Captcha wall to access content and cloaking sanction
-
Hello, to protect our website against scrapping, visitor are redirect to a recaptcha page after 2 pages visited.
But for a SEO purpose Google bot is not included in that restriction so it could be seen as cloaking.
What is the best practice in SEO to avoid a penalty for cloaking in that case ?
I think about adding a paywall Json shema NewsArticle but the content is acceccible for free so it's not a paywall but more a captcha protection wall.What do you recommend ?
Thanks,Describe your question in detail. The more information you give, the better! It helps give context for a great answer.
-
In general, Google cares only about cloaking in the sense of treating their crawler differently to human visitors - it's not a problem to treat them differently to other crawlers.
So: if you are tracking the "2 pages visited" using cookies (which I assume you must be? there is no other reliable way to know the 2nd request is from the same user without cookies?) then you can treat googlebot exactly the same as human users - every request is stateless (without cookies) and so googlebot will be able to crawl. You can then treat non-googlebot scrapers more strictly, and rate limit / throttle / deny them as you wish.
I think that if real human users get at least one "free" visit, then you are probably OK - but you may want to consider not showing the recaptcha to real human users coming from google (but you could find yourself in an arms race with the scrapers pretending to be human visitors from google).
In general, I would expect that if it's a recaptcha ("prove you are human") step rather than a paywall / registration wall, you will likely be OK in the situation where:
- Googlebot is never shown the recaptcha
- Other scrapers are aggressively blocked
- Human visitors get at least one page without a recaptcha wall
- Human visitors can visit more pages after completing a recaptcha (but without paying / registering)
Hope that all helps. Good luck!
-
Well I'm not saying that there's no risk in what you are doing, just that I perceive the risk to be less risky than the alternatives. I think such a fundamental change like pay-walling could be moderately to highly likely to have a high impact on results (maybe a 65% likelihood of a 50% impact). Being incorrectly accused of cloaking would be a much lower chance (IMO) but with potentially higher impact (maybe a 5% or less chance of an 85% impact). When weighing these two things up, I subjectively conclude that I'd rather make the cloaking less 'cloaky' in and way I could, and leave everything outside of a paywall. That's how I'd personally weigh it up
Personally I'd treat Google as a paid user. If you DID have a 'full' paywall, this would be really sketchy but since it's only partial and indeed data can continue to be accessed for FREE via recaptcha entry, that's the one I'd go for
Again I'm not saying there is no risk, just that each set of dice you have at your disposal are ... not great? And this is the set of dice I'd personally choose to roll with
The only thing to keep in mind is that, the algorithms which Googlebot return data to are pretty smart. But they're not human smart, a quirk in an algo could cause a big problem. Really though, the chances of that IMO (if all you have said is accurate) are minimal. It's the lesser of two evils from my current perspective
-
Yes our DA is good and we got lot of gouv, edu and medias backlinks.
Paid user did not go through recaptcha, indeed treat Google as a paid user could be a good solution.
So you did not recommend using a paywall ?
Today recaptcha is only used for decision pages
But we need thoses pages to be indexed for our business because all or our paid user find us while searching a justice decision on Google.So we have 2 solutions :
- Change nothing and treat Google as a paid user
- Use hard paywall and inform Google that we use json shema markup but we risk to seen lot of page deindexed
In addition we could go from 2 pages visited then captcha to something less intrusive like 6 pages then captcha
Also in the captcha page there is also a form to start a free trial, so visitor can check captcha and keep navigate or create a free account and get an unlimited access for 7 days.To conclude, if I well understand your opinion, we don't have to stress about being penalized for cloaking because Gbot is smart and understand why we use captcha and our DA help us being trustable by gbot. So I think the best solution is the 1, Change nothing and treat Google as a paid user.
Thank a lot for your time and your help !
