What are the SEO recommendations for dynamic, personalised page content? (not e-commerce)
-
Hi,
We will have pages on the website that will display different page copy and images for different user personas. The main content (copy, headings, images) will be supplied dynamically and I'm not sure how Google will index the B and C variations of these pages.
As far as I know, the page URL won't change and won't have parameters.
Google will crawl and index the page content that comes from JavaScript but I don't know which version of the page copy the search robot will index. If we set user agent filters and serve the default page copy to search robots, we might risk having a cloak penalty because users get different content than search robots.
Is it better to have URL parameters for version B and C of the content? For example:
- /page for the default content
- /page?id=2 for the B version
- /page?id=3 for the C version
The dynamic content comes from the server side, so not all pages copy variations are in the default HTML.
I hope my questions make sense. I couldn't find recommendations for this kind of SEO issue.
-
Hi everyone,
I have a related question about personalisation too which is a variation on the theme but which I would appreciate some help with.
There is a project afoot within my company to "personalise" the user experience by presenting pages to users which better respond to their interests.
That is to say that, when a user visits our page about "tennis-shoes", the next time they visit the homepage they will be presented with a homepage which focusses on tennis-shoes.
So far so good.
However rather than personalising certain elements of the homepage, the idea is to intercept those users, and 301 them to an entirely different URL, completly hidden from Google, which will contain entirely different content focussing only on shoes.
The top navegation will remain the same.
This sounds like a massive breach of Quality Guidelines on at least two counts to me. It reeks of cloacking and "sneaky redirects", and I am very concerned this will do us way more harm than good.
I'm guessing that the correct way of going about this would be to either generate a great "shoes" page and allow users to navigate to it, visit it, and do whatever they want with it, or to personalise the homepage including some dynamic elements on the same URL, without hiding things from Google or frustrating users by not allowing them to access the page they are trying to access.
Any feedback from the community would be a great help.
Thanks a lot!
-
Brilliant thread guys!
This will be far more discussed in the not so distant future i'm sure!
Dynamic Homepages are becoming more common and I have a client using one so this info has really helped me.
This topic should be a future Whiteboard Friday.
-
Yes, that sounds great! Please let me know how it all goes and if you run into any other hiccups.
Cheers,
B
-
Hi Britney
Thank you for your detailed feedback!
I checked the posts you linked and a few other sources and I think the solution will be the following:
- The default content will be loaded with the parameter free URL, e.g. /product
- Personalised versions of the page will have different (short) parameters, e.g. /product?version=8372762
- The default and the personalised pages will have the same canonical tag (default page)
- Let Google know in the Search Console's URL Parameters settings that the version parameter changes the page content (specifies + let Googlebot decide)
I hope it makes sense.
-
Did some digging and found a few resources stating:
Googlehadan official statement about this in its webmaster guidelines:
"If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a ? character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few. Don't use &id= as a parameter in your URLs, as we don't include these pages in our index."That was many years ago but more recently Google changed its position on that subject. The entry has been removed from Google's guidelines but here's the official statement from Google's blog:
"Google now indexes URLs that contain the &id= parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is.Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may still be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls."
Click here read the full article
Penalization for personalisation
Let me know if this helps
-
Fascinating question Gyorgy!
I've always been a big fan of dynamic targeting.
It would be a great idea to have different URL parameters for each unique set of content. You might also want to push these pages to fetch & index within Google Search Console (and your sitemap.xml to showcase you're not attempting to cloak, etc.)
This would be a fantastic question for Google reps...I can try to reach out to someone today and let you know what they say.
Cheers,
B
PS. Just curious, how are you pulling in persona data?
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
-
How can I provide titles and descriptive text for our list of USPs on the same page optimized both for usability and SEO
I am rebuilding our website together with an agency and I am stuck with the following problem: We have a page which will provide the visitor with a quick and convincing impression why he should chose our enterprise. On this page we want to show our USPs (Unique Selling Points) each with a title and a short description. Now my preferred way of presenting those USPs would be of a list of the titles (which permits to see all USPs without having to read a lot of text) where each title can be clicked to expand the description (in case you want to know more about this specific USP) and if you click on another title the previously clicked title description will collapse and the new description expand and so on (similar to this page: http://www.berlin-city-immobilien.de/38.html - I'm talking about the list in the middle of the page starting with the headline "Dabei profitieren Sie von folgenden Vorteilen"). Since I also want to use these descriptions as on page SEO-texts I checked whether Google might not index or at least value "click to expand content" less than plain text in the body of the page and I stumbled over this article: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html. According to this article Google will definitely discount the descriptions on my page. Does anyone have an idea how to solve this problem? Either by suggesting a different way to show titles and descriptions on the page or maybe by suggesting a workaround so Google will not treat the descriptions as "click to expand text". Thank you already in advance for your input.
