undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgreglindahl11y ago0 comments

That's a simplistic way of thinking about the problem -- as a search engine professional (not SEO), I'd never recommend something that depends on GoogleBot figuring out that I'm not really cloaking.

The duplicate content problem you describe is fixable (edit: and is already a problem, I'm only recommending changing links, not adding any pages to the site.)

And by the way, there are plenty of websites that force crawlers to use cookies in order to crawl the site. I don't know how GoogleBot deals with that, but I bet it involves crawling with cookies... no matter what the forum post says.

0 comments

TomAnthony11y ago

Yeah - I don't disagree that there isn't possibly some level of risk. But if your concern is "GoogleBot figuring out that I'm not really cloaking" based on the presence of cookies then I'd challenge (what I think is) your implication that having cookies on your site means Googlebot might suspect you of crawling.

As to Googlebot's use of cookies - there is debate and folklore, but in the tests I have run I have not seen Googlebot ever send back a cookie that I have sent it.

Google do manual reviews of pages, and I am confident the site in this example (for the case in question, at least) would pass that without a problem.

I'm (genuinely) interested in your proposed solution for dealing with the duplicate content problem. The problem with the Panda algorithm is tends to be a bit touchy and it seems easy to fall foul of it even with innocent situations like this one.

greglindahlOP11y ago

That's not my implication, nor what I said! I said that this website should choose a link method which is unambiguiously not cloaking. Then there's no chance that you'll confuse search engine bots.

The duplicate content issue is not in play for my suggestion; as my edit above states, I'm only recommending changing links, not creating any new urls.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse