How much javascript does Googlebot read
-
We have a site where we have certain navigational links solely for the human user. These links help the user experience and lead to pages that we don't need crawled by googlebot. We have these links in javascript so if you disable javascript these links are invisible. Will these links be considered cloaking even though our intention is not to cloak but save our Google crawl for pages we do want indexed?
-
Hi CruiseControl, If you want to see how Google views your website you can download a tool called Lynx, Lynx is a text based browser which is very very similar to how Google's crawler views your website.
-
Thank you all for your input.
-
I wrote up a nice reply then decided to investigate a point and found a nice interview with Matt Cutts from 2010. The relevant quotes are:
Matt Cutts: For a while, we were scanning within JavaScript, and we were looking for links. Google has gotten smarter about JavaScript and can execute some JavaScript. I wouldn't say that we execute all JavaScript, so there are some conditions in which we don't execute JavaScript.
Eric Enge: If someone did choose to do that (JavaScript encoded links or use an iFrame), would that be viewed as a spammy activity or just potentially a waste of their time?
Matt Cutts: I am not sure that it would be viewed as a spammy activity, but the original changes to NoFollow to make PageRank Sculpting less effective are at least partly motivated because the search quality people involved wanted to see the same or similar linkage for users as for search engines. In general, I think you want your users to be going where the search engines go, and that you want the search engines to be going where the users go.
Article link: http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts-012510.shtml
-
There are circumstances where you are allowed to use 'cloaking' as some very influential websites have done however in your particular situation a nofollow tag and noindex tag would be the 'normal' procedure.
Personally, I think it is a grey area. You are not using the javascript to hide content as such and provided you are clearly not trying to manipulate the system there should be no reason why you would be penalised for it.
-
I would say yes they are cloaked links. I would suggest using HTML links only for maximum juice and to not anger the Googlebot. Serving different content to the user with and without javascript is a no-no. As for your crawl budget - best practice is to use a nofollow tag on the link and a noindex on the target page if you don't want it in the SERPS.
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
-
Different user experience with javascript on/off
I was wondered if the site is serving different user experience when JS is disabled is sort of cloaking
Technical SEO | | John_Smith_0 -
Setting title tag with javascript/jquery
Hi there, I'm looking for some advice. I've recently implemented a few jQuery functions which gets specific content from the page and then sets the title and description. See working example here. It seems to work fine but my question I have is whether Google bots can read it and whether it might actually hinder my SEO efforts? Any advice would be really appreciated! Peter
Technical SEO | | peterallen0 -
Will a timed 301 redirect work for Googlebot?
Our client is changing brand names and domain names. We know we need to 301 redirect the old domain, but for marketing reasons we want people to see a short message saying that the brand has changed and that they will be redirected. Example: | | Our concern is how, or if, Googlebot will intepret the redirect. Will this accomplish our SEO objective of moving the value of the page to the new domain, or do we need to do just a plain old fashioned 301 redirect and not even let the page load? Thanks for your help.
Technical SEO | | GOODSIR0 -
WMT - Googlebot can't access your site
Hi On our new website which is just a few weeks old upon logging into Webmaster tools I am getting the following message Googlebot can't access your site - The overall error rate for DNS queries is 50% What do I need to do to resolve this, I have never had this problem before with any of the sites - where the domains are with Fasthosts (UK) and hosting is with Dreamhosts. What is the recommended course of action Google mention contacting your host in my case Dreamhost - but what do you need to ask them in a support ticket. When doing a fetch in WMT the fetch status is a success?
Technical SEO | | ocelot0 -
Javascript void and PageRank
Do javascript void links to on-page elements (not to a new page) consume PageRank? I'm paring down links on a client's homepage, and we have javascript void links (wrapped in <a href="">) that load videos, elements of a slider, etc. on the page itself.</a> <a href="">Basically, if I have a bunch of these, is it going to weaken the power of the other links on the page?</a>
Technical SEO | | LCNetwork1 -
Javascript late loaded content not read by Gogglebot
Hi, We have a page with some good "keyword" content (user supplied comment widget), but there was a design choice made previously to late load it via JavaScript. This was to improve performance and the overall functionality relies on JavaScript. Unfortunately since it is loaded via js, it isn't read by Googlebot so we get no SEO value. I've read Google doesn't weigh <noscript>content as much as regular content. is this true? Once option is just to load some of the content via <noscript> tags. I just want to make sure Google still reads this content.</p> <p>Another option is to load some of the content via simple html when loading the page. If JavaScript is enabled, we'd hide this "read only" version via css and display the more dynamic user friendly version. - Would changing display based on js enabled be deemed as cloaking? Since non-js users would see the same thing (and this provides a ways for them to see some of the functionality in the widget, it is an overall net gain for those users too).</p> <p>In the end, I want Google to read the content but trying to figure out the best way to do so.</p> <p>Thanks,</p> <p>Nic</p> <p> </p></noscript>
Technical SEO | | NicB10 -
Almost Duplicate Product names (READ almost!)
Hi Mozzers, Here is a dilemma I thought I'd put forward and see how you guys would handle the situations. I'm working on a comparison website on which many of of the product names are very similar. There are circa 2000 products, of which many have similar names. Here are a few of the product names for example; Airsprung Enigma 5ft Mattress Airsprung Double Echo 6ft Mattress Silentnight Double Nova 6ft Mattress The Product name has been used in the page title of the product pages as show below; Compare Prices on the Airsprung Double Echo 6ft Mattress SEOmoz is highlighting these pages as having Duplicate Page Titles (and meta descriptions as a similar approach has been used). How would you handle this situation? Cheers Aran
Technical SEO | | Entrusteddev0 -
Hiding text with Javascript and a more button
I am considering putting a block of text on may pages, that initially appears as a snippet with a 'show more' button that expands to show the whole lot. Question: If the search engines can see the whole lot, but the visitor only sees the snippet until they click 'show more' then is this cloaking? Is it a really bad idea? Or can I get away with it because I am not being deceptive just improving the design? Help!
Technical SEO | | mascotmike0