Disabling a slider with content...is considered cloaking?
-
We have a slider on our site www.cannontrading.com, but the owner didn't like it, so I disabled it. And, each slider contains link & content as well. We had another SEO guy tell me it considered cloaking. Is this True? Please give feedbacks.
-
Formally everything that can be seen just by the bots and not by the users, it is consider cloaking.
Be aware that toggled content sidebars or columns, if it is visible by the users after completed an action, is not considered cloaking.
So, in your case, if you are just showing one slide of a slidedeck with multiple slides, it could be considered cloaking.
Obviously, you should not freak out and, as Spencer wrote, understand what are you hiding.
If you're hiding images only with no crawlable text and without alt text, then you should not worry, also because those images are substantially invisible to the bots (they know they exists, but they doesn't any worded description of the photo).
Instead, if you are hiding text, maybe optimized seoed text... than it is much better to quit the slideshare and use just the image with text you really want to show to your users (and Googlebot).
-
ACann, as long as you're not serving up content to the search engines separately than what the users see, there shouldn't be a problem. I could see if you disabled it just for the users and you still allow bots or search engine bots to crawl the content then that would be an issue. It sounds like you just disabled it for all visitors. So, then I don't see any issues.
-
Yes, I just disabled the javascript. The slider was a big part of the design.
-
I just took a look. Did you just disable the javascript that slides through the images so it just shows the initial image?
It also looks like the sliders all images, which shouldn't be that big of a deal. If you're not hiding keywords I wouldn't worry about it.
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
-
Help! Is this what is called "cloaking"?
Friend asked me to look at her website. Ran it through screaming frog and BAM, instead of 4 pages i was expecting it returned HUNDREDS. 99.9% of them are for cheap viagra and pharmaceuticals. I asked her if she was selling viagra, which is fine, I don't judge. But she swears she isn't. http://janeflahertyesq.com I ran it through google site:janeflahertyesq.com and sure enough, if you click on some of those, they take you to canadien pharmacys selling half priced blue pills. a) is this cloaking? if not, what is going on? b) more importantly, how do I we get rid of those hundreds of pages / de-indexed She's stumped and scared. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all in advance and for the work you do.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TeamPandoraBeauty0 -
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 -
Does Duplicate Content Actually "Penalize" a Domain?
Hi all, Some co-workers and myself were in a conversation this afternoon regarding if duplicate content actually causes a penalty on your domain. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359?hl=en http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-duplicate-content-wont-hurt-you-unless-it-is-spammy-167459 Both sources from Google do not say "duplicate content causes a penalty." However, they do allude to spammy content negatively affecting a website. Why it came up: We originally were talking about syndicated content (same content across multiple domains; ex: "5 explanations of bad breath") for the purpose of social media sharing. Imagine if dentists across the nation had access to this piece of content (5 explanations of bad breath) simply for engagement with their audience. They would use this to post on social media & to talk about in the office. But they would not want to rank for that piece of duplicated content. This type of duplicated content would be valuable to dentists in different cities that need engagement with their audience or simply need the content. This is all hypothetical but serious at the same time. I would love some feedback & sourced information / case studies. Is duplicated content actually penalized or will that piece of content just not rank? (feel free to reference that example article as a real world example). **When I say penalized, I mean "the domain is given a negative penalty for showing up in SERPS" - therefore, the website would not rank for "dentists in san francisco, ca". That is my definition of penalty (feel free to correct if you disagree). Thanks all & look forward to a fun, resourceful conversation on duplicate content for the other purposes outside of SEO. Cole
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ColeLusby0 -
Schema.org tricking and duplicate content across domains
I've found the following abuse, and Im curious what could I do about it. Basically the scheme is: own some content only once (pictures, description, reviews etc) use different domain names (no problem if you use the same IP or IP-C address) have a different layout (this is basically the key) use schema.org tricking, meaning show (the very same) reviews on different scale, show a little bit less reviews on one site than on an another Quick example: http://bit.ly/18rKd2Q
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Sved
#2: budapesthotelstart.com/budapest-hotels/hotel-erkel/szalloda-attekintes.hu.html (217.113.62.21), 328 reviews, 8.6 / 10
#6: szallasvadasz.hu/hotel-erkel/ (217.113.62.201), 323 reviews, 4.29 / 5