It's a complicated subject and it's hard to find people able to answer my question, but you did it -
Well if you have a partnership with the Court of Justice I'd assume your trust and authority metrics would be pretty high with them linking to you on occasion. If that is true then I think in this instance Google would give you the benefit of the doubt, as you're not just some random tech start-up (maybe a start-up, but one which matters and is trusted)
It makes sense that in your scenario your data protection has to be iron-clad. Do paid users have to go through the recaptcha? If they don't, would there be a way to treat Google as a paid user rather than a free user?
Yeah putting down a hard paywall could have significant consequences for you. Some huge publishers manage to still get indexed (pay-walled news sites), but not many and their performance deteriorates over time IMO
Here's a question for you. So you have some pages you really want indexed, and you have a load of data you don't want scraped or taken / stolen - right? Is it possible to ONLY apply the recaptcha for the pages which contain the data that you don't want stolen, and never trigger the recaptcha (at all) in other areas? Just trying to think if there is a wiggle way in the middle, to make it obvious to Google you are doing all you possibly can to do keep Google's view and the user view the same
-
Hi effectdigital, thanks a lot for that answer. I agreed with you captcha is not the best UX idea but our content is sensitive, we are a legal tech indexing french justice decision. We get unique partnership with Court of Justice because we got a unique technology to anonymize data in justice decision so we don't want our competitor to scrap our date (and trust me they try, every day..). This is why we use recaptcha protection. For Gbot we use Google reverse DNS and user agent so even a great scrapper can't bypass our security.
Then we have a paid option, people can create an account and paid a monthly subscription to access content in unlimited. This is why I think about paywall. We could replace captcha page by a paywall page (with a freetrial of course) but I'm not sur Google will index millions of page hiding behing a metered paywall
As you said, I think there is no good answer..
And again, thank a lot to having take time to answer my question -
Unless you have previously experienced heavy scraping which you cannot solve any other way, this seems a little excessive. Most websites don't have such strong anti-spam measures and they cope just fine without them
I would say that it would be better to embed the recaptcha on the page and just block users from proceeding further (or accessing the content), until the recaptcha were filled. Unfortunately this would be a bad solution as scrapers would still be able to scrape the page, so I guess redirecting to the captcha is your only option. Remember that if you are letting Googlebot through (probably with a user agent toggle) then as long as scrape-builders program their scripts to serve the Googlebot UA, they can penetrate your recaptcha redirects and just refuse to do them. Even users can alter their browser's UA to avoid the redirects
There are a number of situations where Google don't consider redirect penetration to be cloaking. One big one is regional redirects, as Google needs to crawl a whole multilingual site instead of being redirected. I would think that in this situation Google wouldn't take too much of an issue with what you are doing, but you can never be certain (algorithms work in weird and wonderful ways)
I don't think any schema can really help you. Google will want to know that you are using technology that could annoy users so they can lower your UX score(s) accordingly, but unfortunately letting them see this will stop your site being properly crawled so I don't know what the right answer is. Surely there must be some less nuclear, obstructive technology you could integrate instead? Or just keep on top of your block lists (IP ranges, user agents) and monitor your site (don't make users suffer)
If you are already letting Googlebot through your redirects, why not just have a user-agent based allow list instead of a black list which is harder to manage? Find the UAs of most common mobile / desktop browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, Opera, whatever) and allow those UAs plus Googlebot. Anyone who does penetrate for scraping, deal with them on a case-by-case basis
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
-
What to do with dynamically translated content sharing same urls?
We've just added to an originally English website, Italian and German translations. User can switch between them with right hand drop down language selection menu; then the entire page will be translated (including menu, body, footer) but the urls remain the same. The Italian page have some meta data (titles and descriptions) translated as well. Is it going to be a significantly negative effect on SEO to have the translated pages sharing the same urls?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | D2i0 -
Client wants to show 2 different types of content based on cookie usage - potential cloaking issue?
