Hot answers tagged

6

Defeating this is easy and has nothing to do with doing this on the server side. All they have to do is compare a page that you serve to the Googlebot user agent and one to a bot or human that is not. The pages will be different and you will be caught and penalized for cloaking. It's that simple.


4

Cloaking is when you intentionally serve different content to search engines then to your users for the sake of manipulating the search results. That isn't the case here. Search engines seeing different content will only occur once if the cache is created and saved after the page's initial visit. And even then it will only happen if the search engine is ...


4

I would not recommend hiding joyride from Google because google can treat that as Cloaking. It won't be negative for your SEO if you implement that on your web. How Googlebot Crawls Javascript


3

You need to implement crawlable AJAX. Include the meta tag <meta name="fragment" content="!"> Make the HTML snapshot available at www.example.com/?_escaped_fragment_= DO NOT base your snapshot decision on the user agent. Googlebot wants to be able to see and render your page the way that users see and render it (for screen shots for example). ...


3

Is there a way to mark up an element to tell the spiders there is no useful information contained in this element, or "Please don't index this element"? <script type="text/javascript"> document.write('search engines will ignore this content'); </script> Cloaking involves serving different content to requests which you have identified ...


3

Domain masking It's bad for SEO because search engines don't like frames if that option is used. Also, the URL never changes in the user's address bar so it can be very confusing to users trying bookmark or reference inner pages in your site. If you use two different domains for the same website, which is another way to do it, then you run into duplicate ...


2

When you are Domain masking you are hiding the actual URL/domain from the user. This is not good either for your users or search engines because you are putting on a mask not showing the 'real face'. Also as john said bots will treat your site like a duplicate content farm. Which is no good. Cloaking on the other hand is a balck hat SEO tactic. It can get ...


2

Progressive enhancement is not cloaking as long as it really is progressive enhancement. If the JavaScript is serving the same content but making the user experience better then that's fine and encouraged. It's only bad when you're serving different content to the search engines then you are to users for the sake of manipulating your rankings. As for your ...


2

No your way off. Noscript is a tag to be used when someone visit's your page that is not using JavaScript. For example: <script> \\ I am a awesome javascript </script> <noscript> <p>You do not have JavaScript enabled so you can't use our awesome JavaScript</p> </noscript> So in the above example people with ...


2

It is cloaking it the lite skin is not the same default skin that you offer new users. Googlebot wants to see exactly what a user coming in from Google search is going to see. If you choose a different skin based on user agent, then Google may automatically detect this and penalize you. They sometimes make requests using a normal browser user agent to ...


2

Using Multiple Themes is not Cloaking. Its rather common the likes of forums have multiple themes and some sites will even use a lite version for Googlebot to save on resources. I would not be concerned at using agent based templates at all since the content itself remains untouched. What Google determines cloaking is anything that is used to hide from ...


2

Google specifically allows you to limit the number of pages that a visitor can see before subscribing (or logging in). Google calls this the "first click free" policy. Here is Google's help page about it: If you offer subscription-based access to your website content, or if users must register to access your content, then search engines cannot access ...


2

Are you finding the 20 lookup limit with 20 seperate Google searches ? Because if you are not and you find the site once and try to search 20 times from that page you found, then it is fine for Domaintools to put a limit on. If not, then maybe Domaintools is using something like First Click Free.


2

Cloaking is when you present one page to a search engine that is different than what you present to users. What you are describing is something entirely different. I will explain. I describe in several answers here that Google does not match search terms directly to content. While it may seem that it does, the reality is that this notion derives from ...


2

Based on a strict reading of Google's webmaster guidelines and definitions it is considered cloaking, it may not have been designed to present alternate content to Google over the users but as it has that effect Google needs to treat it as such.


2

Per Google's definition, this could be considered cloaking. It really depends on how much the content varies and if it's consistent otherwise. There's bound to be some give but Google is the only one who can tell you if you've crossed it. Check Search Console for any Manual Actions.


2

As far i understand joyride is a piece of html code, which displaying is triggered by a javascript to the news visitors, who doesn't yet have your cookie. In this case you can easily hide your joyride content from Google without any cloacking. The first idea i would try, is to get all of your joyride textual content into background images, which surely ...


2

I would just make sure you have a good sitemap that includes all of the videos and images, which is going to be the main optimization. when that is done you can add alt tags for the images and (i believe) videos. I would just make a good headline/like 1 sentence of text for the videos, that kinda describes it. I wouldn't go so far as to summarize the whole ...


2

"Cloaking" in this situation would be fine. When the user agent contains bot|crawl|slurp|spider you should not use session id parameters or check for cookies. You are delivering the same content to users and bots. Google won't have a problem with this particular cloak. I use a similar technique for deciding whether or not to use Data URI for the images ...


1

You should not do this when Googlebot (or any other for that matter) comes by, but for anyone who doesn't have javascript turned on. The most obvious check Google can do is send other set of headers to check of you give a specific result for googlebot only. if( bot-headers-result != normal-headers-result ){ punish(); } The other reason is that the few ...


1

I don't remember the references now, but Google doesn't mind. Actually, they do this themselves (kinda) in Angular docs. They render a different version of the HTML to Google (for example, doesn't have all the normal navigation). Every single SEO article on the matter is about using the technique too (phantomJS crawls the site and sends the HTML result to ...


1

Showing modified versions to search engines is called cloaking. Google will penalize sites that do that, whether the site is a single page website or not. Static html snapshots are fine as long as: Users and Googlebot see the same content Googlebot can crawl the content Users can land from search results "deep" in the site and see the specific content ...


1

As it is scribd is an embed/iframe, I think google considers my page as being empty with no content; google does see iframe content right? From Google's help page about frames: Google supports frames and iframes to the extent that it can. Frames can cause problems for search engines because they don't correspond to the conceptual model of the web. In ...


1

Technically showing a different phone number to Googlebot is cloaking. In this case you might get away with it because: The change is not very significant The intent is not spammy It doesn't target keywords (few people search for phone numbers) You'll want to show visitors from Google the same phone number that you show to Googlebot. Since the set of ...


1

Hiding ViewState is unlikely to be seen as cloaking, as ViewState wouldn't be seen as content. What exactly are your concerns with ViewState? If you are worried about the page speed then "cloaking" will not help you anyway. PageSpeed is measured by real visitors to your site who have the Google Toolbar. So my suggestion would be either to get rid of ...


1

It's hard to say for sure but the answer is probably no. As a general rule search engines don't parse and run JavaScript which makes it not SE-friendly. However, that is slowly changing as they have started to run some JavaScript. Now what they are able to run and what they don't is unknown. So if SEO is a priority then you have to assume they cannot follow ...


1

Try in Webmaster Tools > yourpage.com > Labs > Instant Previews Page look same? -> NO PROBLEMO In other case, it looks as cloaking -> try to fix it.


1

To me it sounds as if you want to allow people to post linking under the impressions they are followed. Yet when Google comes to your site you want them not followed. To do this you would have to write a program to monitor user agents. When Google arrives all links by users would get nofollow. You would not reasonably be able to monitor by IP since Google ...


1

Here's the perfect solution; prevent your users from using your site as a link farm. Without some morally questionable techniques and things that could sink your PR like the Titanic (But faster), the only way to not have your site flagged as a link farm is to not be a link farm.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible