Captcha wall to access content and cloaking sanction
-
Hello, to protect our website against scrapping, visitor are redirect to a recaptcha page after 2 pages visited.
But for a SEO purpose Google bot is not included in that restriction so it could be seen as cloaking.
What is the best practice in SEO to avoid a penalty for cloaking in that case ?
I think about adding a paywall Json shema NewsArticle but the content is acceccible for free so it's not a paywall but more a captcha protection wall.What do you recommend ?
Thanks,Describe your question in detail. The more information you give, the better! It helps give context for a great answer.
-
In general, Google cares only about cloaking in the sense of treating their crawler differently to human visitors - it's not a problem to treat them differently to other crawlers.
So: if you are tracking the "2 pages visited" using cookies (which I assume you must be? there is no other reliable way to know the 2nd request is from the same user without cookies?) then you can treat googlebot exactly the same as human users - every request is stateless (without cookies) and so googlebot will be able to crawl. You can then treat non-googlebot scrapers more strictly, and rate limit / throttle / deny them as you wish.
I think that if real human users get at least one "free" visit, then you are probably OK - but you may want to consider not showing the recaptcha to real human users coming from google (but you could find yourself in an arms race with the scrapers pretending to be human visitors from google).
In general, I would expect that if it's a recaptcha ("prove you are human") step rather than a paywall / registration wall, you will likely be OK in the situation where:
- Googlebot is never shown the recaptcha
- Other scrapers are aggressively blocked
- Human visitors get at least one page without a recaptcha wall
- Human visitors can visit more pages after completing a recaptcha (but without paying / registering)
Hope that all helps. Good luck!
-
Well I'm not saying that there's no risk in what you are doing, just that I perceive the risk to be less risky than the alternatives. I think such a fundamental change like pay-walling could be moderately to highly likely to have a high impact on results (maybe a 65% likelihood of a 50% impact). Being incorrectly accused of cloaking would be a much lower chance (IMO) but with potentially higher impact (maybe a 5% or less chance of an 85% impact). When weighing these two things up, I subjectively conclude that I'd rather make the cloaking less 'cloaky' in and way I could, and leave everything outside of a paywall. That's how I'd personally weigh it up
Personally I'd treat Google as a paid user. If you DID have a 'full' paywall, this would be really sketchy but since it's only partial and indeed data can continue to be accessed for FREE via recaptcha entry, that's the one I'd go for
Again I'm not saying there is no risk, just that each set of dice you have at your disposal are ... not great? And this is the set of dice I'd personally choose to roll with
The only thing to keep in mind is that, the algorithms which Googlebot return data to are pretty smart. But they're not human smart, a quirk in an algo could cause a big problem. Really though, the chances of that IMO (if all you have said is accurate) are minimal. It's the lesser of two evils from my current perspective
-
Yes our DA is good and we got lot of gouv, edu and medias backlinks.
Paid user did not go through recaptcha, indeed treat Google as a paid user could be a good solution.
So you did not recommend using a paywall ?
Today recaptcha is only used for decision pages
But we need thoses pages to be indexed for our business because all or our paid user find us while searching a justice decision on Google.So we have 2 solutions :
- Change nothing and treat Google as a paid user
- Use hard paywall and inform Google that we use json shema markup but we risk to seen lot of page deindexed
In addition we could go from 2 pages visited then captcha to something less intrusive like 6 pages then captcha
Also in the captcha page there is also a form to start a free trial, so visitor can check captcha and keep navigate or create a free account and get an unlimited access for 7 days.To conclude, if I well understand your opinion, we don't have to stress about being penalized for cloaking because Gbot is smart and understand why we use captcha and our DA help us being trustable by gbot. So I think the best solution is the 1, Change nothing and treat Google as a paid user.
Thank a lot for your time and your help !
It's a complicated subject and it's hard to find people able to answer my question, but you did it -
Well if you have a partnership with the Court of Justice I'd assume your trust and authority metrics would be pretty high with them linking to you on occasion. If that is true then I think in this instance Google would give you the benefit of the doubt, as you're not just some random tech start-up (maybe a start-up, but one which matters and is trusted)
It makes sense that in your scenario your data protection has to be iron-clad. Do paid users have to go through the recaptcha? If they don't, would there be a way to treat Google as a paid user rather than a free user?
Yeah putting down a hard paywall could have significant consequences for you. Some huge publishers manage to still get indexed (pay-walled news sites), but not many and their performance deteriorates over time IMO
Here's a question for you. So you have some pages you really want indexed, and you have a load of data you don't want scraped or taken / stolen - right? Is it possible to ONLY apply the recaptcha for the pages which contain the data that you don't want stolen, and never trigger the recaptcha (at all) in other areas? Just trying to think if there is a wiggle way in the middle, to make it obvious to Google you are doing all you possibly can to do keep Google's view and the user view the same
-
Hi effectdigital, thanks a lot for that answer. I agreed with you captcha is not the best UX idea but our content is sensitive, we are a legal tech indexing french justice decision. We get unique partnership with Court of Justice because we got a unique technology to anonymize data in justice decision so we don't want our competitor to scrap our date (and trust me they try, every day..). This is why we use recaptcha protection. For Gbot we use Google reverse DNS and user agent so even a great scrapper can't bypass our security.
Then we have a paid option, people can create an account and paid a monthly subscription to access content in unlimited. This is why I think about paywall. We could replace captcha page by a paywall page (with a freetrial of course) but I'm not sur Google will index millions of page hiding behing a metered paywall
As you said, I think there is no good answer..
And again, thank a lot to having take time to answer my question -
Unless you have previously experienced heavy scraping which you cannot solve any other way, this seems a little excessive. Most websites don't have such strong anti-spam measures and they cope just fine without them
I would say that it would be better to embed the recaptcha on the page and just block users from proceeding further (or accessing the content), until the recaptcha were filled. Unfortunately this would be a bad solution as scrapers would still be able to scrape the page, so I guess redirecting to the captcha is your only option. Remember that if you are letting Googlebot through (probably with a user agent toggle) then as long as scrape-builders program their scripts to serve the Googlebot UA, they can penetrate your recaptcha redirects and just refuse to do them. Even users can alter their browser's UA to avoid the redirects
There are a number of situations where Google don't consider redirect penetration to be cloaking. One big one is regional redirects, as Google needs to crawl a whole multilingual site instead of being redirected. I would think that in this situation Google wouldn't take too much of an issue with what you are doing, but you can never be certain (algorithms work in weird and wonderful ways)
I don't think any schema can really help you. Google will want to know that you are using technology that could annoy users so they can lower your UX score(s) accordingly, but unfortunately letting them see this will stop your site being properly crawled so I don't know what the right answer is. Surely there must be some less nuclear, obstructive technology you could integrate instead? Or just keep on top of your block lists (IP ranges, user agents) and monitor your site (don't make users suffer)
If you are already letting Googlebot through your redirects, why not just have a user-agent based allow list instead of a black list which is harder to manage? Find the UAs of most common mobile / desktop browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, Opera, whatever) and allow those UAs plus Googlebot. Anyone who does penetrate for scraping, deal with them on a case-by-case basis
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
-
Javascript content not being indexed by Google
I thought Google has gotten better at picking up unique content from javascript. I'm not seeing it with our site. We rate beauty and skincare products using our algorithms. Here is an example of a product -- https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/tide-free-gentle-he-liquid-laundry-detergent-100-fl-oz When you look at the cache page (text) from google none of the core ratings (badges like fragrance free, top free and so forth) are being picked up for ranking. Any idea what we could do to have the rating incorporated in the indexation.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | akih0 -
Copied Content - Define Canonical
Hello, The Story I am working on a news organization. Our website is the https://www.neakriti.gr My question regards copied content with source references. Sometimes a small portion of our content is based on some third article that is posted on some site (that is about 1% of our content). We always put "source" reference if that is the case. This is inevitable as "news" is something that sometimes has sources on other news sites, especially if there is something you cannot verify or don't have immediate sources, and therefore you need to state that "according to this source, something has happened". Here is one article of ours that has a source from another site: https://www.neakriti.gr/article/ellada-nea/1503363/nekros-vrethike-o-agnooumenos-arhimandritis-stin-lakonia/ if you open the above article you will see we have a link to the equivalent article of the original source site http://lakonikos.gr/epikairothta/item/133664-nekros-entopistike-o-arximandritis-p-andreas-bolovinos-synexis-enimerosi Now here is my question. I have read in other MOZ forum articles that a "canonical" approach solves this issue... How can we be legit when it comes to duplicate content in the eyes of search engines? Should we use some kind of canonical link to the source site? Should the "canonical" be inside the link in some way? Should it be on our section? Our site has AMP equivalent pages (if you add the /amp keyword at the end of the article URL). Our AMP pages have canonical to our original article. So if we have a "canonical" approach how would the AMP be effected as well? Also by applying a possible canonical solution to the source URL, does that "canonical" effect our article as not being shown in search results, thus passing all indexing to the canonical site? (I know that canonical indicates what URL is to be indexed). Additionally, does such a canonical indication make us legit in such a case in the eyes of search engines? (i.e. it eliminates any possible article duplication for original content in the eyes of search engines?). Or simply put, having a simple link to the original article (as we have it now) is enough for the search engines to understand that we have reference to original article URL? How would we approach this problem in our site based on its current structure?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ioannisanif0 -
Hitting a brick wall with link building!
