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
-
Yes, Dan is correct. As long as the intent is not malicious, you should be good. Moreover, it is a common practice where a JS overlay is displayed before the actual site is served. For example, the adult sites and liquor related websites show an age gate page using JS overlay technique for the human visitors to confirm their age before they can access the website but the search engines bots (like the Google bot) do not see the JS overlay and can directly access the website. With this kind of setup in place, there is nothing to worry about different experience being served to visitors and bots. This is definitely not considered, cloaking. Hope it helps.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
This is probably not cloaking as long as it's not malicious. Engines are going to have a non-js view by default for the most part, so that is the version they will see anyway. You can check Google text-only cache of the page to see how they are seeing 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
-
SEO Question - Are 503/504 errors an issue?
Lately I've noticed more and more 503/504 errors being flagged in my MOZ reports. One week I had over 1300 errors show up. I checked Google Webmaster Tools and Bing Webmaster tools and noticed they were showing up in there too, although not near as many (50 or less per day). I contacted my hosting company about it and they said these were normal and that it was due to one nameserver reaching capacity, but that there was a backup nameserver that kicks in. I've seen one or two of these errors show up before, but never more than one or two a week. Is this something I should be concerned about?
Technical SEO | | Kyle Eaves0 -
SEO / Word Press feature
We are wanting to refresh old posts on our blog and schedule them to get “republished” to the home page of our blog on a future date. However, when we edit the “Published” settings date and set it to a future date, the post gets removed from the blog and put back into a “Scheduled” status. Many of these posts are “evergreen” and bringing in traffic so we don’t want to have them get removed from our site. So to recap, we need the ability to be able to reschedule already published posts to get “re-published” back on our home page without having them get removed from the site. Does anyone know of a plugin or solution to this problem? Any help would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | eyepaq0 -
Website Hierarchy Question / Discussion
Hey all, I am looking to get the opinions off the community to help settle a discussion / debate. We are looking at how a site is laid out and which is the preferred method. There are two options: www.site.com --> /category-page --> /product-page (With this option, you always have the domain name and then page, no matter where in the site you actually are, and how many clicks it took you to get there). Your URL to the end page here would be www.site.com/product-page www.site.com --> /category-page --> /category-page/product-page --> (With this option, you into a defined structure). Your URL to the end page here would be www.site.com/category-page/product-page If you have a moment, I would be interested to know your views on which you would consider to be your preferred method and why. Thanks, Andy
Technical SEO | | Andy.Drinkwater0 -
Redirecting root domain to a page based on user login
We have our main URL redirecting non-logged in users to a specific page and logged in users are directed to their dashboard when going to the main URL. We find this to be the most user-friendly, however, this is all being picked up as a 302 redirect. I am trying to advise on the ideal way to accomplish this, but I am not having much luck in my search for information. I believe we are going to put a true homepage at the root domain and simply redirect logged in users as usual when they hit the URL, but I'm still concerned this will cause issues with Google and other search engines. Anyone have experience with domains that need to work in this manner? Thank you! Anna
Technical SEO | | annalytical0 -
Page that appears on SERPs is not the page that has been optimized for users
This may seem like a pretty newbie question, but I haven't been able to find any answers to it (I may not be looking correctly). My site used to rank decently for the KW "Gold name necklace" with this page in the search results:http://www.mynamenecklace.co.uk/Products.aspx?p=302This was the page that I was working on optimizing for user experience (load time, image quality, ease of use, etc.) since this page was were users were getting to via search. A couple months ago the Google SERP's started showing this page for the same query (also ranked a little lower, but not important for this specific question):http://www.mynamenecklace.co.uk/Products.aspx?p=314Which is a white gold version of the necklaces. This is not what most users have in mind (when searching for gold name necklace) so it's much less effective and engaging.How do I tell Google to go back to old page/ give preference to older page / tell them that we have a better version of the page / etc. without having to noindex any of the content? Both of these pages have value and are for different queries, so I can't canonical them to a single page. As far as external links go, more links are pointing to the Yellow gold version and not the white gold one.Any ideas on how to remedy this?Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Don340 -
Duplicate Page content / Rel=Cannonical
My SEO Moz crawl is showing duplicate content on my site. What is showing up are two articles I submitted to Submit your article (article submission service). I put their code in to my pages i.e. " <noscript><b>This article will only display in JavaScript enabled browsers.</b></noscript> " So do I need to delete these blog posts since they are showing up as dup content? I am having a difficult time understanding rel=cannonical. Isn't this for dup content on within one site? So I could not use rel="cannonical" in this instance? What is the best way to feature an article or press release written for another site, but that you want your clients to see? Rewritting seem ridiculous for a small business like ours. Can we just present the link? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
In Google Merchant is there any difference between google_product_type and product_type
It used to by that we needed to just submit a product type, and now Google wants a google product type that fits within the Google Taxonomy. We always submitted the old product_type in accordance with the Google Taxonomy anyway so now we have 2 columns one for google_product_type and one for just product_type and they are the exact same thing. This seems wrong but does anyone know if there should be a difference?
Technical SEO | | KentH0 -
Url re-write / minimal subfolders
<colgroup><col width="411"></colgroup>
Technical SEO | | Diana.varbanescu
| One of the most common warnings on our site www.sta.co.uk is the use of parameters in URL strings (they're crawled ok, it's mainly duplication content issues we're trying to avoid). The current traffic manager suggested ‘stage 1’ - remove the unwanted folder structure but wouldn’t tailor the dynamic url I'd say it is difficult to quantify what result this would have in isolation and I would rather do this update in tandem with the ‘stage 2’ which adds structure to the dynamic urls with multiple parameters.(Both stages will involve rewriting the page url and redirecting the long url to the short) Any thoughts, please? Is there any benefit in removing the subfolders (1) or should we wait and do it in one go? Thanks everyone, |0