Link cloaking in 2015\. Is it a bad idea now?
-
Hi everyone,
I run a travel-related website and work with various affiliate partners. We have thousands of pages of well-written and helpful content, and many of these pages link off to one of our affiliates for booking purposes.
Years ago I followed the prevailing wisdom and cloaked those links (bouncing them into a folder that was blocked in the robots.txt file, then redirecting them off to the affiliate). Basically, doing as Yoast has written: https://yoast.com/cloak-affiliate-links/
However, that seems kind of spammy and manipulative these days. Doesn't Google talk about not trying to manipulate links and redirect users? Could I just "nofollow" these links instead and drop the whole redirect charade? Could cloaking actually work against you?
Thoughts? Thanks.
-
Yes and anything to do with WordPress link cloaking and redirects the must have plug-in is 'Pretty Link Pro'. It provides super easy link management and handy analytics on every outbound link you create. I've been using it for years and it's great.
-
Yeah, so I always thought that Google hating on affiliate links was a myth. Then I had an affiliate site started losing rankings. They went back up when I nofollowed the links. That was years ago, but it's still my preferred solution.
I suspect Google is already smart enough to understand what's happening, but they avoid doing anything about it because it's not impacting rankings and some people use it for legitimate reasons. Maybe some site owners don't trust the site they're sending traffic to, and don't want them to know which content is working best. Maybe others have a poor method of tracking that involves redirect.
I'm familiar with Yoast's solution, but I don't think it's helpful. It might make it look like you have more internal links, but I sincerely doubt Google is going to reward you for that. I recommend nofollow in any case, and direct links unless you have some other reason to avoid them.
-
Interesting question. Yes, just adding the no follow attribute would be a much better solution, but it's not always optimal to have your full affiliate links exposed to everyone.
I would still run with the redirect linking process that you're using, provided that the mechanics of it are sound, and they work. But I would just make sure that all of the links are actually nofollow links. Linking out to sites in a bad neighbourhood is what will hurt your site's rankings. Provided that your affiliate sites aren't super spammy, and all of your outbound links are nofollow, you shouldn't have a problem.
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
-
Www PA is 29\. Http version is PA of 21\. Should I start using the WWW one?
I think I know the answer but i need to ask anyway in case i am wrong. The www PA is 29. Http version is PA of 21. Should I start using the WWW one? A number of years ago, they hired an agency that built a ton of links to the WWW version. I should also point out that most of the site urls are for the http, so i would have to redirect all the other pages. Advice? Thanks, Nails
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | matt.nails0 -
Would this be considered cloaking and would it be a bad move?
I posted this topic last night, http://moz.com/community/q/seo-dealing-with-a-cdn-on-a-site about issues I am having with a client's images falling out of index because they have a CDN now. So I have come up with a work around, but it might be considered cloaking and I am not sure. A month ago we changed over to using a CDN and the images started falling out of the index after that. Currently when you land on a page the images are served from cdn.site.com What I am thinking about doing is detecting Google Bot and when Google Bot crawls the site serve images from site.com. The images will be the exact same images as served from the CDN so it is not a content switcharoo thing. It is just to try to get the images back in the index. So would this be considered cloaking in your opinion?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LesleyPaone0 -
Redirecting just the homepage of a site to another domain- good/bad idea?
TLDR: As part of a corporate rebranding/restructuring, my parent company is asking me to redirect just the homepage of our website to another page on their website. How will this affect rankings of all of the other pages on our site? I work for an organization (XYZ Corp) that is owned by another company (Big Conglomerate). XYZ Corp's main function is building custom skinned microsites for marketing purposes that live on our domain in a traditional directory structure (no subdomains). This morning, I get a request to redirect XYZ Corp's homepage to live at bigconglomerate.com/xyzcorp. But all of our original microsites are to remain as is. Technically, I know how to accomplish this redirection. My question is- should I? Or should I fight this? I searched previous Q&A's, but wasn't able to find someone else who was concerned about losing search rankings for sub-pages due to losing their website's homepage. A few more details- The microsite pages are not linked to from the homepage. The microsites do not link back to the homepage. We cannot move the microsites to bigconglomerate.com because everything that lives there is a cookie cutter CMS page. This is my first question ever, please go easy on me! Thanks, --Mark
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bigwheeler0 -
Technical Question on Image Links - Part of Addressing High Number of Outbound Links
Hi - I've read through the forum, and have been reading online for hours, and can't quite find an answer to what I'm searching for. Hopefully someone can chime in with some information. 🙂 For some background - I am looking closely at four websites, trying to bring them up to speed with current guidelines, and recoup some lost traffic and revenue. One of the things we are zeroing in on is the high amount of outbound links in general, as well as inter-site linking, and a nearly total lack of rel=nofollow on any links. Our current CMS doesn't allow an editor to add them, and it will require programming changes to modify any past links, which means I'm trying to ask for the right things, once, in order to streamline the process. One thing that is nagging at me is that the way we link to our images could be getting misconstrued by a more sensitive Penguin algorithm. Our article images are all hosted on one separate domain. This was done for website performance reasons. My concern is that we don't just embed the image via , which would make this concern moot. We also have an href tag on each to a 'larger view' of the image that precedes the img src in the code, for example - We are still running the numbers, but as some articles have several images, and we currently have about 85,000 articles on those four sites... well, that's a lot of href links to another domain. I'm suggesting that one of the steps we take is to rel=nofollow the image hrefs. Our image traffic from Google search, or any image search for that matter, is negligible. On one site it represented just .008% of our visits in July. I'm getting a little pushback on that idea as having a separate image server is standard for many websites, so I thought I'd seek additional information and opinions. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MediaCF0 -
Simple Link Question
Hi Guys, I will appreciate if you answer 1 small question..... Will our site benefit from that link?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Webdeal
Valuable website related to our business ---nofollow link--> PDF Doc(on second site) ---link to our site ---> Kind Regards,
webdeal0 -
Do 404 Pages from Broken Links Still Pass Link Equity?
Hi everyone, I've searched the Q&A section, and also Google, for about the past hour and couldn't find a clear answer on this. When inbound links point to a page that no longer exists, thus producing a 404 Error Page, is link equity/domain authority lost? We are migrating a large eCommerce website and have hundreds of pages with little to no traffic that have legacy 301 redirects pointing to their URLs. I'm trying to decide how necessary it is to keep these redirects. I'm not concerned about the page authority of the pages with little traffic...I'm concerned about overall domain authority of the site since that certainly plays a role in how the site ranks overall in Google (especially pages with no links pointing to them...perfect example is Amazon...thousands of pages with no external links that rank #1 in Google for their product name). Anyone have a clear answer? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | M_D_Golden_Peak0 -
Is this link being indexed?
link text Deadline: Monday, Sep 30, 2013 link text I appreciate the help guys!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jameswalkerson0 -
Link to domain
Let's say i want to rank for rental car service and purchases a domain rental-car-service and creates a site http://www.rental-car-service.com There will be few persons who won't use anchor text to link to the site, but will simply link using URL ( in this case http://www.rental-car-service.com ) So, will a link to http://www.rental-car-service.com from another site using http://www.rental-car-service.com as anchor text help the keyword rental car service ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050