Getting Pages Requiring Login Indexed
-
Somehow certain newspapers' webpages show up in the index but require login. My client has a whole section of the site that requires a login (registration is free), and we'd love to get that content indexed. The developer offered to remove the login requirement for specific user agents (eg Googlebot, et al.). I am afraid this might get us penalized.
Any insight?
-
My guess: It's possible, but it would be an uphill battle. The reason being Google would likely see the page as a duplicate of all the other pages on your site with a login form. Not only does Google tend to drop duplicate pages from it's index (especially if it has a duplicate title tag - more leeway is giving the more unique elements you can place on a page) but now you face a situation where you have lots of duplicate or "thin" pages, which is juicy meat for a Panda-like penalty. Generally, you want to keep this pages out of the index, so it's a catch 22.
-
That makes sense. I am looking into whether any portion of our content can be made public in a way that would still comply with industry regulations. I am betting against it.
Does anyone know whether a page requiring login like this could feasibly rank with a strong backlink profile or a lot of quality social mentions?
-
The reason Google likes the "first click free" method is because they want the user to have a good result. They don't want users to click on a search result, then see something else on that page entirely, such as a login form.
So technically showing one set of pages to Google and another to users is considered cloaking. It's very likely that Google will figure out what's happening - either through manual review, human search quality raters, bounce rate, etc - and take appropriate actions against your site.
Of course, there's no guarantee this will happen, and you could argue that the cloaking wasn't done to deceive users, but the risk is high enough to warrant major consideration.
Are there any other options for displaying even part of the content, other than "first-click-free"? For example, can you display a snippet or few paragraphs of the information, then require login to see the rest? This at least would give Google something to index.
Unfortunately, most other methods for getting anything indexed without actually showing it to users would likely be considered blackhat.
Cyrus
-
Should have read the target:
"Subscription designation, snippets only: If First Click Free isn't a feasible option for you, we will display the "subscription" tag next to the publication name of all sources that greet our users with a subscription or registration form. This signals to our users that they may be required to register or subscribe on your site in order to access the article. This setting will only apply to Google News results.
If you prefer this option, please display a snippet of your article that is at least 80 words long and includes either an excerpt or a summary of the specific article. Since we do not permit "cloaking" -- the practice of showing Googlebot a full version of your article while showing users the subscription or registration version -- we will only crawl and display your content based on the article snippets you provide. If you currently cloak for Googlebot-news but not for Googlebot, you do not need to make any changes; Google News crawls with Googlebot and automatically uses the 80-word snippet.
NOTE: If you cloak for Googlebot, your site may be subject to Google Webmaster penalties. Please review Webmaster Guidelines to learn about best practices."
-
"In order to successfully crawl your site, Google needs to be able to crawl your content without filling out a registration form. The easiest way to do this is to configure your webservers not to serve the registration page to our crawlers (when the user-agent is "Googlebot") so that Googlebot can crawl these pages successfully. You can choose to allow Googlebot access to some restricted pages but not others. More information about technical requirements."
-http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=74536
Any harm in doing this while not implementing the rest of First Click Free??
-
What would you guys think about programming the login requirement behavior in such a way that only Google can't execute it--so Google wouldn't know that it is the only one getting through?
Not sure whether this is technically possible, but if it were, would it be theoretically likely to incur a penalty? Or is it foolish for other reasons?
-
Good idea--I'll have to determine precisely what I can and cannot show publicly and see if there isn't something I can do to leverage that.
I've heard about staying away from agent-specific content, but I wonder what the data are and whether there are any successful attempts?
-
First click free unfortunately won't work for us.
How might I go about determining how adult content sites handle this issue?
-
Have you considered allowing only a certain proportion of each page to show to any visitors including search engines. This way your pages will have some specific content that can be indexed and help you rank in the SERPs.
I have seen it done where publications behind a pay wall only allow the first paragraph or two to show - just enough to get them ranked appropriately but not enough to stop user wanting to register to access the full articles when they find them either through the SERPs, other sites or directly.
However for this to work it all depends on what the regualtions you mention require - would a proportion of the content being shown to all be ok??
I would definitely stay away from serving up different content to different users if I were you as this is likely to end up causing you trouble in the search engines..
-
I believe newspapers use a feature called "first click free" that enables this to work. I don't know if that will work with your industry regulations or not, however. You may also want to see how sites that deal with adult content, such as liquor sites, have a restriction for viewing let allow indexing.
-
Understood. The login requirement is necessary for compliance with industry regulations. My questions is whether I will be penalized for serving agent-specific content and/or whether there is a better way to get these pages in the index.
-
Search engines aren't good at completing online forms (such as a login), and thus any content contained behind them may remain hidden, so the developers option sounds like a good solution.
