Are slimmed down mobile versions of a canonical page considered cloaking?
-
We are developing our mobile site right now and we are using a user agent sniffer to figure out what kind of device the visitor is using. Once the server knows whether it is a desktop or mobile browser it will deliver the appropriate template. We decided to use the same URL for both versions of the page rather than using m.websiteurl.com or www.websiteurl.mobi so that traffic to either version of these pages would register as a visit to the page.
Will search engines consider this cloaking or is mobile "versioning" an acceptable practice? The pages in essence are the same, the mobile version will just leave out extraneous scripts and unnecessary resources to better display on a mobile device.
-
I think you'll find this post on the Official Google Webmaster Central Blog valuable.
-
Thanks Korgo, that is good to know. The question still remains though: If both versions of the page have the same URL and canonical tag, is it cloaking?
-
Google has a completely different robot for searching mobile pages
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
-
Avg Page Load Time Increase After Responsive Web Design
The Avg. Page Load Time has been steadily increasing after our website went responsive. What could have cause this?
Web Design | | JMSCC1 -
Problems preventing Wordpress attachment pages from being indexed and from being seen as duplicate content.
Hi According to a Moz Crawl, it looks like the Wordpress attachment pages from all image uploads are being indexed and seen as duplicate content..or..is it the Yoast sitemap causing it? I see 2 options in SEO Yoast: Redirect attachment URLs to parent post URL. Media...Meta Robots: noindex, follow I set it to (1) initially which didn't resolve the problem. Then I set it to option (2) so that all images won't be indexed but search engines would still associate those images with their relevant posts and pages. However, I understand what both of these options (1) and (2) mean, but because I chose option 2, will that mean all of the images on the website won't stand a chance of being indexed in search engines and Google Images etc? As far as duplicate content goes, search engines can get confused and there are 2 ways for search engines
Web Design | | SEOguy1
to reach the correct page content destination. But when eg Google makes the wrong choice a portion of traffic drops off (is lost hence errors) which then leaves the searcher frustrated, and this affects the seo and ranking of the site which worsens with time. My goal here is - I would like all of the web images to be indexed by Google, and for all of the image attachment pages to not be indexed at all (Moz shows the image attachment pages as duplicates and the referring site causing this is the sitemap url which Yoast creates) ; that sitemap url has been submitted to the search engines already and I will resubmit once I can resolve the attachment pages issues.. Please can you advise. Thanks.0 -
CMS dynamicly created pages indexed?
Hey Moz'erz, Looking at the indexed pages of my clients eCommerce website I noticed that dynamically created pages are being indexed. For example this page does not "exist" but is created by a drop down filter menu that sorts by product tag: /collections/tools/TAG I can only conclude that this page got indexed either through a backlink or once upon a time there was an internal link pointing to this URL and got indexed (currently there is not). Are either of these cases possibilities? In either case before considering removal or any action I would of-course reference analytics to check for conversions, traffic and any backlinks for those "pages". I believe at the end of the day is recommend a drop down filer that doesn't create new pages as the best solution. Thoughts, comments and experience is greatly welcomed 🙂
Web Design | | paul-bold0 -
Using a query string for linked, static landing pages - is this good practice?
My company has a page with links for each of our dozen office locations as well as a clickable map. These offices are also linked in the footer of every page along with their phone number. When one of these links is clicked, the visitor is directed to a static page with a picture of the office, contact information, a short description, and some other information. The URL for these pages is displayed as something like http:/example.com/offices.htm?office_id=123456, with seemingly random ID numbers at the end depending on the office that remain static. I know first off that this is probably bad SEO practice, as the URL should be something like htttp://example.com/offices/springfield/ My question is, why is there a question mark in the page URL? I understand that it represents a query string, but I'm not sure why it's there to begin with. A search query should not required if they are just static landing pages, correct?. Is there any reason at all why they would be queries? Is this an issue that needs to be addressed or does it have little to no impact on SEO?
Web Design | | BD690 -
How to do a non-spammy "doorway page"?
Hi there, ISSUE: I have a client who wishes to use a "doorway" page, but not in a spammy way. He would like to have a nice crisp URL for use in ads/brochures. The page is strictly a landing page (just with a separate URL). DOORWAY/LANDING PAGE WILL BE: Non-spammy -- There will be no attempt to optimize the landing page/no attempt to get the page to rank. Strictly a vanity URL -- he likes the way a separate website looks in ads as opposed to a landing page on the existing website (i.e., www.websitename.com/landing page) WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO: I'm basically trying to figure out what the best things to do to protect his other sites (which are very high quality valuable sites which rank well) from getting punished. STEPS I'M CONSIDERING: Robots no follow Separate hosting server Different person's name on a private domain registration Adding additional pages, so it's not a 1-page "doorway" Many thanks in advance to anyone who would share their experience and help me protect my client in the best way possible. I've told him there are risks, but he still wants to go ahead. MC
Web Design | | marketingcupcake1 -
Splash Pages For App Downlowds
Hi, We currently have a very simple splash page that Android and iPhone users see when they land on our homepage. The screen gives them the option to download our app or move on to the full website. If they choose to go to the site they are redirected to our homepage. Is this going to have any negative impacts on our rankings? I'm not sure how the Google bot treats this type of page. We have also talked about replacing the splash page with a modal window, but I'm concerned that this will increase the load time of the home page on mobile devices. Does anyone have any experience with a similar situation or any advice? Thanks in advance!
Web Design | | Cash4Books0 -
Do you think it will be a good idea to delete old blog pages off the server
I paid somebody to build my website using Dreamweaver, and at one point I didn't know how to use the template which automatically updates every page in the menu section so I stupidly broke the template on every new page when I made the websites blog and put the pages into a subfolder. I realised this was a silly thing to do and now and I now know how to use the template correctly I've copied every single page over from the subfolder and put it into the main template. Now I can update the template menu and every page changes automatically. The only problem is I've now got two versions of every page of my blog on the website. For some reason when I do a sitemap it comes up with a links to the old blog pages I, don't know why when I've removed the links from the blog page? and also the new copies also. I have basically got a copys of all blog pages. Do you think it will be a good idea to delete old indexed blog pages off the server so that when Google spiders the site it will pick up only the new links to the copy pages?
Web Design | | whitbycottages0 -
How not to get penalized by having a Single Page Interface (SPI) ?
Guys, I run a real estate website where my clients pay me to advertise their properties. The thing is, from the beginning, I had this idea about a user interface that would remain entirely on the same page. On my site the user can filter the properties on the left panel, and the listings (4 properties at each time) are refreshed on the right side, where there is pagination. So when the user clicks on one property ad, the ad is loaded by ajax below the search panel in the same page .. there's a "back up" button that the user clicks to go back to the search panel and click on another property. People are loving our implementation and the user experience, so I simply can't let go of this UI "inovation" just for SEO, because it really is something that makes us stand out from our competitors. My question, then, is: how not to get penalized in SEO by having this Single Page Interface, because in the eyes of Google users might not be browsing my site deep enough ?
Web Design | | pqdbr0