I am working on a new home furnishing e-commerce site, and started a couple of link building campaigns. Specifically, I have started a scholarship campaign with outreach going to schools, and a broken link building/content outreach campaign. With both of these campaigns, I am targeting .edu domains first, and some high value blogs in that niche. I am hitting a brick wall with both! These are both the types of campaigns I have tried before, with some degree of success. It seems that the webmasters have been getting so inundated with spam that they simply ignore emails. Does anyone have recent successful experience with these link building methods? I would appreciate any advice on current link building methods if anyone is willing to share. TIA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kevin_Hatanian1 -
Duplicate content with URLs
Hi all, Do you think that is possible to have duplicate content issues because we provide a unique image with 5 different URLs ? In the HTML code pages, just one URL is provide. It's enough for that Google don't see the other URLs or not ? Example, in this article : http://www.parismatch.com/People/Kim-Kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix-1092112 The same image is available on: http://cdn-parismatch.ladmedia.fr/var/news/storage/images/paris-match/people/kim-kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix-1092112/15629236-1-fre-FR/Kim-Kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix.jpg http://resize-parismatch.ladmedia.fr/img/var/news/storage/images/paris-match/people/kim-kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix-1092112/15629236-1-fre-FR/Kim-Kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix.jpg http://resize1-parismatch.ladmedia.fr/img/var/news/storage/images/paris-match/people/kim-kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix-1092112/15629236-1-fre-FR/Kim-Kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix.jpg http://resize2-parismatch.ladmedia.fr/img/var/news/storage/images/paris-match/people/kim-kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix-1092112/15629236-1-fre-FR/Kim-Kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix.jpg http://resize3-parismatch.ladmedia.fr/img/var/news/storage/images/paris-match/people/kim-kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix-1092112/15629236-1-fre-FR/Kim-Kardashian-sa-securite-n-a-pas-de-prix.jpg Thank you very much for your help. Julien
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Julien.Ferras0 -
Duplicate Content with URL Parameters
Moz is picking up a large quantity of duplicate content, consists mainly of URL parameters like ,pricehigh & ,pricelow etc (for page sorting). Google has indexed a large number of the pages (not sure how many), not sure how many of them are ranking for search terms we need. I have added the parameters into Google Webmaster tools And set to 'let google decide', However Google still sees it as duplicate content. Is it a problem that we need to address? Or could it do more harm than good in trying to fix it? Has anyone had any experience? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Question on Moving Content
I just moved my site from a Wordpress hosted site to Squarespace. We have the same domain, however, the content is now located on a different URL (again, same base domain). I'm unable to easily set up 301 redirects for the old content to be mapped to the new content so I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a workaround. Basically, I want to make sure google knows that Product A's page is now located at this new URL. (www.domain.com/11245 > www.domain.com/product-a). Maybe it's something that I don't have to worry about anymore because the old content is gone? I mean, I have a global redirect set up that no matter what you enter after the base domain, it now goes to the homepage but I just want to make sure I'm not missing something here. Really appreciate your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheBatesMillStore1 -
Duplicate content on the same page--is this an issue?
We are transitioning to responsive design and some of our pages will not scale properly, so we were thinking of adding the same content twice to the same URL (one would be simple text -- for mobile and the other would include the images, etc for the desktop version), and content would change based on size of the screen. I'm not looking for another technical solution (I know google specifies that you can dynamically serve different content based on user agent)--I am wondering if any one knows if having the same exact content appear twice on the same URL will cause a problem with SEO (any historical tests or experience would be great). Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
How quickly should I publish a massive backlog of content?
Hello experts! I have a query about publishing a backlog of content. Run a quote requesting website for design. When we first built it, I was not well versed in SEO. However today I know a whole lot more, thanks to SEOmoz mostly. For two years customers have been requesting quotes which are then given to registered designers. The brief provided by the customers is locked away behind a private log in area for designers. There is a ton of unique content there that can't be indexed by Google. Here is my idea: 1. Register a new domain, something like, designjobs.com.au 2. Use Wordpress to publish the briefs submitted by clients. 3. Link each brief to our main website for SEO benefits. However we have over 1000 quote requests dating back over two years. If I published this all at once would Google treat is as suspicious? If so, should I alter the dates and have them published one at a time?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | designquotes0