Showing Different Content To Members & Non-Members/Google and Cloaking Risk
-
How do we safely show logged-in members/Google one type of content on a page and logged out/non-members another kind of content without getting slammed for cloaking?
Right now we do this thing where we show Google everything on the page, but new visitors partial forum comments with the pitch to sign up and see full comments. So far, we have not gotten into trouble for this.
The new idea is to show non-members a lot of marketing messages and one kind of navigation and then once they sign up and are logged in, show different or no marketing messages and a different kind of navigation.
How do we stay out of trouble with this? Where is the cloaking line drawn? It's got me kinda nervous.
Thanks... Darcy
-
Wow...I didn't know this! Thanks Dirk for putting me in the 5000 Moz points club!
-
Hi Marie
Couldn't resist to like this - I noticed that you were only missing one like to reach the Moz Walhalla...
Congrats,
Dirk
-
I agree with Dirk. This sounds like cloaking. It would be best to only show Google the content that non-members can see.
If you show Google content that a non-member can't see, then this is cloaking and could get you penalized. But, even if it doesn't get you penalized, it's possible it could get you into Panda trouble. Let's say I am searching for something and I see a Google result that shows me that your site has the answer to my query. I click on your site and realize that I can only see this content if I'm a member. I don't want to become a member, so I click away and find another site to read. If enough users do this, then this is a signal to Google (and likely to Panda) that readers don't like your site.
-
Hi Darcy,
If you apply the strict definition of Google, you are "inserting text or keywords into a page only when the User-agent requesting the page is a search engine, not a human visitor" - even if you don't do it with the intention to trick search engines (the inserted text = text which is invisible for non-registered users).
Is there a way to show the same content to both bots & humans, and still keeping the page
- attractive enough for search engines
- teasing enough for humans to register
It's difficult to guess the level of risk you're running - but once penalised, traffic drop is huge & recovery takes normally a long time (with no guarantee of full recovery)
rgds
Dirk
-
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for the response. Folks out of Google do not see the full page that Google saw. They see a snippet of comments and a pitch to log in or register to see full comments (in a forum). They don't see different content right now... they see less content, but the same as Google saw. Is that clearer?
Thanks... Darcy
-
Hi Darcy,
When people click on the results in Google - do they see the normal page (the one that Googlebot saw) or the version for the "new" users. If it's the second case - you are indeed cloaking according to Google's definition (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355).
If you're listed in Google News - you could participate in "First Click Free" (https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en) - which basically allows you to hide your content behind a registration wall but still be indexed as long as you provide at least 5 pages (articles) /day
Not all participants to First Click Free are playing according to the rules (http://searchengineland.com/google-fails-enforce-first-click-free-203078) - but I guess your site isn't the Financial times.
You could continue what you're doing now, but you certainly run the risk of a penalty in my opinion
rgds,
Dirk
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 my content being fully read by Google?
Hi mozzers, I wanted to ask you a quick question regarding Google's crawlability of webpages. We just launched a series of content pieces but I believe there's an issue.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TyEl
Based on what I am seeing when I inspect the URL it looks like Google is only able to see a few titles and internal links. For instance, when I inspect one of the URLs on GSC this is the screenshot I am seeing: image.pngWhen I perform the "cache:" I barely see any content**:** image.pngVS one of our blog post image.png Would you agree with me there's a problem here? Is this related to the heavy use of JS? If so somehow I wasn't able to detect this on any of the crawling tools? Thanks!0 -
Paragraphs/Tables for Content & SEO
Hi Does anyone know if Google prefers paragraphs over content in a table, or doesn't it make much difference?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Suspected hacking - Google has detected that some of your pages may contain hidden text or cloaking
I got below message from google, But I did not see any hidden text, Please check it. http://www.astrologerravisharma.com/: Suspected hacking Google has detected that some of your pages may contain hidden text or cloaking, techniques that are outside our Webmaster Guidelines. Specifically, we detected that your site may have been modified by a third party. Typically, the offending party gains access to an insecure directory that has open permissions. Many times, they will upload files or modify existing ones, which then show up as spam in our index. Sample URLs: http://www.astrologerravisharma.com/ http://www.astrologerravisharma.com/about-us/ http://www.astrologerravisharma.com/achievements/ Recommended action Clean up the hacked content so that your site meets Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bondhoward0 -
Is a different location in page title, h1 title, and meta description enough to avoid Duplicate Content concern?
I have a dynamic website which will have location-based internal pages that will have a <title>and <h1> title, and meta description tag that will include the subregion of a city. Each page also will have an 'info' section describing the generic product/service offered which will also include the name of the subregion. The 'specific product/service content will be dynamic but in some cases will be almost identical--ie subregion A may sometimes have the same specific content result as subregion B. Will the difference of just the location put in each of the above tags be enough for me to avoid a Duplicate Content concern?</p></title>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | couponguy0 -
How would I know if Google is showing me as two separate sites?
I work for a company that is (for example) www.neat-stuff.com, most people just type in www.neatstuff.com. I think that we are being counted as a site twice. Any suggestions as to how to know for sure? If you want to know why I am asking this here is the link http://www.seomoz.org/q/redirect-help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
What on-page/site optimization techniques can I utilize to improve this site (http://www.paradisus.com/)?
I use a Search Engine Spider Simulator to analyze the homepage and I think my client is using black hat tactics such as cloaking. Am I right? Any recommendations on to improve the top navigation under Resorts pull down. Each of the 6 resorts listed are all part of the Paradisus brand, but each resort has their own sub domain.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Melia0 -
301 Redirect or Canonical Tag or Leave Them Alone? Different Pages - Similar Content
We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are: **Version 1 -- Preferred Version: ** http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker Version 2: http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net Version 3: http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version. We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue. Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3? Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Matt M
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720 -
Google Places / Google Analytics
I apologize first if this comes across as extremely novice, but I realized I really didn't know the answer and so - here I am. 🙂 Is anyone familiar with tracking google place traffic in google analytics? Is it possible? I'd love to know how many of our visitors are coming from our google place listings (we have several locations throughout the state.) Much gratitude in advance ~ Alicia
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Aaronetics0