Would reviews being served to a search engine user agent through a noscript tag (but not shown for other user types) be considered cloaking?
-
This one is tough, and I've asked it once here, http://www.quora.com/Search-Engine-Optimization-SEO/Is-having-rich-snippets-placed-below-a-review-that-is-pulled-via-javascript-considered-bad-grey-hat-SEO, but I feel that the response was sided with the company.
As an SEO or digital marketer, it seems that if we are pulling in our reviews via iframe for our users, but serving them through a nonscript tag when the user agent is a search engine, that this could be considered cloaking.
I understand that the "intent" may be to show the same thing to the bots as the user sees, but if you look at the view source, you'll never see the reviews, because it would only be delivered to the search engine bot.
What do you think?
-
I can't speak to the BV implementation aspect as I have no experience with it, however I will echo and agree with Takeshi on the other points as they are the best practice scenario
-
BV does provide a newer format for their reviews, if your server allows server side scripting such as PHP. I believe it's called "Cloud SEO". This is the simplest solution.
If you can't run PHP, then I would recommend talking to YourStoreWizards (http://www.yourstorewizards.com/). They provide customized solutions that can automate the data pulling and updating process.
As far as reviews.mysite.com, you want to get that de-indexed as soon as you get the HTML reviews on your site. Otherwise, not only will the subdomain compete with your main site for traffic, bu tall the reviews on your site will be seen as duplicate content.
-
Alright, this is where we are with this. What Takeshi recommended is a work around. Yes, it works, but it takes more man hours to constantly upload the info. If someone wanted to do this more seamlessly, how could we do that? I don't have an answer quite yet (but wanted to post our follow-up in case someone else stumbles upon this Q&A), but we're going to the company with these questions:
- We need someone on the phone that understands SEO and the BV installation on our site being SEO friendly; i.e. not a developer that knows about implementing BV, but an SEO person that understands the difference between cloaking and duplicate content with product pages.
- We want to know how we can get our product reviews on our product pages that can be seen in the html of the page; i.e. I can view source and see the review content there. This is inline with Takeshi's work around, but is there an easier way to do this where it's automatic?
- Having the reviews sent over via javascript when the bot requests the info seems to be inline with cloaking behavior that is considered bad with the search engines.
- We don’t want to add a ~1.5 second delay to getting the info pulled over for the bots to see it, as this will increase our PageSpeed. However, this seems to be the next best solution for getting up-to-date reviews in the code of the product page.
I know, not every tool is perfect, but if there is a gap here, I'd imagine that one of largest companies in review management would be able to tackle this - don't you think?
To me, this feels like our content is being hi-jacked. I have my reviews in iframes (sort of speak) on my product pages, but also at reviews.mysite.com/product-reviews, which is essentially duplicating my product pages... we're competing with ourselves. Is the best fix to NOINDEX that subdomain and not let the reviews be seen at all, or keep the pages up and just compete with ourselves in the SERPs? Or is there an easy way to get those reviews (our reviews) seen on our site from users and bots?
-
Perfect! Thanks again for the follow-up!
-
Yup. Once you have the GWT verification in the header, you should be able to deindex the entire subdomain instantly.
-
That sounds like the answer Takeshi! We were worried about manually doing it because the user wouldn't see their reviews instantly, but with how you're doing it, it doesn't matter, and (like you said) it shouldn't muddy the user experience.
Are you referring to the "Remove URLs" tool in Google Webmaster for deindexing?
-
Yes, we manually bulk upload the HTML reviews every couples weeks or so to keep them fresh. We also had BV noindex the review.subdomain so that it wasn't competing with us in the SERPs (have them add a noindex tag in the header as well as your Google Webmaster Tools verification code, so you can instantly deindex all the pages).
-
Great idea for having a link to an html version. How do you keep those updated? Is it manual? And do you just block the pages that they create over on the review.mysite.com sub-domain?
That is actually where we started looking at fixing things. I see that sub-domain they created as basically competing with our product pages. Why would that ever be the way a business would want to operate their site, it doesn't make sense to do that. But all I keep hearing is name drops of big brands. It's frustrating really.
-
I'm pretty sure that it's structured markup, but I will definitely be double checking before simply guessing on this one! Thanks Alan.
-
We use BazaarVoice reviews for our ecommerce site too. What we do is right below the iframe reviews, we have a link that says "click here to see more reviews". When you click the link, it opens up a div with the html version of the reviews. So similar idea to what you are proposing, but less "cloaky" than a noscript tag, and it doesn't impact user experience much.
BazaarVoice can also do html reviews that are not iframed if you have a server that can handle server side scripting like PHP (which unfortunately our legacy Yahoo store does not).
-
Ah to have 100% guarantees for anything related to SEO.
Alas, that's not the world we live in. However, we can apply critical thinking to each choice and with that, we are more likely to be safe from the wrath of Google.
SO - for this question let's consider the following:
A "Noscript" version of a site is designed first and foremost for people who have scripts turned off, including those who have browsers set up for either security reasons or for visual impairment needs.
So if you provide content within a noscript block that essentially mirrors what visitors get when scripts are turned on, you are not likely in violation of any Google cloaking policy.
Cloaking comes into play when you generate content purely for Googlebot exclusively or Googlebot and Bingbot.
So if the content you are provided via that zip file (which I assume you then need to manually cut and paste into the noscript portion of the code) is pure content and not over-optimized, you can proceed with confidence that you'll be okay.
Where I DO have concern is this:
"The daily snapshot files contain UGC with SEO-friendly markup tags." (emphasis mine). Exactly what do they mean by that specific wording? That's the concern point. Are they referring to proper structured markup for reviews, from Schema.org or at the very least RDFa reviews markup? If not, that would be problematic because only proper "reviews" specific structured markup should wrap around reviews content.
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
-
Can I leave off HTTP/HTTPS in a canonical tag?
We are working on moving our site to HTTPS and I was asked by my dev team if it is required to declare HTTP or HTTPS in the canonical tag? I know that relative URL's are acceptable but cannot find anything about HTTP/HTTPS. Example of what they would like to do Has anyone done this? Any reason to not leave off the protocol?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Shawn_Huber0 -
Pointless Wordpress Tagging: Keep or unindex?
Simple as that. Pointless random tags that are serving no purpose other than adding apparent bulk to a website. They are just showing duplicate content and literally are random keywords that serve almost no purpose. And the tags, for the most part are only used on one page. If I remove them however, they will probably drop our site from around 650 pages to 450 (assuming I keep any tags that were used more than once). I have read through some of the other posts on here and I know that Google will do some work as far as duplicate content is concerned. Now as far as UX is concerned, all these tags are worthless. Thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HashtagHustler0 -
Cloaking for better user experience and deeper indexing - grey or black?
I'm working on a directory that has around 800 results (image rich results) in the top level view. This will likely grow over time so needs support thousands. The main issue is that it is built in ajax so paginated pages are dynamically generated and look like duplicate content to search engines. If we limit the results, then not all of the individual directory listing pages can be found. I have an idea that serves users and search engines what they want but uses cloaking. Is it grey or black? I've read http://moz.com/blog/white-hat-cloaking-it-exists-its-permitted-its-useful and none of the examples quite apply. To allow users to browse through the results (without having a single page that has a slow load time) we include pagination links but which are not shown to search engines. This is a positive user experience. For search engines we display all results (since there is no limit the number of links so long as they are not spammy) on a single page. This requires cloaking, but is ultimately serving the same content in slightly different ways. 1. Where on the scale of white to black is this? 2. Would you do this for a client's site? 3. Would you do it for your own site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
Separate Servers for Humans vs. Bots with Same Content Considered Cloaking?
Hi, We are considering using separate servers for when a Bot vs. a Human lands on our site to prevent overloading our servers. Just wondering if this is considered cloaking if the content remains exactly the same to both the Bot & Human, but on different servers. And if this isn't considered cloaking, will this affect the way our site is crawled? Or hurt rankings? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Desiree-CP0 -
How do I write tags on a youtube video for a local Google search?
I've been reading into tags, and I would like to know what the best ways to do them for a local search are. Right now I have a title that reads similar to, "Keyword1 and Keyword2 in City X" Would I make a corresponding tag that reads "Keyword 1 and Keyword 2 in City X,"? Or would I do "Keyword 1," "Keyword 2," and, "City X," as separate tags? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | OOMDODigital0 -
Does Backlinks from User Profile Page Still Matter
Though, lot of algorithmic changes, updates have happened. However, backlinks from quality source or trusted sites has hardly lost its importance and thats why Open SIte Explorer or Majestic seo is still there to find quality of backlinks, trust factor and authority factor of the backlinks. I need to know does having backlink (dofollow) from Profile Page - still matters and if yes - will a do follow backlink from Moz Profile Page or any authority site or forum page, having dofollow link from user profile page - does it still count as a mark to authority of your site.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Modi0 -
Navigation for Users vs Spiders
We're creating a new global site nav that provides a great user experience, but may be less than ideal for the search engines. The user selects an item from category A, and is then presented options to choose from in category B, and then chooses a specific product. The user does not encounter any actual "links" until they choose the specific product. The search engines won't see this navigation path due to the way that the navigation is coded. They're unable to choose an item from A, so they can't get to B, and therefore cannot get to C, which is the actual product page. We'd like to create an alternative nav for the browsers, so that they can crawl the category pages for A and B, as well as the specific product pages (C). This alternative nav would be displayed if the user does not have javascript enabled. Otherwise, the navigation described above will be shown to the user. Moving forward, the navigation that the user sees may be different from what is shown to the search engine, based on user preferences (ie they may only see some of the categories in the nav, while the search engines will see links to all category/product pages). I know that, as a general rule, it's important that the search engines see the same thing that the user sees. Does the strategy outlined above put us at risk for penalties?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edmundsseo0 -
Why Does a Press Release Strategy Influence Search Results So Much?
Why do press release websites, and their submissions, carry so much influence with organic search results right now?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | steelintheair1