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/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.
-
Artience Girl, the information shared by Shane, Aaron and Lewis is correct.
Google wants to see the same page as it would be shown to a user under the same circumstances. If Google is crawling your page from San Jose California, then they want to see what a user from San Jose would see. If they decide to later crawl your site from their center in London, they want to see your site as it would be seen by a London user. The geo-targeting redirects you are presently doing are fine.
If you were to write any code which says to always show the Google crawler the US version of your site, then that tactic would be defined as cloaking. Any time you write code to specifically identify a crawler and show it different content, then you are cloaking.
It seems you are a bit uncomfortable with the answers so let me set you at ease by sharing a Matt Cutts response to your question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFf1gwr6HJw
-
Hi Shane Thomas.
Thanks for your feedback.
Actually contents is not exactly same, but alot similar. Because I sell different products for different countries.
For example, I sell 30 products for US but only 10 products for UK. In this case, my UK site has only pages for 10 products. Of course, contents lay out and products are similar.
In this case, should I worry about cloaking?
Also, how search engine can see "intent is not deceptive or not"?
I always wondering about that. ^^
-
Hello, Lewis-SEO. Thanks for your reply, but I am not totally following your answer.
What do you mean by "Google only version of the site"?
You mentioned as follow.
"You will therefore need to decide which regional variation you want Google to end up at when it tries to visit/crawl the www.example.com URL"
Is this meaning that I should set "user agent redirection" for Google bot to send it to particular regional site? e.g. send Google bot to only www.example.com/us/ no matter which country IP address Google bot has?
Please correct me, if I am wrong. But this sounds more cloacking to me.
Google bot with DE IP address should redirect to www.example.com/de/ so google bot can crawl right contents. And when Google bot with UK IP addres should redirect to www.example.com/uk/.
I think if I send alll Google bot to www.example.com/us/ for example, it will confuse google bot more.
Could you please be more specific regarding your answer? PLEASE ~~~
-
Hi Artience Girl
The Google Webmaster guidelines covers topics like these but a key point is that geotargetting using IP address is fine as long as you are not showing Google a separate Google only version of the site. This would be considered cloaking.
You will therefore need to decide which regional variation you want Google to end up at when it tries to visit/crawl the www.example.com URL
But before you do that check the Google Webmaster guidelines in and around this area as if you follow them you are less likely to end up on the wrong side of them.
Hope this helps.
-
This really does not fit the description of cloaking, the content is the same, just different languages right?
If this is the case IMO this would not bee seen as cloaking as your are not delivering different content, just user experience.
Also as long as you are not separating IP delivery by source (meaning sending spiders somewhere different than humans) this would not be the definition of cloaking.
WIKI:
One use of IP delivery is to determine the requestor's location, and deliver content specifically written for that country. This isn't necessarily cloaking. For instance, Google uses IP delivery for AdWords and AdSense advertising programs to target users in different geographic locations.
As of 2006, many sites have taken up IP delivery to personalise content for their regular customers. Many of the top 1000 sites, including sites like Amazon (amazon.com), actively use IP delivery. None of these have been banned from search engines **as their intent is not deceptive. ** Keyword here..... Deceptive
-
I don't think this would come across as cloaking at all. It's a fairly common practice.
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
-
Consolidating 301 Redirects to Decrease Page Load Times - Major Concerns?
Hello, I am being pushed to consolidate our over 6k redirects that have accumulated over the course of 4 years. These redirects are one of the many factors causing extensive load times for our website. Many to most or over a year old, have not been used, or simply redirect back to the home page. Other than looking to keep the pages that have external links (also looking for recommendations/tools), are there other best practices from an SEO stand point to ensure there are no major hits to our website. A little more info, I am looking to pair 6K down by Removing all Redirects that have not been used Removing all redirects that are over 1 yr+ Remove all redirects that redirect to simply the home page or a smaller big bucket subfolder
Technical SEO | | Owner_Account
This should take the number from 6K to around 300. Are there any major concerns? Pat0 -
To 301 or not to 301?