#7: xn--szlls-gyula-l7ac.hu/szallodak/erkel-hotel/ (217.113.62.201), no reviews shown It turns out that this tactic even without the 4th step can be quite beneficial to rank with several domains. Here is a little investigation I've done (not really extensive, took around 1 and a half hour, but quite shocking nonetheless):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqbt1cVFlhXbdENGenFsME5vSldldTl3WWh4cVVHQXc#gid=0 Kaspar Szymanski from Google Webspam team said that they have looked into it, and will do something, but honestly I don't know whether I could believe it or not. What do you suggest? should I leave it, and try to copy this tactic to rank with the very same content multiple times? should I deliberately cheat with markups? should I play nice and hope that these guys sooner or later will be dealt with? (honestly can't see this one working out) should I write a case study for this, so maybe if the tactics get bigger attention, then google will deal with it? Does anybody could push this towards Matt Cutts, or anybody else who is responsible for these things?0 -
DIV Attribute containing full DIV content
Hi all I recently watched the latest Mozinar called "Making Your Site Audits More Actionable". It was presented by the guys at seogadget. In the mozinar one of the guys said he loves the website www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk and that they have spent a lot of money on it from an SEO point of view (presumably with seogadget) so I decided to look through the source and noticed something I had not seen before and wondered if anyone can shed any light. On this page (http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorcycle_parts/content_cat/852/(2;product_rating;DESC;0-0;all;92)/page_1/max_20) there is a paragraph of text that begins with 'The ever reliable UK weather...' and when you via the source of the containing DIV you will notice a bespoke attribute called "threedots=" and within it, is the entire text content for that DIV. Any thoughts as to why they would put that there? I can't see any reason as to why this would benefit a site in any shape or form. Its invalid markup for one. Am I missing a trick..? Thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Kris P.S. for those who can't be bothered to visit the site, here is a smaller version of what they have done: This is an introductory paragraph of text for this page.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | yousayjump0 -
Duplicate Content
Hi, I have a website with over 500 pages. The website is a home service website that services clients in different areas of the UK. My question is, am I able to take down the pages from my URL, leave them down for say a week, so when Google bots crawl the pages, they do not exist. Can I then re upload them to a different website URL, and then Google wont penalise me for duplicate content? I know I would of lost juice and page rank, but that doesnt really matter, because the site had taken a knock since the Google update. Thanks for your help. Chris,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | chrisellett0 -
Syndicated content outperforming our hard work!
Our company (FindMyAccident) is an accident news site. Our goal is to roll our reporting out to all 50 states; currently, we operate full-time in 7 states. To date, the largest expenditure is our writing staff. We hire professional
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Wayne76
journalists who work with police departments and other sources to develop written
content and video for our site. Our visitors also contribute stories and/or
tips that add to the content on our domain. In short, our content/media is 100% original. A site that often appears alongside us in the SERPs in the markets where we work full-time is accidentin.com. They are a site that syndicates accident news and offers little original content. (They also allow users to submit their own accident stories, and the entries index quickly and are sometimes viewed by hundreds of people in the same day. What's perplexing is that these entries are isolated incidents that have little to no media value, yet they do extremely well.) (I don't rest my bets with Quantcast figures, but accidentin does use their pixel sourcing and the figures indicate that they are receiving up to 80k visitors a day in some instances.) I understand that it's common to see news sites syndicate from the AP, etc., and traffic accident news is not going to have a lot of competition (in most instances), but the real shocker is that accidentin will sometimes appear as the first or second result above the original sources??? The question: does anyone have a guess as to what is making it perform so well? Are they bound to fade away? While looking at their model, I'm wondering if we're not silly to syndicate news in the states where we don't have actual staff? It would seem we could attract more traffic by setting up syndication in our vacant states. OR Is our competitor's site bound to fade away? Thanks, gang, hope all of you have a great 2013! Wayne0 -
Competitors and Duplicate Content
I'm curious to get people's opinion on this. One of our clients (Company A) has a competitor that's using duplicate sites to rank. They're using "www.companyA.com" and "www.CompanyAIndustryTown.com" (actually, several of the variations). It's basically duplicate content, with maybe a town name inserted or changed somewhere on the page. I was always told that this is not a wise idea. They started doing this in the past month or so when they had a site redesign. So far, it's working pretty well for them. So, here's my questions: -Would you address this directly (report to Google, etc.)? -Would you ignore this? -Do you think it's going to backfire soon? There's another company (Company B) that's using another practice- using separate pages on their domain to address different towns, and using those as landing pages. Similar, in that a lot of the content is the same, just some town names and minor details changed. All on the same domain though. Would the same apply to that? Thanks for your insight!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DeliaAssociates0