settings - Google still _decides _that this is the site name. It makes no sense at all and is driving us crazy. What can be done to correct this? I imagine this can be a major issue for companies who are completely misrepresented in SERPs. Our URL is https://www.hypr.com/ Thanks in advance for any advice. djNlfkt
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | gray_jedi0 -
Any more info on potential Google algo update from April 24th/25th?
Apart from an article on Search Engine Roundtable, I haven’t been able to find anything out about the potential algorithm update that happened on Monday / Tuesday of this week. One of our sites (finance niche) saw drops in rankings for bad credit terms on Tuesday, followed by total collapse on Wednesday and Thursday. We had made some changes the previous week to the bad credit section of the site, but the curious thing here is that rankings for bad credit terms all over the site (not just the changed section) disappeared. Has anyone else seen the impact of this change, and are there any working theories on what caused it? I’m even wondering whether a specific change has been made for bad credit terms (i.e. the payday loan update)?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | thatkinson0 -
Remedies, Cure, and Precautions for 302 redirect Hijacking.
Hi Moz Guys, I hope all of you are good out there. I am here to discuss remedies, cure, and precautions for 302 redirect hijacking. Although it is quite old and whenever I searched in Google, it looks like a long gone glitch of Google serps but it just happened to one of my customers' site. The site in question is www(dot)solidswiss(dot)cd. If you check the cache(cache:site) then you can see a hijacked site in the urls of the cached page. As a result all my customer's listing in the serps are replaced with this site. This hacked site then is redirecting to a competitor's site. I did many things to cop with the problem, site came back in the serps but hackers are doing this on lots of domains so when it recovered from one site then another site catches it. I am doing lots of reporting on submit spam site. I am doing lots of feedback on the serps page. I have switched to https . But seems like nothing is working. This community is full of experts and technical people. I am wondering that what are your views and suggestions to handle the problem permanently?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | adqas0 -
The differences between XXX.domain.com and domain.com/XXX?
hi guys i would like to know which seo value is better? for example if i would put a link in xxx.domain.com or domain.com/XXX which one will give me a better seo value? does it give the same? assuming that domain.com have a huge PR RANK itself. why do people bother making XXX.domain.com instead? hope for clarification thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | andzon0 -
Controlling crawl speed/delay through dynamic server-code and 503's
Lately i'm experiencing performance trouble caused by bot traffic. Although Googlebot is not the worst (it's mainly bingbot and ahrefsbot), they cause heavy server load from time to time. We run a lot of sites on one server, so heavy traffic on one site impacts other site's performance. Problem is that 1) I want a centrally managed solution for all sites (per site administration takes too much time), which 2) takes into account total server-load in stead of only 1 site's traffic and 3) controls overall bot-traffic in stead of controlling traffic for one bot. IMO user-traffic should always be prioritized higher than bot-traffic. I tried "Crawl-delay:" in robots.txt, but Googlebot doesn't support that. Although my custom CMS system has a solution to centrally manage Robots.txt for all sites at once, it is read by bots per site and per bot, so it doesn't solve 2) and 3). I also tried controlling crawl-speed through Google Webmaster Tools, which works, but again it only controls Googlebot (and not other bots) and is administered per site. No solution to all three of my problems. Now i came up with a custom-coded solution to dynamically serve 503 http status codes to a certain portion of the bot traffic. What traffic-portion for which bots can be dynamically (runtime) calculated from total server load at that certain moment. So if a bot makes too much requests within a certain period (or whatever other coded rule i'll invent), some requests will be answered with a 503 while others will get content and a 200. Remaining question is: Will dynamically serving 503's have a negative impact on SEO? OK, it will delay indexing speed/latency, but slow server-response-times do in fact have a negative impact on the ranking, which is even worse than indexing-latency. I'm curious about your expert's opinions...
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | internetwerkNU1 -
EMD with 3.3million broad match searches got hit hard by Panda/Penguin
k, so I run an ecommerce website with a kick ass domain name. 1 keyword (plural)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SwissNinja
3.3 million broad match searches (local monthly)
3.2 million phrase match
100k exact match beginning of march I got a warning in GWT about unnatural links. I feel pretty certain its a result of an ex-employee using an ALN listing service to drip spun article links on splogs. This was done also for another site of mine, which received the same warning, except bounced back much sooner (from #3 for EMD w/ 100k broad, 60k phrase and 12k exact, singular keyword phrase) I did file reinclusion on the 2nd (smaller) domain. Received unnatural warning on 4/13 and sent reconsideration on 5/1 (tune of letter is "I have no clue what is up, I paid someone $50 and now Im banned) As of this morning, I am not ranking for any of my terms (had boucned back on main keyword to spot #30 after being pushed down from #4) now back to the interesting site....
this other domain was bouncing between 8-12 for main keyword (EMD) before we used ALN.
Once we got warning, we did nothing. Once rankings started to fall,we filed reinclusion request...rankings fell more, and filed another more robustly written request (got denials within 1 week after each request)until about 20 days ago when we fell off of the face of the earth. 1- should I take this as some sort of sandbox? We are still indexed, and are #1 for a search on our domain name. Also still #1 in bing (big deal) 2- I've done a detailed analysis of every link they provide in GWT. reached out to whatever splog people I could get in touch with asking them to remove articles. I was going to file another request if I didn't reappear after 31 days after I fell off completely. Am I wasting my time? there is no doubt that sabatoge could be committed by competition by blasting them with spam links (previously I believed these would just be ignored by google to prevent sabatoge from becoming part of the job for most SEOs) Laugh at me, gasp in horror with me, or offer some advice... I'm open to chat and would love someone to tell me about a legit solution to this prob if they got one thanks!0