Is it OK to dynamically serve different content to paid and non-paid traffic from the same URL?
-
Hi Moz!
We're trying to serve different content to paid and non-paid visitors from the same URL. Is this black hat?
Here's the reason we want to do this -- we're testing a theory that paid ads boost organic rankings. This is something we saw happen to a client and we want to test this further. But we have to have a different UX that's more sparse and converts better for paid.
Thanks for reading!
-
Hi David,
First of all as far as I know paid campaign doesn't helps in organic ranking. Google repeatedly said that paid campaign doesn't affect organic rankings.
As far as I know Google says that showing one version to users and other version to boat is called cloaking and we must not use this but didn't say anything on paid & non paid visitors.
If I assume that paid campaign helps in organic ranking then it is the only one thing that can affect ranking by paid campaign that is CTR.
I do run AdWords campaign for my website over 8 years and CTR is minimum 10% but I never noticed that paid campaign helps in ranking.
** I wouldn't suggest you to do that***
Please also check this once @ https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6020954?hl=en&rd=1#701
Hope this helps you.
Thanks
-
Hi Highland,
Thanks for the quick response!
I wasn't clear in my question. The paid visitors I'm referring to are visitors coming through search ads, not people who are subscribed to our service. So this isn't regarding paywalls. Rather, we're trying to send paid traffic to a page to see if it will increase its rankings. At the same time, we want to have a different user experience for paid and non-paid visitors to increase conversions.
Also we'd like to have different content for the two versions, not just have one version with no/little content and another with all of it.
-
Google's rule on paywalls is that you have to offer up some content for free to searchers. So, for instance, if you search for a NY Times article and click in, they'll tell you how many free articles you have left before you have to pay. Google, of course, can see all that content.
Search Engine Land had a good article on paywall implications
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
-
Same URL-Structure & the same number of URLs indexed on two different websites - can it lead to a Google penalty?
Hey guys. I've got a question about the url structure on two different websites with a similar topic (bith are job search websites). Although we are going to publish different content (texts) on these two websites and they will differ visually, the url structure (except for the domain name) remains exactly the same, as does the number of indexed landingpages on both pages. For example, www.yyy.com/jobs/mobile-developer & www.zzz.com/jobs/mobile-developer. In your opinion, can this lead to a Google penalty? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vde130 -
Location in URLs question
Hi there, my company is a national theater news publisher. Quick question about a particular use case. When an editor publishes a story they can assign several discrete locations, allowing it to appear on each of those locations within our website. This article (http://www.theatermania.com/denver-theater/news/full-casting-if-then-tour-idina-menzel_74354.html), for example, appears in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Denver section. We force the author to choose a primary location from that list, which controls the location displayed in the URL. Is this a bad practice? I'm wondering if the fact that having 'Denver' in the URL is misleading and hurts SEO value, particularly since that article features several other cities.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
Duplicate Content with URL Parameters
Moz is picking up a large quantity of duplicate content, consists mainly of URL parameters like ,pricehigh & ,pricelow etc (for page sorting). Google has indexed a large number of the pages (not sure how many), not sure how many of them are ranking for search terms we need. I have added the parameters into Google Webmaster tools And set to 'let google decide', However Google still sees it as duplicate content. Is it a problem that we need to address? Or could it do more harm than good in trying to fix it? Has anyone had any experience? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Domain.com/old-url to domain.com/new-url
HI, I have to change old url`s to new one, for the same domain and all landing pages will be the same: domain.com/old-url I have to change to: domain.com/new-url All together more than 70.000 url. What is best way to do that? should I use 301st redirect? is it possible to do in code or how? what could you please suggest? Thank you, Edgars
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Edzjus3330 -
Does Google Read URL's if they include a # tag? Re: SEO Value of Clean Url's
An ECWID rep stated in regards to an inquiry about how the ECWID url's are not customizable, that "an important thing is that it doesn't matter what these URLs look like, because search engines don't read anything after that # in URLs. " Example http://www.runningboards4less.com/general-motors#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 Basically all of this: #!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 That is a snippet out of a conversation where ECWID said that dirty urls don't matter beyond a hashtag... Is that true? I haven't found any rule that Google or other search engines (Google is really the most important) don't index, read, or place value on the part of the url after a # tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
Website Re-Launch - New URLS / Old URL WMT
Hello... We recently re-launched website with a new CMS (Magento). We kept the same domain name, however most of the structure changed. We were diligent about inputting the 301 redirects. The domain is over 15 years old and has tons of link equity and history. Today marks 27 days since launch...And Google Webmaster Tools showed me a recently detected (dated two days ago) URL from the old structure. Our natural search traffic has take a slow dive since launch...Any thoughts? Some background info: The old site did not have a sitemap.xml. The relaunched site does. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 19prince0 -
Expired News Content
Ive read some stuff about expired content here, but have yet to find an answer so I thought I would post my question is regarding a news based site and expired content issues. So my site does Recaps, and Previews for sporing events. Well eventually the content does become not relevant as nobody cares about a prediction after the game is done. What would be the best method to deal with this? Should I just leave it there or 301 redirect it to the more relevant games. The reason why I'm asking is because when I have added a more recent game such as New York vs Boston, when I would search for that keyword in google, the page google would show would be like Atlanta vs L.A. Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ravashjalil0 -
Site revamp for neglected site - modifying site structure, URLs and content - is there an optimal approach?
A site I'm involved with, www.organicguide.com, was at one stage (long ago) performing reasonably well in the search engines. It was ranking highly for several keywords. The site has been neglected for some considerable period of time. A new group of people are interested in revamping the site, updating content, removing some of the existing content, and generally refreshing the site entirely. In order to go forward with the site, significant changes need to be made. This will likely involve moving the entire site across to wordpress. The directory software (edirectory.com) currently being used has not been designed with SEO in mind and as a result numerous similar pages of directory listings (all with similar titles and descriptions) are in google's results, albeit with very weak PA. After reading many of the articles/blog posts here I realize that a significant revamp and some serious SEO work is needed. So, I've joined this community to learn from those more experienced. Apart from doing 301 redirects for pages that we need to retain, is there any optimal way of removing/repairing the current URL structure as the site gets updated? Also, is it better to make changes all at once or is an iterative approach preferred? Many thanks in advance for any responses/advice offered. Cheers MacRobbo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | macrobbo0