So, to cut a long story short, on our website we have a /product page that is very similar to our homepage and doesn't really serve much of a purpose. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of the website and our directors want to get rid of it and focus our efforts on our homepage. Problem is, the /product page has a little bit of PA and links to other important pages on the website. I personally don't want to completely cut this page off. Would a 301 redirect to the homepage be a good option or would I be better off redirecting users to our course library page (Our course pages are what bring in most of our organic traffic)? Any help or other suggestions would be appreciated here! http://www.ihasco.co.uk/
Technical SEO | | iHasco1 -
Selective 301 redirections of pages within folders
Redirection Puzzle - it's got me puzzled anyhow! The finished website has just been converted from an old aspx affair to a wordpress site. Some directory structures have changed significantly; there appears to be a load of older medical articles that have not been added back in and it sounds unlikely that they will be. Therefore unmatched old news articles need to be pointed to the top news page to keep hold of any link value they may have accrued. The htaccess file starts with ithemes security's code, Followed by the main wordpress block and I have added the user redirects to the final section of the htaccess file . I have been through the redirects and rewrites line by line to verify them and the following sections are giving me problems. This is probably just my aging brain failing to grasp basic logic. If I can tap into anybody's wisdom for a bit of help I would appreciate it. My eyes and brain are gone to jelly. I have used htaccesscheck.com to check out the underlying syntax and ironed out the basic errors that I had previously missed. The bulk of the redirects are working correctly. #Here there are some very long media URLs which are absent on the new site and I am simply redirecting visiting spiders to the page that will hold media in future. Media items refuse to redirect
Technical SEO | | TomVolpe
Line 408 redirect 301 /Professionals/Biomedicalforum/Recordedfora/Rich%20Media%20http:/kplayer.kcl.ac.uk/ess/echo/presentation/15885525-ff02-4ab2-b0b9-9ba9d97ca266 http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/biomedical-forum/recorded-fora/ Line 409 redirect 301 /Professionals/Biomedicalforum/Recordedfora/Quicktime%20http:/kplayer.kcl.ac.uk/ess/echo/presentation/15885525-ff02-4ab2-b0b9-9ba9d97ca266/media.m4v http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/biomedical-forum/recorded-fora/ Line 410 redirect 301 /Professionals/Biomedicalforum/Recordedfora/Mp3%20http:/kplayer.kcl.ac.uk/ess/echo/presentation/15885525-ff02-4ab2-b0b9-9ba9d97ca266/media.mp3 http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/biomedical-forum/recorded-fora/ #Old site pagination URLs redirected to new "news" top level page - Here I am simply pointing all the pagination URLs for the news section, that were indexed, to the main news page. These work but append the pagination code on to the new visible URL. Have I got the syntax correct in this version of the lines to suppress the appended garbage? RewriteRule ^/LatestNews.aspx(?:.*) http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/? [R=301,L] #On the old site many news directories (blog effectively) contained articles that are unmatched on the new site, have been redirected to new top level news (blog) page: In this section I became confused about whether to use Redirect Match or RewriteRule to point the articles in each year directory back to the top level news page. When I have added a redirectmatch command - it has been disabling the whole site! Despite my syntax check telling me it is syntactically correct. Currently I'm getting a 404 for any of the old URLs in these year by year directories, instead of a successful redirect. I suspect Regex lingo is not clicking for me 😉 My logic here was rewrite any aspx file in the directory to the latest news page at the top. This is my latest attempt to rectify the fault. Am I nearer with my syntax or my logic? The actual URLs and paths have been substituted, but the structure is the same). So what I believe I have set up is: in an earlier section; News posts that have been recreated in the new site are redirected 1 - 1 and they are working successfully. If a matching URL is not found, when the parsing of the file reaches the line for the 1934 directory it should read any remaining .aspx URL request and rewrite it to the latest news page as a 301 and stop processing this block of commands. The subsequent commands in this block repeat the process for the other year groups of posts. Clearly I am failing to comprehend something and illumination would be gratefully received. RewriteRule ^/Blab/Blabbitall/1934/(.*).aspx http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/ [R=301,L] #------Old site 1933 unmatched articles redirected to new news top level page RewriteRule ^/Blab/Blabbitall/1933/(.*).aspx http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/ [R=301,L] #------Old site 1932 unmatched articles redirected to new news top level page RewriteRule ^/Blab/Blabbitall/1932/(.*)/.aspx http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/ [R=301,L] #------Old site 1931 unmatched articles redirected to new news top level page RewriteRule ^/Blab/Blabbitall/1931/(.*)/.aspx http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/ [R=301,L] #------Old site 1930 unmatched articles redirected to new news top level page RewriteRule ^/Blab/Blabbitall/1930/(.*)/.aspx http://www.SITENAME.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/ [R=301,L] Many thanks if anyone can help me understand the logic at work here.0 -
301 Redirect domain with penalty
Wondering if I could get a few views on this please... I have added an affiliate store to a domain I own, however I forgot to noindex the product pages which were duplicate content of the merchants. Despite a good deal of backlink building the site will not do much in the engines at all, doesn't even come up on the first few pages for it's own name! This suggests to me that I have a duplicate content penalty. Try as I may I cannot get it removed so am thinking of cloning the domain to a new domain, however, I do not want to lose the links I collected so I am planning on 301ing them. While I will not get all the link power moved over, I should at least get credit for some of them which will kick start the new domain. Can anyone forsee any potential issues with doing this? Is there a danger of 301ing a site with a penalty that the penalty would be carried over? I know there is no penalty on the links, no WMT warnings etc, it is the content causing the issue. Thanks, Carl
Technical SEO | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
Suddenly Many 301 Redirects captured by SEOMOZ
On April the 7th SeoMOZ captured 6000 301 redirect on my site, but I cant seem to understand how SEOMOZ finds these links Example http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/index-2-4a.html Makes a 301 Redirect to the following page beneath SEOMOZ says http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/index-2.html The weird thing is that both urls work, but if i browse my site in a normal matter this link will never be created i that way. The -4a in the end os the link is not the normal link structure on the site and has never been like that before. So how does SEOMOZ Create that link? http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/index-2-4a.html Also google only has the right one that are this one beneath http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/index-2.html People would normal come to the category with this url http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/ And page 2 would be http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/index-2.html AND NOT http://www.iphonegadget.dk/dk/apple-tilbeh-r-36/ipad-tilbeh-r-219/bilholder-239/index-2-4a.html Can anyone find out what is going on?
Technical SEO | | noerdar0 -
Is page rank lost through a 301 redirect?
Hi everyone. I'd really appreciate your help with this one 🙂 I've just watched Matt Cutt's video 'what percentage of PageRank is lost through a 301 redirect?' and I am confused. I had taken this to mean that a re-direct would always lose you page rank, but watching it again I am not so sure. He says that the amount of page rank lost through a 301 redirect is the same as any other link. Does this mean that no page rank at all is lost during site migrations? Or is it the case that first page rank would be lost from the original link and then more page rank would be lost from any subsequent redirects? watch?v=Filv4pP-1nw
Technical SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
301 Redirect Clarification: Images, Paramter URLs, etc.
I know that going through a site redesign it's essential to make sure that 301s are implemented for any changed URLs, but I wasn't sure if this was the same for the images on the page and the parameter URLs that are created by marketing campaigns - do those URLs also need to be 301 redirected? For example, this URL: www.mysite.com/32-inch-round-aluminum-table/ Could have a parameter at: www.mysite.com/32-inch-round-aluminum-table/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Social%3A+My_Site And an image at: www.mysite.com/images/32-inch-round-aluminum-table.jpg Would the first two URLs mentioned need to be redirected to the new URL, and the image redirected to the new image URL? Thanks for the help.
Technical SEO | | eTundra0 -
301 redirect
We have just had an outside SEO agency report on our site: One of things brought up were arounf broken links, and how they class them as broken links. Could any body tell me whether this statement holds true please, as I am not aware of this "Our latest intelligence shows that google are downgrading ranking from sites that feature 301 redirects within the internal link structure". Any help would be greatly appreciated Regards
Technical SEO | | Yozzer0