Mobile Redirect - Cloaking/Sneaky?
-
Question since Google is somewhat vague on what they consider mobile "equivalent" content. This is the hand we're dealt with due to budget, no m.dot, etc, responsive/dynamic is on the roadmap but still a couple quarters away but, for now, here's the situation.
We have two sets of content and experiences, one for desktop and one for mobile. The problem is that desktop content does not = mobile content. The layout, user experience, images and copy aren't the same across both versions - they are not dramatically different but not identical. In many cases, no mobile equivalent exists.
Dev wants to redirect visitors who find the desktop version in mobile search to the equivalent mobile experience, when it exists, when it doesn't they want to redirect to the mobile homepage - which really isn't a homepage it's an unfiltered view of the content. Yeah we have push state in place for the mobile version etc.
My concern is that Google will look at this as cloaking, maybe not in the cases where there's a near equivalent piece of content, but definitely when we're redirecting to the "homepage". Not to mention this isn't a great user experience and will impact conversion/engagement metrics which are likely factors Google's algorithm considers.
What's the MOZ Community say about this? Cloaking or Not and Why?
Thanks!
-
Thomas
great info above, quick follow up question for you.....I have always wonder why is Google using the "640px" in the ?
many people have been asking the question lately if 640px is an old example or is it the required size? (phones are larger nowaway)the website I manage are non-responsive ocated in a /mobile/ folder such as: http://www.example.com/mobile/page1
and our mobile size cut off is actually 1023px..... should we be using 640 or 1023px in the rel="alternate" tag?
thank you! -
Thanks Thomas, I've pushed back and said no, part of my original SEO requirement was to eliminate the blanket redirect but there's always pushback and wanted to have more ammo in my back pocket.
Definitely will be implementing vary http header, etc when we do have mobile version. I did not know about the apex/ CNAME/ Aname, I appreciate the tip.
-
"Dev wants to redirect visitors who find the desktop version in mobile search to the equivalent mobile experience, when it exists, when it doesn't they want to redirect to the mobile homepage - which really isn't a homepage it's an unfiltered view of the content. Yeah we have push state in place for the mobile version etc."
Tell your developer absolutely not and create the multiple versions of the site then redirect them properly if he does what is stated below your site will lose visitors and Google will be less than happy.
I strongly suggest that you tell him no. The only thing he has right is redirect to the mobile version if it exists. If it does not exist do not redirect to the homepage or any page UNLESS IT IS THE mobile version of that original page.
If they find it via search Google has already deemed it not mobile friendly any URLs that are up for debate place through this: https://varvy.com/mobile/ and you will have your answer brother their mobile friendly or not
if there is not a valid mobile version you should not force the mobile version to be used it will not benefit you it will hurt you in fact.
-
if there is not a valid mobile version you should not force the mobile version to be used it will not benefit you it will hurt you in fact. when you do have a 100% mobile friendly version you can utilize the tactics below
Different methods apex records or Aname records /Cname flattening whatever you want to call it can do the trick as well as see below.
Cname flattening
https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200168336-About-CloudFlare-Mobile-Redirect
"All mobile traffic to
example.com
(the root/zone apex) andwww.example.com
is redirected to the mobile-optimized home page. Those records (root and www) must have CloudFlare's performance service enabled ("orange cloud" in the DNS Settings) for the redirect to be active."Add
https://varvy.com/mobile/vary-user-agent.html
Vary: User-Agent
Desktop page
Mobile page
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
-
Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits
Hello here, I am putting down a link building strategy according to the latest "good practices" and Google recommendations, but I find myself often confused. For example, I'd like to implement the technique suggested by Rand on his article below: https://moz.com/blog/headsmacking-tip-1-link-requests-in-order-confirmation-emails But if you look at the comments, a user suggests to "ask for links in exchange of discounts", and everyone there applaud him for the idea (Rand included). But, wait a second... am I the only one realizing that now days Google discourage to ask for links for "money, services, or any other kind of 'offered' benefit"? So.. where to draw the line here? Here are other examples that I am not sure are "safe" in link building: 1. Ask for links in exchange of a free Membership on a site (where usually a Membership is sold for a price) 2. Ask for links in exchange of exposure (isn't this a sort of "link exchange"?) 3. Ask for link in exchange of "anything else you can think of", even if necessarily doesn't involve money (i.e. for a "certified site badge", for a free e-book, or anything else) I'd really like to know your thoughts on this very sensitive issue. Thank you in advance to anyone for helping me to understand.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | fablau1 -
New Software Requires us to redirect a sub domain to another IP Address.
