Dust.js Client-side JavaScript Templates & SEO
-
I work for a commerce company and our IT team is pushing to switch our JSP server-side templates over to client-side templates using a JavaScript library called Dust.js
Dust.js is a JavaScript client-side templating solution that takes the presentation layer away from the data layer. The problem with front-end solutions like this is they are not SEO friendly because all the content is being served up with JavaScript.
Dust.js has the ability to render your client-side content server-side if it detects Google bot or a browser with JavaScript turned off but I’m not sold on this as being “safe”.
Read about Linkedin switching over to Dust.js
Explanation of this: “Dust.js server side support: if you have a client that can't execute JavaScript, such as a search engine crawler, a page must be rendered server side. Once written, the same dust.js template can be rendered not only in the browser, but also on the server using node.js or Rhino.”
Basically what would be happening on the backend of our site, is we would be detecting the user-agent of all traffic and once we found a search bot, serve up our web pages server-side instead client-side to the bots so they can index our site. Server-side and client-side will be identical content and there will be NO black hat cloaking going on. The content will be identical.
But, this technique is Cloaking right?
From Wikipedia:
“Cloaking is a SEO technique in which the content presented to the search engine spider is different from that presented to the user's browser. This is done by delivering content based on the IP addresses or the User-Agent HTTP header of the user requesting the page. When a user is identified as a search engine spider, a server-side script delivers a different version of the web page, one that contains content not present on the visible page, or that is present but not searchable.”
Matt Cutts on Cloaking
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66355 Like I said our content will be the same but if you read the very last sentence from Wikipdia it’s the “present but not searchable” that gets me.
If our content is the same, are we cloaking?
Should we be developing our site like this for ease of development and performance?
Do you think client-side templates with server-side solutions are safe from getting us kicked out of search engines?
Thank you in advance for ANY help with this!
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 is the proper URL length? in seo
i learned that having 50 to 60 words in a url is ok and having less words is preferable by google. but i would like to know that as i am gonna include keywords in the urls and i am afraid it will increase the length. is it gonna slighlty gonna hurt me? my competitors have 8 characters domain url and keywords length of 13 and my site has 15 character domain url and keywords length of 13 which one will be prefered by google.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | calvinkj0 -
Does Google crawler understand & flag a blog post has text asserting sponsorship with dofollow outbound link?
I kind of know the answer, but just wanted to get some feedback from others. For the sake of argument, assume there are no other issues with the linking blog, such as: too many ads, thin content, etc. Question: If you make a payment for a blog post with a dofollow link, and in the blog post there is something to the effect of: "this post has been sponsored by..." Will Google crawlers detect that and flag that as an unnatural link?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | kekepeche0 -
Negative SEO yes/no?
We receive links from fake websites, these website are copy's from real websites that link to us, but sometimes the links are changes, as for example one link is called 'tank weapon with hitler', we are a insurance comparison website (a bit of topic). The real websites that link to us are copied and placed on .ga .tk etc domains: For example: wahlrsinnsa.ga, loungihngsa.ga, pajapritosa.cf, rgeitsportsa.cf, sospesvoasa.tk I received spam links on other domains with comments spam etc, this doesnt really work, but in this case we really suffer in our rankings (from position 1 to 5 etc). Not sure if this is negative SEO and if this is really the reason we lost some rankings, but it's a bit of a coincidence the domains come in google webmaster in the same period we suffer a downgrade in our rankings. My question: Is this negative SEO, or is it something automatic. And do I need to disavow the links/domains? The real versions of the websites (on other domains with .nl) give the website autority.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | remkoallertz0 -
International SEO question
We are based in the UK, if we make sure to do the following .com domain
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobAnderson
US Phone number
US currency 201
US language Content
server is CDN in the US
Language Meta Tags
Local Search Registration
geographic target via Google Webmaster Tools would the domain under a UK company registrant be an issue for google thinking we are US based and have any impact on rankings.0 -
Negative SEO Click Bot Lowering My CTR?
I am questioning whether one of our competitors is using a click bot to do negative SEO on our CTR for our industry's main term. Is there any way to detect this activity? Background: We've previously been hit by DoS attacks from this competitor, so I'm sure their ethics/morals wouldn't prevent them from doing negative SEO. We sell an insurance product that is only offered through broker networks (insurance agents) not directly by the insurance carriers themselves. However, our suspect competitor (another agency) and insurance carriers are the only ones who rank on the 1st page for our biggest term. I don't think the carrier sites would do very well since they don't even sell the product directly (they have pages w/ info only) Our site and one other agency site pops onto the bottom of page one periodically, only to be bumped back to page 2. I fear they are using a click bot that continuously bounces us out of page 1...then we do well relatively to the other pages on page 2 and naturally earn our way back to page 1, only to be pushed back to page 2 by the negative click seo...is my theory. Is there anything I can do to research whether my theory is right or if I'm just being paranoid?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TheDude0 -
What is your opinion on link farm risks and how do I explain this to a client?
Hi All, I have a new monthly retainer client who still has a $600/month "linkbuilding" contract with a large national advertising/directory organization (I won't name them but I'm sure you can guess). I just got a "linking" report and it's filled with garbage: Comment spam (on huffington post). Fake G+ Account Links from multiple sites with Domain Authority of 1 (http://encirclehealth.net/, http://livingstreamhealth.co/ , etc). These have no "about" sections, no ads, no products - just blatant link farms. I've told the client that these links pose a danger in Google, that he should get them to remove them, and that he should request a refund. Their rep is pushing back hard and saying there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Am I overestimating how bad/dangerous these are? How would you explain to the client the risks? I've already shared a report and my recommendations with the client but am really just looking for some affirmation of my position that these MUST get removed. Any advice much appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PlusROI0 -
Hit by negative SEO
I think my site got hit by a negative SEO campaign. We got nailed by the latest Google update and our traffic dropped significantly. We don't buy links, ask for links, do link exchanges, etc. Since the last update was all about spammy backlinks, I downloaded backlinks from Google Webmaster Tools just to see if there was any info in there. There are tons, hundreds, thousands of backlinks from spammy sites to us. Sites that are spammy as heck and sell backlinks on the footer. I can only assume someone went after us with a negative SEO campaign. We're the #3 site in a hot market. Is the only way to combat this to disavow all those spammy backlinks with the Google disavow tool? We also have a manual penalty on our site as well. I've asked for a reconsideration request and have heard nothing. Please advise.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Banner Ads help seo?
I see in OSE banner ads counting ads as incoming links - My question is has anyone done a study showing a non tagged banner ad link and its effects on seo? Does google counting it as organic since it has no tagging or since its in a ad spot its ignored?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DavidKonigsberg0