Client wants to show 2 different types of content based on cookie usage - potential cloaking issue?
-
Hi,
A client of mine has compliance issues in their industry and has to show two different types of content to visitors:
Next year, they have to increase that to three different types of customer. Rather than creating a third section (customer-c), because it's very similar to one of the types of customers already (customer-b), their web development agency is suggesting changing the content based on cookies, so if a user has indentified themselves as customer-b, they'll be shown /customer-b/, but if they've identified themselves as customer-c, they'll see a different version of /customer-b/ - in other words, the URL won't change, but the content on the page will change, based on their cookie selection.
I'm uneasy about this from an SEO POV because:
- Google will only be able to see one version (/customer-b/ presumably), so it might miss out on indexing valuable /customer-c/ content,
- It makes sense to separate them into three URL paths so that Google can index them all,
- It feels like a form of cloaking - i.e. Google only sees one version, when two versions are actually available.
I've done some research but everything I'm seeing is saying that it's fine, that it's not a form of cloaking. I can't find any examples specific to this situation though. Any input/advice would be appreciated.
Note: The content isn't shown differently based on geography - i.e. these three customers would be within one country (e.g. the UK), which means that hreflang/geo-targeting won't be a workaround unfortunately.
-
Thanks Peter - I didn't know you could do that. I'll pass it on to the developers (who might already know, but wouldn't hurt to reinforce its importance).
-
Thanks Russ. I think the differences to the content between the two will only be minor/superficial, so I guess the approach makes sense and shouldn't affect the SEO side of things too much.
-
You can return same page with different content based on cookie safe. Just don't forget to add "Vary: Cookie" in headers. This will to told browsers and bots that this content is different based on cookie.
-
I think this sounds perfectly fine. It is highly unlikely that you will see any problems from this, just don't expect to rank for content that is hidden behind a cookie-based authentication. It might not be best-practice in Google's eyes, but it isn't going to trigger any kind of penalty.
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
-
Should I have multiple websites for my different brands or one main website with different tabs/areas?
My client creates apps. As well as the apps they create themselves, they have made some of their own that cover various different topics. Currently they have individual websites for each of these apps, and a website for their app making business. They are asking whether they should just have one website - their app building site, which also includes information about the two apps they've built themselves. My feeling is it's better to keep them separate. The app building site is trying to appeal to a B2B audience and gain business to build new apps. AppA is trying to help carehomes and carers to streamline their business, and AppB is trying to help workplace and employee welfare. Combining them all will mean lots of mixed messaging/keywords even if we have dedicated areas on the site. I also think it will limit how much content we can create on each without being completely overwhelming for the user. If we keep them all separate then we can have a very clear user journey. I would of course recommend having blog posts or some sort of landing page to link to AppA and AppB's websites. Thoughts? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WhitewallGlasgow0 -
Potential issue: Page design might look like keyword stuffing to a web crawler
We have an interesting design element we might try on our home page. Here's a mockup: https://codepen.io/dsbudiac/pen/Bwrgjd I'm worried web crawlers will interpret this as keyword stuffing and affect our rankings. It features: Mostly transparent/hidden text Repeating keyword list I could try a couple methods to skirt around crawling concerns: Load keywords through an iframe Make the keywords an image (would significantly increase page load) Inject keywords after page load into a container w/ javascript (prob not effective as crawlers are only getting better at indexing javascript) Load the keywords into an svg element Load the keywords into a canvas element via javascript I have a few questions: Should I be concerned about any potential keyword stuffing / SEO issues with this design? Can you comment on the effectiveness (with proof) of the above strategies? Am I better off just abandoning this type of design?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dsbud0 -
Hreflang implementation issue
We are currently handling search for a global brand www.example.com which has presence in many countries worldwide. To help Google understand that there is an alternate version of the website available in another language, we have used “hreflang” tags. Also, there is a mother website (www.example.com/global) which is given the attribution of “x-default” in the “hreflang” tag. For Malaysia as a geolocation, the mother website is ranking instead of the local website (www.example.com/my) for majority of the products. The code used for “hreflang” tag execution, on a product page, being: These “hreflang” tags are also present in the XML sitemap of the website, mentioning them below: <loc>http://www.example.com/my/product_name</loc> <lastmod>2017-06-20</lastmod> Is this implementation of “hreflang” tags fine? As this implementation is true across all geo-locations, but the mother website is out-ranking me only in the Malaysia market. If the implementation is correct, what could be other reasons for the same ranking issue, as all other SEO elements have been thoroughly verified and they seem fine.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Starcom_Search0 -
Best to Fix Duplicate Content Issues on Blog If URLs are Set to "No-Index"
Greetings Moz Community: I purchased a SEMrush subscription recently and used it to run a site audit. The audit detected 168 duplicate content issues mostly relating to blog posts tags. I suspect these issues may be due to canonical tags not being set up correctly. My developer claims that since these blog URLs are set to "no-index" these issues do not need to be corrected. My instinct would be to avoid any risk with potential duplicate content. To set up canonicalization correctly. In addition, even if these pages are set to "no-index" they are passing page rank. Further more I don't know why a reputable company like SEMrush would consider these errors if in fact they are not errors. So my question is, do we need to do anything with the error pages if they are already set to "no-index"? Incidentally the site URL is www.nyc-officespace-leader.com. I am attaching a copy of the SEMrush audit. Thanks, Alan BarjWaO SqVXYMy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Duplicate content on the same page--is this an issue?
We are transitioning to responsive design and some of our pages will not scale properly, so we were thinking of adding the same content twice to the same URL (one would be simple text -- for mobile and the other would include the images, etc for the desktop version), and content would change based on size of the screen. I'm not looking for another technical solution (I know google specifies that you can dynamically serve different content based on user agent)--I am wondering if any one knows if having the same exact content appear twice on the same URL will cause a problem with SEO (any historical tests or experience would be great). Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Canonical tag usage.
I have added canonical tags to all my pages, yet I just don't know if I have used them correctly - do you have any ideas on this. My url is http://www.waspkilluk.co.uk
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | simonberenyi0 -
Pagination Issues
Hi, My press release section is showing pagination issues (duplicate pages) http://www.me-by-melia.com/press/ I know they are showing 27 duplicate page titles which would be a easy fix. Do you recommend pagination? Let me know if u see any other issues.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Melia0 -
Why would the PageRank for all of our websites show the same?
The last time I checked (early this year), the PageRank on the sites I manage varied, with the highest showing as 6. It made sense as the PR6 site has loads of links and has been around for a long time, whereas the other sites hadn't. Now all of our websites are showing the same PageRank - 6, even one that has recently launched and another that has barely any links/traffic or anything to it. I didn't check the PR of that one last time (I'd be surprised if it was 2), but the sites now showing as 6 ranged from PR3 to PR6 back then. We changed server in February...so could this issue be something to do with all of the sites being stored on the same server? It doesn't seem right but it's the only thing I can think of. At the moment, the Domain Authority for these six websites ranges from 27 to 62.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0