You may want to read:
http://www.seomoz.org/beginners-guide-to-seo/why-search-engine-marketing-is-necessary
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
-
Index, follow on a paginated page with a different rel=canonical URL
Hello, I have a question about meta robots ="index, follow" and rel=canonical on category page pagination. Should the sorted page be <meta name="robots" content="index,follow"></meta name="robots" content="index,follow"> since the rel="canonical" is pointing to a separate page that is different from the URL? Any thoughts on this topic would be awesome. Thanks. Main Category Page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Choice
https://www.site.com/category/
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow"><link rel="canonical" href="https: www.site.com="" category="" "=""></link rel="canonical" href="https:></meta name="robots" content="index,follow"> Sorted Page
https://www.site.com/category/?p=2&dir=asc&order=name
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow"=""><link rel="canonical" href="https: www.site.com="" category="" ?p="2""></link rel="canonical" href="https:></meta name="robots" content="index,> As you can see, the meta robots is telling Google to index https://www.site.com/category/?p=2&dir=asc&order=name , yet saying the canonical page is https://www.site.com/category/?p=2 .0 -
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
HTTP Pages Indexed as HTTPS
My site used to be entirely HTTPS. I switched months ago so that all links in the pages that the public has access to are now http only. But I see now that when I do a site:www.qjamba.com, the results include many pages with https in the beginning (including the home page!), which is not what I want. I can redirect to http but that doesn't remove https from the indexing, right? How do I solve this problem? sample of results: Qjamba: Free Local and Online Coupons, coupon codes ... **<cite class="_Rm">https://www.qjamba.com/</cite>**One and Done savings. Printable coupons and coupon codes for thousands of local and online merchants. No signups, just click and save. Chicnova online coupons and shopping - Qjamba **<cite class="_Rm">https://www.qjamba.com/online-savings/Chicnova</cite>**Online Coupons and Shopping Savings for Chicnova. Coupon codes for online discounts on Apparel & Accessories products. Singlehop online coupons and shopping - Qjamba <cite class="_Rm">https://www.qjamba.com/online-savings/singlehop</cite>Online Coupons and Shopping Savings for Singlehop. Coupon codes for online discounts on Business & Industrial, Service products. Automotix online coupons and shopping - Qjamba <cite class="_Rm">https://www.qjamba.com/online-savings/automotix</cite>Online Coupons and Shopping Savings for Automotix. Coupon codes for online discounts on Vehicles & Parts products. Online Hockey Savings: Free Local Fast | Qjamba **<cite class="_Rm">www.qjamba.com/online-shopping/hockey</cite>**Find big online savings at popular and specialty stores on Hockey, and more. Hitcase online coupons and shopping - Qjamba **<cite class="_Rm">www.qjamba.com/online-savings/hitcase</cite>**Online Coupons and Shopping Savings for Hitcase. Coupon codes for online discounts on Electronics, Cameras & Optics products. Avanquest online coupons and shopping - Qjamba <cite class="_Rm">https://www.qjamba.com/online-savings/avanquest</cite>Online Coupons and Shopping Savings for Avanquest. Coupon codes for online discounts on Software products.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | friendoffood0 -
Index Pages become No-Index
Hi Mozzers, Here is the scenario: I created a landing page targeting Holiday keywords for the holiday season. The page has been crawled and indexed - I see my landing page in the SERP. However, because of the CMS layout, since the Holiday is over and I don't want it to be displayed on the homepage, i have to remove the page from hp which makes it no-index (don't ask why, it's how the CMS was built). Question: How does this affect this LP's search? Since it's already crawled and etc. will it still be on the SERP after i change the page to no-index? If I remove the no-index next year for the holiday season, how does this all play out? Any insights or information provided will be appreciated. Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TommyTan0 -
PR Dilution and Number of Pages Indexed
Hi Mozzers, My client is really pushing for me to get thousands, if not millions of pages indexed through the use of long-tail keywords. I know that I can probably get quite a few of them into Google, but will this dilute the PR on my site? These pages would be worthwhile in that if anyone actually visits them, there is a solid chance they will convert to a lead do to the nature of the long-tail keywords. My suggestion is to run all the keywords for these thousands of pages through adwords to check the number of queries and only create pages for the ones which actually receive searches. What do you guys think? I know that the content needs to have value and can't be scraped/low-quality and pulling these pages out of my butt won't end well, but I need solid evidence to make a case either for or against it to my clients.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0 -
Blocking Pages Via Robots, Can Images On Those Pages Be Included In Image Search
Hi! I have pages within my forum where visitors can upload photos. When they upload photos they provide a simple statement about the photo but no real information about the image,definitely not enough for the page to be deemed worthy of being indexed. The industry however is one that really leans on images and having the images in Google Image search is important to us. The url structure is like such: domain.com/community/photos/~username~/picture111111.aspx I wish to block the whole folder from Googlebot to prevent these low quality pages from being added to Google's main SERP results. This would be something like this: User-agent: googlebot Disallow: /community/photos/ Can I disallow Googlebot specifically rather than just using User-agent: * which would then allow googlebot-image to pick up the photos? I plan on configuring a way to add meaningful alt attributes and image names to assist in visibility, but the actual act of blocking the pages and getting the images picked up... Is this possible? Thanks! Leona
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HD_Leona0 -
Wrong Page Indexing in SERPS - Suggestions?
Hey Moz'ers! I have a quick question. Our company (Savvy Panda) is working on ranking for the keyword: "Milwaukee SEO". On our website, we have a page for "Milwaukee SEO" in our services section that's optimized for the keyword and we've been doing link building to this. However, when you search for "Milwaukee SEO" a different page is being displayed in the SERP's. The page that's showing up in the SERP's is a category view of our blog of articles with the tag "Milwaukee SEO". **Is there a way to alert google that the page showing up in the SERP's is not the most relevant and request a new URL to be indexed for that spot? ** I saw a webinar awhile back that showed something like that using google webmaster sitelinks denote tool. I would hate to denote that URL and then loose any kind of indexing for the keyword.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SavvyPanda
Ideas, suggestions?0 -
How long till pages drop out of the index
In your experience how long does it normally take for 301-redirected pages to drop out of Google's index?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjalc20110