Technical SEO | | Benni
Ben0 -
Do I need to do on-page SEO for my mobile site?
We have a desktop site, and we just built our first mobile site. Right now, the mobile site doesn't have any title tags, meta descriptions or anything like that, but do I need to even do that? If I have all of that on the desktop site, and the mobile site is just redirected from the desktop site, can't I just do it on the desktop site only? Is there anything to gain from doing it for both sites?
Technical SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
How unique does a page need to be to avoid "duplicate content" issues?
We sell products that can be very similar to one another. Product Example: Power Drill A and Power Drill A1 With these two hypothetical products, the only real difference from the two pages would be a slight change in the URL and a slight modification in the H1/Title tag. Are these 2 slight modifications significant enough to avoid a "duplicate content" flagging? Please advise, and thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | WhiteCap0 -
Search/Search Results Page & Duplicate Content
If you have a page whose only purpose is to allow searches and the search results can be generated by any keyword entered, should all those search result urls be no index or rel canonical? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | cakelady0 -
Will one line of duplicate content drag down my landing page?
I am using copyscape to check for duplicate content on my landing pages. I found three sites that have the exact same sentence as mine, on a page that I rank well for on one of two key terms related to the product. The sentence is not essential to my product page. Do I risk losing page one rank on a key search term when I remove that sentence on my site, in hopes of possibly improving the page on the second key search term? Do I leave it alone? This is an older "template" site with very little that I can do SEO-wise, and I have managed to get a few key prodcut landing pages on page one of Google. It has seen a drop in rank on many landing pages post-panda, and I'm doing my best to clean up what I can. Do I leave well enough alone for a page one rank on one term, or swap out that sentence in hopes of getting better rank on two keywords?
Technical SEO | | Ticket_King0 -
E-Commerce site and blogs
We have e-Commerce site and an official blog to give advice about our products. This blog exists under our domain. Usually we build links directly to our site. Recently our ranking started going down. Also, we have been experiencing backlash for spam based on our link building (we are working on this, including a change of staff,but we cannot be sure that this will not happen again). This backlash has come through our social networking outlets (Facebook) in the form of very negative posts to our pages. One of our "SEOs" has devised a plan to use secondary blogs which we would start building links for. This blog would contain links back to our website. The idea is that the blog acts as a gate in a sense, in this way backlash is either posted on the blog or is directed at the blog. Also, we would be attempting to raise the page authority of these secondary blogs so in essence they act as high page authority links back to our website. The concern is that these secondary blogs may undermine the legitimacy of the official primary blog, which is still in its early stages as far as ranking and authority goes. Also, we are concerned that this technique would further undermine the legitimacy of the website itself by creating a larger "spam-like" presence, since visitors may see through the use of the secondary link through blogs.
Technical SEO | | ctam0 -
SEOMoz Crawl Diagnostic indicates duplicate page content for home page?
My first SEOMoz Crawl Diagnostic report for my website indicates duplicate page content for my home page. It lists the home page URL Page Title and URL twice. How do I go about diagnosing this? Is the problem related to the following code that is in my .htaccess file? (The purpose of the code was to redirect any non "www" backlink referrals to the "www" version of the domain.) RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^whatever.com [NC]
Technical SEO | | Linesides
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.whatever.com/$1 [L,R=301] Should I get rid of the "http" reference in the second line? Related to this is a notice in the "Crawl Notices Found" -- "301 Permanent redirect" which shows my home page title as "http://whatever.com" and shows the redirect address as http://http://www.whatever.com/ I'm guessing this problem is again related to the redirect code I'm using. Also... The report indicates duplicate content for those links that have different parameters added to the URL i.e. http://www.whatever.com?marker=Blah Blah&markerzoom=13 If I set up a canonical reference for the page, will this fix this? Thank you.0