Hi, A client of mine has compliance issues in their industry and has to show two different types of content to visitors: domain.com/customer-a/about-us domain.com/customer-b/about-us Next year, they have to increase that to three different types of customer. Rather than creating a third section (customer-c), because it's very similar to one of the types of customers already (customer-b), their web development agency is suggesting changing the content based on cookies, so if a user has indentified themselves as customer-b, they'll be shown /customer-b/, but if they've identified themselves as customer-c, they'll see a different version of /customer-b/ - in other words, the URL won't change, but the content on the page will change, based on their cookie selection. I'm uneasy about this from an SEO POV because: Google will only be able to see one version (/customer-b/ presumably), so it might miss out on indexing valuable /customer-c/ content, It makes sense to separate them into three URL paths so that Google can index them all, It feels like a form of cloaking - i.e. Google only sees one version, when two versions are actually available. I've done some research but everything I'm seeing is saying that it's fine, that it's not a form of cloaking. I can't find any examples specific to this situation though. Any input/advice would be appreciated. Note: The content isn't shown differently based on geography - i.e. these three customers would be within one country (e.g. the UK), which means that hreflang/geo-targeting won't be a workaround unfortunately.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | steviephil0 -
Which is more valuable in a landing page, content or functionality?
I have two possible landing pages to focus off page links and paid ad links to, one page has space for content but basically only serves as a springboard to a map view style listing page. The idea is to use this page full of good content to build search engine value. The map view page is the most functional and is what visitors would ultimately be seeking, but has no real room for content. Are these content landing pages useful? Would it be better to focus on user functionality even though there is no space for content, and would search engines naturally apply for value to these pages? Are these landing pages necessary? The url's in question are http://www.rentcollegepads.com/marquette/search and http://www.rentcollegepads.com/marquette Thanks guys!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Dom4410 -
Question on Moving Content
I just moved my site from a Wordpress hosted site to Squarespace. We have the same domain, however, the content is now located on a different URL (again, same base domain). I'm unable to easily set up 301 redirects for the old content to be mapped to the new content so I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a workaround. Basically, I want to make sure google knows that Product A's page is now located at this new URL. (www.domain.com/11245 > www.domain.com/product-a). Maybe it's something that I don't have to worry about anymore because the old content is gone? I mean, I have a global redirect set up that no matter what you enter after the base domain, it now goes to the homepage but I just want to make sure I'm not missing something here. Really appreciate your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheBatesMillStore1 -
Above the Fold Content
How important is the placement of unique content "Above the Fold". Will attention grabbing images suffice or must their be a lot of unique text?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | casper4340 -
News sites & Duplicate content
Hi SEOMoz I would like to know, in your opinion and according to 'industry' best practice, how do you get around duplicate content on a news site if all news sites buy their "news" from a central place in the world? Let me give you some more insight to what I am talking about. My client has a website that is purely focuses on news. Local news in one of the African Countries to be specific. Now, what we noticed the past few months is that the site is not ranking to it's full potential. We investigated, checked our keyword research, our site structure, interlinking, site speed, code to html ratio you name it we checked it. What we did pic up when looking at duplicate content is that the site is flagged by Google as duplicated, BUT so is most of the news sites because they all get their content from the same place. News get sold by big companies in the US (no I'm not from the US so cant say specifically where it is from) and they usually have disclaimers with these content pieces that you can't change the headline and story significantly, so we do have quite a few journalists that rewrites the news stories, they try and keep it as close to the original as possible but they still change it to fit our targeted audience - where my second point comes in. Even though the content has been duplicated, our site is more relevant to what our users are searching for than the bigger news related websites in the world because we do hyper local everything. news, jobs, property etc. All we need to do is get off this duplicate content issue, in general we rewrite the content completely to be unique if a site has duplication problems, but on a media site, im a little bit lost. Because I haven't had something like this before. Would like to hear some thoughts on this. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 360eight-SEO
Chris Captivate0 -
Google Translate for Unique Content
We are considering using the Google Translation tool to translate customer reviews into various languages for publication as indexable content both for users and for search engine long tail visibility and rankings. Does anyone have any experience, insights or caveats to share?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edreamsbcn0 -
Content linking ?
If you have links on the left hand side of the website on the Navigation and content at the bottom of the page and link to the same page with different anchor text or the same would it help the page (as it is surrounded by similar text) or is the first one counted and this is it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0