Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Posted 21 August 2003 - 01:26 PM
Posted 21 August 2003 - 04:36 PM
The only other way I know of to do redirecting is by means of PHP. But the PHP code will be processed before the resulting HMTL is send to the requesting spider/crawler, so again: How would the spider/crawler know, that cloaking is carried out?
Posted 21 August 2003 - 06:42 PM
More likely, a human will catch it. Want to know how to know if someone is cloaking? Look at the cache that Google has. If you are seeing one site and the cache is showing a spam-a-rama, then you've just found cloaking (or a really recent redesign - when you see it, you will know it - trust me).
I have better things to do than surf SERPS looking for spammers - UNLESS they are in a catagory I'm optimizing for. Then I report every one I find that is above my client in the listings or in the top 20, whichever is higher.
I have no problem with competing head to head against fellow business people (actually, I like it), but the gloves are off for cheaters. I consider it to be pest control
Posted 22 August 2003 - 01:55 AM
Posted 22 August 2003 - 02:13 AM
thanks for your explanation.
I totally agree with you. The reason for asking for details, is NOT that I consider using cloaking. But there have been cases, where I was about to do some changes, that might be considered cloaking (and maybe did in one case).
Because of some major differences in the way IE and Navigator interprets DHTML, I had to make two copies of the site (to make it look nice in both browsers). Thus I – in index.html – checked which browser were being used, and then redirected the user to the correct page (Navigator users to one page, all others to another). In this case the content of the two “sites” basically were the same, only some coding were different. But still, the sites never got indexed by any spider.
As you can imagine, I have changed this now!
I always use frames on my sites. So when a user finds a given page on a SE, they will arrive on a subpage, missing all the surrounding stuff (like menu’s etc). I therefore considered to check the referer (using PHP) to find out, if the user requested the subpage from within my domain or from outside (from a SE). And if the page where requested from a foreign domain, I would load the frameset with the subpage inside, giving the user what she/he wanted - including the surrounding stuff.
But as I was worried, that this would be considered cloaking, instead I put in a “home” –link on the pages being indexed. It’s not so elegant, but a look in the logfiles confirms, that it works allright.
So cloaking is not something I want to do, but in order to avoid being dumped by search engines, it is interesting to know, how they figure out, that “this is cloaking” and “this is not”.
Posted 22 August 2003 - 02:47 AM
GreatDane, this is not cloaking. But by hiding your navigation module for SE'es
I therefore considered to check the referer (using PHP) to find out, if the user requested the subpage from within my domain or from outside (from a SE).
you are also hiding the links it could use for spidering your site.
index your page. Ask if the top.location.href equals the location.href of the document.
If it does reload the frame set.
Posted 22 August 2003 - 03:16 AM
I think this is an example of cloaking but not sure.
If you do a search on 'Sydney flower delivery' the number one page is this:
[URL deleted - Jill]
The page itself is basically the same keyword phrases used in H1-H4 and then some in bold and some textlinks. It redirects to thier real website.
I am assuming that this is cloaking but am not sure. Can someone confirm this? Should I report it or just live with the fact that my site will ALWAYS come in after this one. I have been told by many just to ignore spamming and just make my site better but feel it will be hard to compete for keyphrases in my 'real pages' that will beat pages made solely for the search engines.
The site is relevant to the search but they have used tricky tactics to get the number one spot.
Edited by Jill, 22 August 2003 - 04:53 PM.
Posted 22 August 2003 - 03:58 AM
Posted 22 August 2003 - 04:10 AM
Edited by Jill, 22 August 2003 - 04:54 PM.
Posted 22 August 2003 - 06:16 AM
Posted 22 August 2003 - 10:43 AM
the spiders access to the links are ensured by links in the noframes section of the frames file (and I get pretty good results on the SE's), so that's not a problem .
Posted 22 August 2003 - 01:19 PM
Since your serving up this different content to users than to search engines, even in this very innocent way, it falls under what what cloaking technically means to many web developers and SEOs.
PS- As a gentle aside, complications like this is why SEOs usually cringe when they hear "frames".
Posted 23 August 2003 - 01:20 PM
What if I want to send the link to a friend? Now I have to send the link and then type out a bunch of instructions on where to go and what to click on. Easier to send a competitors link.
You can very easily take an existing menu in a frame and turn it into a server side include. It's easy - try it! Tell me what software you use and one of us will no doubt be able to give you a step by step.
I used to use frames - which is why I'm adamant about not using them now ("no one is more honest than a reformed criminal"). I've even got clients by telling them I'll remove the frames from the site as part of the SEO package!
This isn't personal in anyway - but you are not alone in the use of frames and it's in everyones interest for the word to get out
Posted 23 August 2003 - 08:04 PM
thanks for your offer - but if I really pull myself together, I'm sure I can manage to build a menu, with or without the use of server side includes
The purpose of my posting was not to start a discussion on the use of frames - I was merely trying to get some info on what is considered cloaking and what is not.
Posted 24 August 2003 - 07:29 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users