Homepage "personalisation" - different content for different users
-
Hi Mozians,
My firm is looking to present different content to different users depending on whether they are new, return visitors, return customers etc...
I am concerned how this would work in practice as far as Google is concrened- how would react to the fact that the bot would see different content to some users. It has the slight whiff of cloacking about it to me, but I also get that in this case it would be a UX thing that would genuinely be of benefit to users, and clearly wouldn't be intended to manipulate search rankings at all.
Is there a way of acheiving this "personalisation" in such a way that Google understands thay you are doint it? I am thinking about some kind of markup that "declares" the different versions of the page. Basically I want to be as transparent about it as possible so as to avoid un-intended consequences.
Many thanks indeed!
-
Hi Bernadette,
Thanks for your input.
I guess my question, put more succunctly would be- when does "personalisation" cross the line to become "cloaking"? And how to avoid Google confusing between the two. By definition personalisation involves showing one set of content to one set of users, and at least one other set of content to at least one other set of users.
I totally understand that essentially Google will only see one set of content as a "first time" user, but given than that content will not be the same as the content all other users see, I can see that at some point Google might mis-interpret this as a maliciouos technique. Maybe my concern lies in y ignorance over exactly HOW cloacking is carried out technically.
Thanks
-
When it comes to content personalization, it's perfectly fine to do that--I do recommend having a "core" set of content (like a paragraph or two at least) that all users will see.
You may be confused about how the bots see this content--think of Googlebot as one user. That user, the search engine spider, will only see one version, as they are a user. They will generally not see multiple versions.
What I recommend is that you decide what is served up to the search engine bots--which should be the same content that you serve up to someone who are first-time visitors.
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
-
"nofollow" vs. "no follow"
Does anyone know if it is problematic to have a space between the "no" and the "follow"? I just discovered our CMS has been inserting a space and am trying to understand if it the reason why something that we were trying to keep from being indexed has become indexed.
Technical SEO | | LivDetrick0 -
Quick Fix to "Duplicate page without canonical tag"?
When we pull up Google Search Console, in the Index Coverage section, under the category of Excluded, there is a sub-category called ‘Duplicate page without canonical tag’. The majority of the 665 pages in that section are from a test environment. If we were to include in the robots.txt file, a wildcard to cover every URL that started with the particular root URL ("www.domain.com/host/"), could we eliminate the majority of these errors? That solution is not one of the 5 or 6 recommended solutions that the Google Search Console Help section text suggests. It seems like a simple effective solution. Are we missing something?
Technical SEO | | CREW-MARKETING1 -
Is this a true rel=nofollow for the whole article? "printfriendly.com" is part of the URL which is why I'm confused.
Is the rel=nofollow tag on this article a true NoFollow for the whole article (and all the external links to other sites in the article), or is it just for a specific part of the page? Here is the article: https://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/americans-are-not-ready-for-retirement/ The reason I ask is that I'm confused about the code since it has "printfriendly.com..." as a portion of the URL. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | dklarse0 -
Getting a ton of "not found" errors in Webmaster tools stemming from /plugins/feedback.php
So recently Webmaster tools showed a million "not found" errors with the url "plugins/feedback.php/blah blah blah." A little googling helped me find that this comes from the Facebook comment box plugin. Apparently some changes recently have made this start happening. The question is, what's the right fix? The thread I was reading suggested adding "Disallow: /plugins/feedback.php" to the robots.txt file and marking them all fixed. Any ideas?
Technical SEO | | cbrant7770 -
"Extremely high number of URLs" warning for robots.txt blocked pages
I have a section of my site that is exclusively for tracking redirects for paid ads. All URLs under this path do a 302 redirect through our ad tracking system: http://www.mysite.com/trackingredirect/blue-widgets?ad_id=1234567 --302--> http://www.mysite.com/blue-widgets This path of the site is blocked by our robots.txt, and none of the pages show up for a site: search. User-agent: * Disallow: /trackingredirect However, I keep receiving messages in Google Webmaster Tools about an "extremely high number of URLs", and the URLs listed are in my redirect directory, which is ostensibly not indexed. If not by robots.txt, how can I keep Googlebot from wasting crawl time on these millions of /trackingredirect/ links?
Technical SEO | | EhrenReilly0 -
Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
Duplicate Content Vs No Content
Hello! A question that has been throw around a lot at our company has been "Is duplicate content better than no content?". We operate a range of online flash game sites, most of which pull their games from a feed, which includes the game description. We have unique content written on the home page of the website, but aside from that, the game descriptions are the only text content on the website. We have been hit by both Panda and Penguin, and are in the process of trying to recover from both. In this effort we are trying to decide whether to remove or keep the game descriptions. I figured the best way to settle the issue would be to ask here. I understand the best solution would be to replace the descriptions with unique content, however, that is a massive task when you've got thousands of games. So if you have to choose between duplicate or no content, which is better for SEO? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Ryan_Phillips0 -
Cn I use SEOMOZ to find "Bad Links"
We were hit by the Penguin update and I am told it make be because of "Bad Links", but no one can seem to tell me how to find them. We never buy links, and in fact the only links I know about are those from paid affiliates through shareasale - and these affiliates are paid based on performance, not links. 1. Does anyone know how to figure out what links are bad? 2. Once I know, how do I get them to stop linking to my site? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0