: Does requiring login to access content hinder SEO? I am wondering what the SEO effects of a 'Login Wall' is. More specifically, we have content that is region specific, so for instance a URL

@Samaraweera270

In Google, you can have the best of both worlds by using First Click Free. In short, this means that:


[the] article can be seen without subscribing, [and] any further clicks on the article page will prompt the user to log in or subscribe to the news site.

[…] It allows Googlebot to fully index your content, which can improve the likelihood of users visiting your site, and it allows users to view the article of interest while also encouraging them to subscribe.


Though it's largely focussed on news sites with paywalls, it can be used for any content which requires log-in to view. As ever, Bing have a virtually identical system.

Personally, I'd question the wisdom of using a log-in wall merely as a way of driving sign-ups. Assuming you're not requiring payment for access to the content, I imagine the rationale is to get users onto a mailing list.

This is not dissimilar to the old "like gates" of a few years back, a somewhat underhanded tactic that risked annoying visitors and, as a result, never really achieved the aim of better engagement with them. Yes, you'd get a greatly improved number of "likes", but that number didn't correlate with real sentiment and, if anything, came at a potential cost of an all too real negative sentiment.

But these things should be led by data, not opinion. I'd suggest piloting the wall in some provinces (with First Click Free) and observing performance for a few months. That allows you to know for sure whether it works while minimising potential risks.



UPDATE

Since this answer was written, Google have replaced First Click Free with a more flexible model. See Google's subscription content info.

Vote Up Vote Down