So Google penalizes you for content lockers now?

pyronaut · May 28, 2011

1337WuLF said:
So whats the better alternative?

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just saying the terminology was wrong

.

I generally just let people who don't have javascript view the page anyway rather than redirecting them. If they are tech savvy enough to do that, then generally they aren't going to be filling in an offer anyway. And then ofcourse Google can start crawling your site again

DigitalGangster · May 28, 2011

Monrox said:
Using content lockers is a type of cloaking.The rules (in this regard) are simple. Users should see what the spider sees. If you can cloak successfully you won't need lockers as a lot more money can be made with other methods. If you can't cloak, your vistiors must be from somewhere else as kez1000 said.

Also normal search traffiic will not be convinced enough to go through a survey etc. from a simple 2 or 3 lines text snippet as presented in the search results anyway.

What you can do is have a locked 'noindex' mirror page and show that if the visitor's referer is not a search engine. This way you keep your position (at least in theory; I am not done with my tests yet).

The only response that comes close to why is that happening is thanks to pyronaut.

If you run a site with a content locker , the content locker assumes that those with javascript turned off are those users trying to by pass it , thats why it redirects to the networks content locker.

If i was you i would try to take that option off , i know ******* has the option to take that off.

It really comes down to when google crawls your site if its always redirecting to the cpa networks domain, it really cant mean that it will help your serps .

1337WuLF · May 28, 2011

pyronaut said:
I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just saying the terminology was wrong .

I generally just let people who don't have javascript view the page anyway rather than redirecting them. If they are tech savvy enough to do that, then generally they aren't going to be filling in an offer anyway. And then ofcourse Google can start crawling your site again

Adscendmedia don't have an option to turn this off

Looks like I'm stuck with cloaking.

alonso · May 28, 2011

Cloacking and/or locking is not the issue
but bounce rate.
The solution is to make a real visitor
to stay as longer as possible in the page.
Pic, videos, rating, polls, side important
info, etc. They must spend time in the page.

A.

xpwizard · May 28, 2011

Simple solution...

Add an exception for the google bot useragent. So that when they scrape your site the content blocker won't be activated.

biosclan · May 28, 2011

You should never gateway the page you are ranking, always have a backend page to lock with the content.

You could also link to another site with the content you are locking or even iframe that site on your backen page on your main site.

Lots of ways to do it, but you will have increased conversion when leading your users down a funnel then just being lazy and locking the front page.

Duckyshucky · May 28, 2011

I put all of my locked content on my landing page, but i don't lock the landing page. Instead I put a button for the content, then that will activate the gateway. This way google still sees all the content on your landing page and you can still monetize whatever you want.

Cnotey · May 28, 2011

redmoon said:
Yeah that url is still de-indexed. I don't know if it was the bounce rate or the code in the content itself. What's crazy is I logged into webmaster tools to see what was going on and it said the url was "restricted by robots.txt". I checked and it wasn't so idk wtf is going on.

Does anybody know a way to encrypt the javascript or hide it from the spiders so google can't see it? If that's even the problem.

Why don't you just make the URL no on the robots.txt list. Any url that appears on the robots.txt list will not be indexed by google.

All you have to do is remove the url from the robots.txt.

Monrox · May 28, 2011

pyronaut said:
Monrox said:

Using content lockers is a type of cloaking.The rules (in this regard) are simple. Users should see what the spider sees. If you can cloak successfully you won't need lockers as a lot more money can be made with other methods. If you can't cloak, your vistiors must be from somewhere else as kez1000 said.

Also normal search traffiic will not be convinced enough to go through a survey etc. from a simple 2 or 3 lines text snippet as presented in the search results anyway.

What you can do is have a locked 'noindex' mirror page and show that if the visitor's referer is not a search engine. This way you keep your position (at least in theory; I am not done with my tests yet).

Click to expand...

That's not true. It isn't cloaking at all. You are showing the same page to both users regardless of whether they are search engines or not.

Your last paragraph IS cloaking, as you are showing a different page to search engines. This is against Google's rules.

My bad, thx for catching this. Kind of tired here.

Showing different content based on referer is a bad idea indeed. Just have the content-locked dupe page 'noindex'ed/blocked via robots.txt and use that for FB, YT or any other socal media source. Leave the to-be-ranked page alone.

For extra protection, I would use an image of the text and not actual text on the locked page. Spiders won't have a chance to see it as duplicate content. Or at least not treat it as such, afaik ocr is not yet used on a large scale by any SE.

Buzzika · May 28, 2011

I use a custom content locker which pops up only if javascript is executed.\
Since google crawls without running any jsp ...
i don't think it should have any negative impact...

redmoon · May 28, 2011

pyronaut said:
Are you sure your content locker doesn't redirect users if they don't have javascript turned on (Considering Google wouldn't when they crawl your page)

I think that's it! If they have js off the page does redirect so they can't just block the gateway. Google probably sees this and thinks I'm just sending the traffic to another site and devalues me for it. Appreciate your input!

1337WuLF said:
I think the solution is to put rel="noflollow" on the link to your gatway page, also add no index and no follow in the meta data for that page. That way Google can't see it, and your homepage stays #1.

It was actually an internal url that got de-indexed. The home page and all other internal pages still appear in search and rank high. It's just the page with the content locker that disappeared.

Cnotey said:
Why don't you just make the URL no on the robots.txt list. Any url that appears on the robots.txt list will not be indexed by google.

All you have to do is remove the url from the robots.txt.

I never had the url in the robots.txt list. The only urls I block in the robots file are the admin and other backend urls I don't want crawled that's why I'm wondering why webmaster tools would say the url is restricted.

biosclan said:
You should never gateway the page you are ranking, always have a backend page to lock with the content.

You could also link to another site with the content you are locking or even iframe that site on your backen page on your main site.

Lots of ways to do it, but you will have increased conversion when leading your users down a funnel then just being lazy and locking the front page.

You're 110% right! I had to learn the hard way but I'll do it differently next go round.

sniper272 · May 28, 2011

all my gateway sites are doing fine in serps touch wood all first page top postions aslong as the page your ranking dont have a gateway on it your good to go

So Google penalizes you for content lockers now?

pyronaut

Senior Member

DigitalGangster

BANNED

1337WuLF

Senior Member

alonso

Registered Member

xpwizard

Junior Member

biosclan

Regular Member

Duckyshucky

Junior Member

Cnotey

Power Member

Monrox

Power Member

Buzzika

Supreme Member

redmoon

Regular Member

sniper272

Regular Member

Main Menu

Marketplace

Making Money

BlackHat World