I'm thinking that a javascript pop-up might achieve the same result and be lower risk, especially if the indexed content is visible underneath the pop-up
- Home
- TimBarlow
TimBarlow
@TimBarlow
Latest posts made by TimBarlow
-
RE: Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
-
RE: Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi. Thanks but I don't want to use FCF if I can help it.
-
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi
I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there.
They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content.
Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content.
I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form.
From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case.
So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way?
(They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.)
Thank you!
Looks like your connection to Moz was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.