Indexing content behind a login
-
Hi,
I manage a website within the pharmaceutical industry where only healthcare professionals are allowed to access the content. For this reason most of the content is behind a login.
My challenge is that we have a massive amount of interesting and unique content available on the site and I want the healthcare professionals to find this via Google!
At the moment if a user tries to access this content they are prompted to register / login. My question is that if I look for the Google Bot user agent and allow this to access and index the content will this be classed as cloaking? I'm assuming that it will.
If so, how can I get around this? We have a number of open landing pages but we're limited to what indexable content we can have on these pages!
I look forward to all of your suggestions as I'm struggling for ideas now!
Thanks
Steve
-
Thanks everyone... It's not as restrictive as patient records... Basically, because of the way our health service works in the UK we are not allowed to promote material around our medicines to patients, it should be restricted only to HCP's. If we are seen to be actively promoting to patients we run the risk of a heavy fine.
For this reason we need to take steps to ensure that we only target this information towards HCP's and therefore we require them to register before being able to access the content...
My issue is that HCP's may search for a Brand that we supply but we have to be very careful what Brand information we provide outside of log-in. Therefore the content we can include on landing pages cannot really be optimised for the keywords that they are searching for! Hence why I want the content behind log-in indexed but not easily available without registering...
It's a very difficult place to be!
-
I guess I was just hoping for that magic answer that doesn't exist! It's VERY challenging to optimise a site with these kinds of restrictions but I get I just need to put what I can on the landing pages and optimise as best I can with the content I can show!
We also have other websites aimed at patients where all the content is open so I guess I'll just have to enjoy optimising these instead
Thanks for all your input!
Steve
-
Steve,
Yes that would be cloaking. I wouldn't do that.
As Pete mentioned below, your only real options at this point are to make some of the content, or new content, available for public use. If you can't publish abstracts at least, then you'll have to invest in copywriting content that is legally available for the public to get traffic that way, and do your best to convert them into subscribers.
-
Hi Steve
If it can only be viewed legally by health practitioners who are members of your site, then it seems to me you don't have an option as by putting any of this content into the public domain on Google by whatever method you use will be deemed illegal by whichever body oversees it.
Presumably you cannot also publish short 25o word summaries of the content?
If not, then I think you need to create pages that are directly targeted at marketing the site to health practitioners. Whilst the pages won't be able to contain the content you want to have Google index, they could still contain general information and the benefits of becoming a subscriber.
Isn't that the goal of the site anyway, i.e. to be a resource to health practitioners? So, without being able to make the content public, you have to market to them through your SEO or use some other form or indirect or direct marketing to encourage them to the site to sign up.
I hope that helps,
Peter -
Thanks all... Unfortunately it is a legal requirement that the content is not made publicly available but the challenge then is how do people find it online!
I've looked at first click free and pretty much ever other option I could think of and yet to find a solution
My only option is to allow Google Bot through the authentication which will allow it to index the content but my concern is that this is almost certainly cloaking...
-
Please try looking at "First Click Free" by Google
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/74536?hl=en
I think this is along the lines of what you are looking for.
-
Hi Steve
As you already know, if a page is not crawlable it's not indexable. I don't think there is any way around this without changing the strategy of the site. You said, _"We have a number of open landing pages but we're limited to what indexable content we can have on these pages". _Is that limitation imposed by a legal requirement or something like that, or by the site owners because they don't want to give free access?
If the marketing strategy for the site is to grow the membership, then as it's providing a content service to its members then it has to give potential customers a sample of its wares.
I think there are two possible solutions.
(1) increase the amount of free content available on the site to give the search engines more content to crawl and make available to people searching or
(2) Provide a decent size excerpt, say the first 250 words of each article as a taster for potential customers and put the site login at the point of the "read more". That way you give the search engines something to get their teeth into which is of a decent length but it's also a decent size teaser to give potential customers an appetite to subscribe.
