Different content on different mobile browsers
-
Is it ok to run different html & different content on different mobile browsers even though the url is same. or the site can get penalize ?
-
Google talks about this as part of Dynamic Serving of content. Here is their article, which also includes tips on how to distinguish user agents (including how to signal this to Google):
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/configurations/dynamic-servingThis is an okay practice and I'd not had any Google penalties when I've utilized it. The big concern with doing this type of dynamic content shift for different devices is to avoid cloaking, which Google mentions in that article as well (be sure to click on the link in that Dynamic Serving article for more about cloaking). So long as you avoid cloaking, you should be in okay territory.
My advice is to test out your user agent matches thoroughly - I'd even go so far as to try this on one or two pages with some simple changes for each user agent and then make sure Google indexes those pages correctly before rolling this out to your entire site.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Big retailers and duplicate content
Hello there! I was wondering if you guys have experience with big retailers sites fetching data via API (PDP content etc.) from another domain which is also sharing the same data with other multiple sites. If each retailer has thousands on products, optimizing PDP content (even in batches) is quite of a cumbersome task and rel="canonical" pointing to original domain will dilute the value. How would you approach this type of scenario? Looking forward to read your suggestions/experiences Thanks a lot! Best Sara
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SaraCoppola1 -
IFrames and Thin Content Worries
Hi everyone, I've read a lot about the impact of iFrames on SEO lately -- articles like http://www.visibilitymagazine.com/how-do-iframes-affect-your-seo/ for example. I understand that iFrames don't cause duplicate content or cloaked content issues, but what about thin content concerns? Here's my scenario: Our partner marketing team would like to use an iframe to pull content detailing how Partner A and my company collaborate from a portal the partners have access to. This would allow the partners to help manage their presence on our site directly. The end result would be that Partner A's portal content would be added to Partner A's page on our website via an iFrame. This would happen about across at least 100 URLs. Currently we have traditional partner pages, with unique HTML content. There's a little standalone value for queries involving the bigger partners' names + use case terms, but only in less than 10% of cases. So I'm concerned about those pages, but I'm more worried about the domain overall. My main concern is that in the eyes of Google I'd be stripping a lot of content off the domain all at once, and then replacing it with these shell pages containing nothing (in terms of SEO) but meta, a headline, navigation links, and an iFrame. If that's the case, would Google view those URLs as having thin content? And could that potentially impact the whole domain negatively? Or would Google understand that the page doesn't have content because of the iFrames and give us a pass? Thoughts? Thanks, Andrew
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SafeNet_Interactive_Marketing0 -
Content Aggregation Site: How much content per aggregated piece is too much?
Let's say I set up a section of my website that aggregated content from major news outlets and bloggers around a certain topic. For each piece of aggregated content, is there a bad, fair, and good range of word count that should be stipulated? I'm asking this because I've been mulling it over—both SEO (duplicate content) issues and copyright issues—to determine what is considered best practice. Any ideas about what is considered best practice in this situation? Also, are there any other issues to consider that I didn't mention?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kdaniels0 -
Is hidden content bad for SEO?
I am using this plugin to enable Facebook comments on my blog:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | soralsokal
https://wordpress.org/plugins/fatpanda-facebook-comments/ This shows the comment in an Facebook iFrame. The plugin author claims it's SEO friendly, because the comments are also integrated in the WordPress database. The are included in the post but hidden. Is that bad for SEO?0 -
Seo for mobile and apps
I have a client with a website who's URL is a very common name (most people say this phrase daily). My questions are: How would you best SEO for this site given the common nature of their URL They want to move to mobile and are wondering if their mobile site needs different SEO then their main page Is there a way to SEO apps?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StreetwiseReports0 -
What is the best way to allow content to be used on other sites for syndication without taking the chance of duplicate content filters
Cookstr appears to be syndicating content to shape.com and mensfitness.com a) They integrate their data into partner sites with an attribution back to their site and skinned it with the partners look. b) they link the image back to their image hosted on cookstr c) The page does not have microformats or as much data as their own page does so their own page is better SEO. Is this the best strategy or is there something better they could be doing to safely allow others to use our content, we don't want to share the content if we're going to get hit for a duplicate content filter or have another site out rank us with our own data. Thanks for your help in advance! their original content page: http://www.cookstr.com/recipes/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta their syndicated content pages: http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/healthy-recipes/recipe/sauteacuteed-escarole-with-pancetta0 -
Cross-Domain Canonical and duplicate content
Hi Mozfans! I'm working on seo for one of my new clients and it's a job site (i call the site: Site A).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
The thing is that the client has about 3 sites with the same Jobs on it. I'm pointing a duplicate content problem, only the thing is the jobs on the other sites must stay there. So the client doesn't want to remove them. There is a other (non ranking) reason why. Can i solve the duplicate content problem with a cross-domain canonical?
The client wants to rank well with the site i'm working on (Site A). Thanks! Rand did a whiteboard friday about Cross-Domain Canonical
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday0 -
Content Focus
I have a particular Page which shows primary contact details as well as "additional" contact details for the client. GIven I do not believe I want Google to misinterpret the focus of the page from the primary contact details which of the following three options would be best? Place the "additional" contact details (w/maps) in Javascript, Ajax or similar to suppress them from being crawled. Leave "additional" contact details alone but emphasize the Primary contact details by placing the Primary contact details in Rich Snippets/Microformats. Do nothing and allow Google to Crawl the pages with all contact details Thanks, Phil
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AU-SEO0