I operate a local print and direct mail company located in Houston called Catdi Printing (www.catdi.com)We do very well with our local rankings and rank 1 or 2 in our main keywords ( direct mail Houston & eddm Houston ) We are looking to upgrade our online quoting and ordering system. The software is very expensive and the only way we can incorporate this new system is create on our end a new subdomain (printing.catdi.com) and redirect it to an ip thats with their server. Their server is located in Californiaa and might even be hosted by Google but im not certain on this point. Our current host provider is Hostgator and they are based in Houston so im not this provides any benefit. I guess my main question is will Google look at this negatively? Would this change our SERPS organically and what about how Google indexes pages on the subdomain? Im also concerned that the load times will be off and make the user experience awkward. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ChopperCharlie0 -
All pages going through 302 redirect - bad?
So, our web development company did something I don't agree with and I need a second opinion. Most of our pages are statically cached (the CMS creates .html files), which is required because of our traffic volume. To get geotargeting to work, they've set up every page to 302 redirect to a geodetection script, and back to the geotargeted version of the page. Eg: www.example.com/category 302 redirects to www.example.com/geodetect.hp?ip=ip_address. Then that page 302 redirects back to either www.example.com/category, or www.example.com/geo/category for the geo-targeted version. **So all of our pages - thousands - go through a double 302 redirect. It's fairly invisible to the user, and 302 is more appropriate than 301 in this case, but it really worries me. I've done lots of research and can't find anything specifically saying this is bad, but I can't imagine Google being happy with this. ** Thoughts? Is this bad for SEO? Is there a better way (keeping in mind all of our files are statically generated)? Is this perfectly fine?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dholowiski0 -
Does 301 redirection will effect my site in the future?
Hello Guys, I am totally new to SEOMOZ.com, when I had issues with my website I asked one of my friend who does SEO he suggested me to implemented 301 redirection approximately 11 months a go, here is the URL of the website http://www.bharatdesi.com/hyderabad . Will Google ban my website from search engine results, what would be the worst scenarios. know there are really good SEO people who follow SEOMOZ everyday... Can any one here please suggest me with some good answers weather I have to remove 301 redirection or I can still keep the same until my home page gets redesigned. I don't really understand all the concepts of SEO, but if some one can help me with the good answers I can ask my developer to the same. Thank you
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Vinss0 -
Article Re-posting / Duplication
Hi Mozzers! Quick question for you all. This is something I've been unsure of for a while. But when a guest post you've written goes live on someone's blog. Is it then okay it post the same article to your own blog as well as Squidoo for example? Would the search engines still see it as duplication if I have a link back to the original?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Using Redirects To Avoid Penalties
A quick question, born out of frustration! If a webpage has been penalised for unnatural links, what would be the effects of moving that page to a new URL and setting up a 301 redirect from the old penalised page to the new page? Will Google treat the new page as ‘non-penalised’ and restore your rankings? It really shouldn’t work, but I’m convinced (although not certain) that our clients competitor has done this, with great effect! I suppose you could also achieve this using canonicalisation too! Many thanks in advance, Lee.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Webpresence0 -
Use of 301 redirects
Scenario Dynamic page produces great results for the user but produces a long very un-user and un-search friendly URL http://www.OURSITE.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=loving&x=0&y=0#/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=lovingthebead&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Alovingthebead Solution 301 redirect in .htaccess Fantastic - works a treat BUT after redirect the original long ugly old URL appears in the location field Would really like this showing the new short user friendly short URL What am I doing wrong? Thank you all. CB
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | GeezerG0 -
Blogspot or Wordpress.com Redirect?
I have multiple domains with the same registrar. Is there an SEO benefit to create complimentary blogs on blogspot, wordpress.com or other "free" blog sites and forward these domains with the purpose of backlinking to the main site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | reeljerc0