I hope that helps,
Peter
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
-
Technical : Duplicate content and domain name change
Hi guys, So, this is a tricky one. My server team just made quite a big mistake :We are a big We are a big magento ecommerce website, selling well, with about 6000 products. And we are about to change our domaine name for administrative reasons. Let's call the current site : current.com and the future one : future.com Right, here is the issue Connecting to the search console, I saw future.com sending 11.000 links to current.com. At the same time DA was hit by 7 points. I realized future.com was uncorrectly redirected and showed a duplicated site or current.com. We corrected this, and future.com now shows a landing page until we make the domain name change. I was wondering what is the best way to avoid the penalty now and what can be the consequences when changing domain name. Should I set an alias on search console or something ? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Kepass0 -
Referral source not indexed or showing up in GSC
I've been doing a lot of research about this and have not been able to find an answer just yet. Google analytics is showing over 43k referrals from about 35 different spam sources. I checked the hostname thinking that they were ghost referrals and I was surprised to see that they all show our domain so that part is disqualified. The next thing I did was to look at the referral path to look at the pages that were pointing to the site and when I clicked to launch the link the window loaded YouTube or did not load at all. After doing a bit of research I came across **Disavowing Links, **at first it sounded like the perfect solution for this, but after reading all the warnings that everyone gives I decided to spend more time researching and to use that as a last resource. I proceeded to check Google Search Console to identify those backlinks and to make sure they were coming up there as well. To my surprise, none of these links show up in GSC. Neither for the www or the non-www property. I have decided to avoid disavowing the links before making sure that this is the correct thing to do. Although it may still seem like it is, I want to ask for an expert opinion or if anyone else has experienced this. If GSC doesn't see them it means that Google is not indexing them, my problem is that GA still sees them and that concerns me. I don't want this to affect our site by getting penalized, or by losing ranking. Please help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dbmiglpz0 -
Chinese search engine indexation
Hello, I have read that it is vital for a site to be indexed in Chinese search engines that it needs to be hosted in China on a server with a Chinese IP address, is this true? The site in question is a .cn site, hosted in USA currently, but served via CloudFlare (which has locations in China). Any advice on how to rank a Chinese site would be greatly appreciated, including if you know anyone who I can hire to create a Chinese sitemap file to submit to Chinese search engines (and even optimise the site). Many thanks,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | uworlds
Mark0 -
How do I optimize pages for content that changes everyday?
Hi Guys I run daily and weekend horoscopes on my site, the daily horoscopes are changing every day for obvious reasons, and the weekend horoscopes change every weekend. However, I'm stuck in how the pages need to be structured. I also don't know how I should go about creating title tags and meta tags for content that changes daily. Each daily and weekend entry creates a new page. As you can see here http://bit.ly/1FV6x0y you can see todays horoscope. Since our weekend horoscopes cover Friday Sat and Sunday, there is no daily for Friday, so it shows duplicate pages across Friday, Sat and sunday. If you click on today, tomorrow and weekend all pages showing are duplicate and this will happen for each star sign from Fri, Sat Sun. My question is, will I be penalized doing this? Even if the content changes? How can I optimize the Title Tags and Meta Tags for pages that are constantly changing? I'm really stuck on this one and would appreciate some feedback into this tricky beast. Thanks in advance
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
Dynamic Content Boxes: how to use them without get Duplicate Content Penalty?
Hi everybody, I am starting a project with a travelling website which has some standard category pages like Last Minute, Offers, Destinations, Vacations, Fly + Hotel. Every category has inside a lot of destinations with relative landing pages which will be like: Last Minute New York, Last Minute Paris, Offers New York, Offers Paris, etc. My question is: I am trying to simplify my job thinking about writing some dynamic content boxes for Last Minute, Offers and the other categories, changing only the destination city (Rome, Paris, New York, etc) repeated X types in X different combinations inside the content box. In this way I would simplify a lot my content writing for the principal generic landing pages of each category but I'm worried about getting penalized for Duplicate Content. Do you think my solution could work? If not, what is your suggestion? Is there a rule for categorize a content as duplicate (for example number of same words in a row, ...)? Thanks in advance for your help! A.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | OptimizedGroup0 -
Can I use content from an existing site that is not up anymore?
