2 Versions of Same Homepage
-
We want to show new and returning visitors different versions of our homepage (same URL)
What, if anything, should we use as the markup to tell Google what we are doing?
Any danger that Google will think we are cloaking?Thanks!
-
yes, that is the super simple explanation my mind was blanking on.
thanks!
-
Hi, Assuming you are setting a cookie to detect the visitors previous visits then this should be fine. Google will only see the new visitor variation as robots do not accept cookies.
If you are not setting a cookie let us know how you are detecting the visitors previous visits so others may help you further.
-
Thanks.... We have a translated site where we follow these guidelines.
However, this is more about increasing conversions and showing one banner to new visitors and another banner on the same URL to returning visits, with some additional small variations on the page as well....
-
Sounds like use for Rel="Alternate",
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en
The bullets that seem to apply recommended by google here are,
-
You keep the main content in a single language and translate only the template, such as the navigation and footer. Pages that feature user-generated content like a forums typically do this.
-
Your content has small regional variations with** similar content in a single language**. For example, you might have English-language content targeted to the US, GB, and Ireland.
Sounds like the case for me,
Hope this helps,
James
-
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
-
Three version of english pages: EN-US, EN-GB und EN as x-default
We want address the search market for USA and UK. Therefore all english pages have small regional variations with similar content. Since a longer time (after a relaunch) Google has problems to identify the right page (/en-gb/) for the right search market (UK) - although we use hreflang and sitemaps from the beginning. We monitor those in moz for our UK campaign (/en-gb/ pages) by jumps in the ranking of individual keywords (>-50 and >+50). -50 means not that the ranking of our website is lost. In this case Google will substitute the ranking of the /en-gb/ page with the variant /en/. One excample:
Technical SEO | | PeterGolze
https://www.openmind-tech.com/en-gb/industries/cam-software-for-motor-sports/
This page lost the ranking and the other languag variant is ranking for position 2.
https://www.openmind-tech.com/en/industries/cam-software-for-motorsport/ In the moment I have no idea what we can change in our html code.0 -
Recently migrated to https version of volusion site. 301 redirect link chain question
I recently migrated to a https version of a volusion site. They have some type of internal 301 redirect method to accommodate for the entire site. I have also used the 301 redirect manager to redirect categories and pages which I have changed. The question is if I have changed a page internally in the redirect manager from say source. /bluewidget to say. target. /superbluewidget is it wiser or even possible to do it this way to reduce the redirect chain from 3 to 2 steps source. /bluewidget to. target https://www.example/superbluewidget can a relative link be targeted to a full url to reduce steps in a 301 redirect link chain. Thanks
Technical SEO | | mrkingsley0 -
Google Deindexing Site, but Reindexing 301 Redirected Version
A bit of a strange one, a client's .com site has recently been losing rankings on a daily basis, but traffic has barely budged. After some investigation, I found that the .co.uk domain (which has been 301 redirected for some years) has recently been indexed by Google. According to Ahrefs the .co.uk domain started gaining some rankings in early September, which has increased daily. All of these rankings are effectively being stolen from the .com site (but due to the 301 redirect, the site loses no traffic), so as one keyword disappears from the .com's ranking, it reappears on the .co.uk's ranking report. Even searching for the brand name now brings up the .co.uk version of the domain whereas less than a week ago the brand name brought up the .com domain. The redirects are all working fine. There's no instance of any URLs on the site or in the sitemaps leading to the .co.uk domain. The .co.uk domain does not have any backlinks except for a single results page on ask.com. The site hasn't recently had any design or development done, the last changes being made in June. Has anyone encountered this before? I'm not entirely sure how or why Google would start indexing 301'd URLs after several years of not indexing these.
Technical SEO | | lyuda550 -
Google Still Taking 2 - 3 Days to Index New Posts
My website is fairly new, it was launched about 3.5 months ago. I've been publishing new content daily (except on weekends) since then. Is there any reason why new posts don't get indexed faster? All of my posts gets +1's and they're shared on G+, FB and Twitter. My website's at www.webhostinghero.com
Technical SEO | | sbrault740 -
What if I point my canonicals to a URL version that is not used in internal links
My web developer has pointed the "good" URLs that I use in my internal link structure (top-nav/footer) to another duplicate version of my pages. Now the URLs that receive all the canonical link value are not the ones I use on my website. is this a problem and why??? In theory the implementation is good because both have equal content. But does it harm my link equity if it directs to a URL which is not included in my internal link architecture.
Technical SEO | | DeptAgency0 -
Smart phone shows both mobile & desktop version of www.innoviafilms.com
Good morning from 2 degrees C mostly cloudy wetherby UK, Image this situation... Ive got two versions of a website: A desktop version & a mobile version, here are their respective urls: Desk top: http://www.innoviafilms.com Mobile: http://www.innoviafilms.com/m/home.aspx With blackberry bold in hand I type in via google search "Innovia films" i click on the search snippet and it renders the desktop version. But when i type the url directly in my Blackberry bold 9700 it returns the mobile version 😞 This confuses me. Having read this: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/02/making-websites-mobile- friendly.html I thought the desktop version would render in smartphones which the balckberry bold is. So my question is... "Why does the the mobile version only appear when you type in www.innoviafilms.com on a blackberry (and iphone 4) and the desktop version appears only when you enter "Innovia films" via google search" Any insights welcome 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0 -
Panda 2.2 Full Recovery In Action
I have had several new clients come to me after Panda and Panda 2. Lots of audits. The client who had the worst problems, and has since corrected the worst issues based on my audit just bounced back in an epic way, and while it could be a short-term thing, I don't believe that's the case - it's just too big of a jump back - full recovery. I'm curious to find out if anyone sees a similar recovery on your sites. FYI the biggest problems (most of which have been resolved now) include: Content organization - it was a mess of a site Extreme over-use of ads on the page and in the content Topical focus - there was so much going on across every page of the site that confused Google Major site speed issues 5ewacr
Technical SEO | | AlanBleiweiss1 -
Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture. The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the Home Page - Converse.com http://www.converse.com Marimekko category page (flash version) http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled) http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google. When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page. ----- Marimekko - Converse All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ... www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached So my issues are… Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages? Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages? Any recommendations on to what to do about this? Thanks, SEOsurfer
Technical SEO | | seosurfer-2883190