Do you think that Content Locking (force to share to unlock content) is manipulative and will eventually be penalised by Google?

[designquotes]

There is a tactic called content locking which requires a user to share a post or homepage URL in order to unlock content (either a video, a full post or downloadable ebook).

Do you think this is manipulating signals to increase search rankings?

Argument Against Using Content Locking

Social signals and links from Google Plus shares clearly correlate to increased search engine visibility.

Requiring a user to pay for content with social sharing is only used to improve search rankings.

According to the webmaster guidelines:

"Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee. Another useful test is to ask, 'Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?'"

Argument For Using Content Locker

Users tend to value their social profiles and won't share something unless they believe it is valuable. Requiring a share is just a push to motivate them to share something they value.

Additionally, it is similar to an email opt-in in that the publisher now has a social media lead they can follow up on.

It's not just about SEO, it's about tapping into social network traffic and engagement on social networks.

[EGOL]

Right!

And there can be secondary effects.  If you are running surveys and people bounce back into the SERPs instead of answering the question, could that result in a ranking reduction because of poor engagement?  I have been running surveys and am cautiously watching my engagement and rankings.

[MikeRoberts]

Because Google has never broken its own guidelines and then penalized its own pages before.... http://searchengineland.com/google-penalizes-google-japan-16541
http://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pagerank-reduced-due-to-sponsored-posts-106551

[CommT]

You may find it does the opposite of what you intend if your visitors don't use social media - they'll feel left out of the party and nobody likes that! There are many many reasons why someone would choose not to be on social media, and forcing them to have an account just to read an article is never going to work - they'll just leave and find the content elsewhere on the web.

Check analytics to see how socially engaged your visitors are. If they are, then I'd test it as a tactic - it may not work for long though, because it's the sort of thing Google doesn't like ('Don't do as I do, do as I say!!!!')

I bet Mr Cutts is thinking of a way to thwart your plan as I type this

Good luck whatever you do, and please let us know what the outcome is!

Amelia

[EGOL]

This isn't an answer.  Just sayin' something that one google project is doing.

If you are familiar with Google Consumer Surveys, people who arrive at a page of content are asked to do a small task in exchange for unlocking the content.  They are normally given a choice of two tasks:  A) answer one or two multiple choice questions, or, B) share the content.

So, if Google is going to be slappin' people for the share, they will be slappin' their own project along with its publishers.