|Is cloaking dead?|
| 6:22 pm on Aug 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm a old cloaking "user";
I already used this black hat SEO strategy succesfully in the past.
Now instead, I'm experiencing only bad results:
I tried setting up two different domain names, with the same results: My pages are initially indexed and rank very well for their keywords, but they fall down after a while bringing no visits.
I never experienced such an issue before...something is changed I suppose, and now, more than likely Google is able to detect cloaked pages.
This at least is the only explaination I'm able to give...
Is cloaking definitely dead?
Is there anyone who manage cloaked pages steadily?
Thanks for any feedback!
| 6:39 pm on Aug 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That depends on whether you're cloaking for "good" reasons -- with no intent to deceive potential visitors, or cloaking for "bad" reasons -- with the search engines deciding what is "good" and what is "bad."
If you are cloaking for "bad" reasons, it also depends on how sophisticated your techniques are -- For example, it is necessary to keep up with all IP addresses belonging to the search engines, and to be able to detect bot-like activity on your site and respond to it.
But as for general cloaking, I'd have to say that there are many, many successful sites on the Web that are cloaking in one way or another. Every site I have ever built is cloaked to some extent, for the simple purpose of providing alternate but equivalent content to text-only robots. The result is that the robots accurately interpret what my pages are about, without tripping over information presented with technologies that they cannot yet fully interpret, such as flash.
The word "cloaking," like the word "proxy," is value-neutral when it stands alone. Either can be good or bad, depending on the context.
New sites typically get a boost in the SERPs, usually for a month or so. However, once they have been spidered and their ranking scores have been calculated, the pages then assume the position in the search results indicated by that ranking evaluation. I'd look to other factors unless your cloaking is thinly-done and is intentionally deceptive.
| 6:50 pm on Aug 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think a major reason cloaked sites (for naughty reasons, of course) don't do as well as they have in the past has to do with the whole paradigm of SEO changing from on-page factors to off-page factors.
The fact is, most people who are using "naughty" cloaking techniques don't pay enough attention to off-page factors such as incoming links. What used to work like a charm in the past (on-page optimization) now plays second fiddle to getting one-way, on-topic links from trusted sites.
| 7:29 pm on Aug 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your replies.
Volatile, you seem to admit that some issues are not simply an impression of mine...
I see you define both bad and good cloaking: what would be the difference?
In add, if the off-page factors are became more important then, there is no need to appeal to the cloaking anymore...
| 9:48 pm on Aug 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I see you define both bad and good cloaking: what would be the difference? |
This of course depends on who you are talking to. If you are serving different content to humans and search engines for the purposes of search engine optimization, that is usually considered "bad", "naughty" or "black-hat". Personally, I don't see the problem, as long as you are trying to get SERPs for relevant searches.
|there is no need to appeal to the cloaking anymore... |
Now a lot of people are cloaking for different reasons. Some folks cloak to keep either search engines or humans from seeing outgoing links. Some cloak to aid in subscription control and keep their pages indexed. Some use cloaking as an adjunct to automated content generation (which is usually unreadable).
On page factors aren't "dead", they just don't have the weight they used to.
| 5:06 pm on Aug 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>>Personally, I don't see the problem, as long as you are trying to get SERPs for relevant searches.
I too.Unfortunately we have to "persuade" SE bots...:-)))