I want to take down a current website and create a new site or two (with new url, ip, server). Can I use the content from the deleted site on the new sites since I own it? How will Google see that?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
Cloaking for better user experience and deeper indexing - grey or black?
I'm working on a directory that has around 800 results (image rich results) in the top level view. This will likely grow over time so needs support thousands. The main issue is that it is built in ajax so paginated pages are dynamically generated and look like duplicate content to search engines. If we limit the results, then not all of the individual directory listing pages can be found. I have an idea that serves users and search engines what they want but uses cloaking. Is it grey or black? I've read http://moz.com/blog/white-hat-cloaking-it-exists-its-permitted-its-useful and none of the examples quite apply. To allow users to browse through the results (without having a single page that has a slow load time) we include pagination links but which are not shown to search engines. This is a positive user experience. For search engines we display all results (since there is no limit the number of links so long as they are not spammy) on a single page. This requires cloaking, but is ultimately serving the same content in slightly different ways. 1. Where on the scale of white to black is this? 2. Would you do this for a client's site? 3. Would you do it for your own site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
My attempt to reduce duplicate content got me slapped with a doorway page penalty. Halp!
On Friday, 4/29, we noticed that we suddenly lost all rankings for all of our keywords, including searches like "bbq guys". This indicated to us that we are being penalized for something. We immediately went through the list of things that changed, and the most obvious is that we were migrating domains. On Thursday, we turned off one of our older sites, http://www.thegrillstoreandmore.com/, and 301 redirected each page on it to the same page on bbqguys.com. Our intent was to eliminate duplicate content issues. When we realized that something bad was happening, we immediately turned off the redirects and put thegrillstoreandmore.com back online. This did not unpenalize bbqguys. We've been looking for things for two days, and have not been able to find what we did wrong, at least not until tonight. I just logged back in to webmaster tools to do some more digging, and I saw that I had a new message. "Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected doorway pages on http://www.bbqguys.com/" It is my understanding that doorway pages are pages jammed with keywords and links and devoid of any real content. We don't do those pages. The message does link me to Google's definition of doorway pages, but it does not give me a list of pages on my site that it does not like. If I could even see one or two pages, I could probably figure out what I am doing wrong. I find this most shocking since we go out of our way to try not to do anything spammy or sneaky. Since we try hard not to do anything that is even grey hat, I have no idea what could possibly have triggered this message and the penalty. Does anyone know how to go about figuring out what pages specifically are causing the problem so I can change them or take them down? We are slowly canonical-izing urls and changing the way different parts of the sites build links to make them all the same, and I am aware that these things need work. We were in the process of discontinuing some sites and 301 redirecting pages to a more centralized location to try to stop duplicate content. The day after we instituted the 301 redirects, the site we were redirecting all of the traffic to (the main site) got blacklisted. Because of this, we immediately took down the 301 redirects. Since the webmaster tools notifications are different (ie: too many urls is a notice level message and doorway pages is a separate alert level message), and the too many urls has been triggering for a while now, I am guessing that the doorway pages problem has nothing to do with url structure. According to the help files, doorway pages is a content problem with a specific page. The architecture suggestions are helpful and they reassure us they we should be working on them, but they don't help me solve my immediate problem. I would really be thankful for any help we could get identifying the pages that Google thinks are "doorway pages", since this is what I am getting immediately and severely penalized for. I want to stop doing whatever it is I am doing wrong, I just don't know what it is! Thanks for any help identifying the problem! It feels like we got penalized for trying to do what we think Google wants. If we could figure out what a "doorway page" is, and how our 301 redirects triggered Googlebot into saying we have them, we could more appropriately reduce duplicate content. As it stands now, we are not sure what we did wrong. We know we have duplicate content issues, but we also thought we were following webmaster guidelines on how to reduce the problem and we got nailed almost immediately when we instituted the 301 redirects.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CoreyTisdale0