|Is this Cloaking?|
| 5:47 pm on Oct 19, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hi guys, i am a rookie concerning cloacking/blackhat.
I was just wondering if you can validate a cloacking/doorway/blackhat thing concerning this SERP:
There is a bunch of subdomains with keyword, redirected multiple times - and after 5 months, are the results still in indexed (with NO cache)- because of the 302 redirection (even though it redirects multiple times).
Can u tell me what the meaning of this is, and why the marketer has done it, this way?
Looking to your comments.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 9:52 pm (utc) on Oct. 19, 2009]
[edit reason] exemplified [/edit]
| 7:26 pm on Oct 21, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com], thomasclausen :)
As per the W3C [w3.org], a 302 redirect means to keep requesting the URL that redirects, not the destination:
|Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests |
Historically, this has caused issues for search engines, in some cases retaining the URL that redirects, but assigning it the content of the URL it redirects to. And then both URLs get passed through duplication filtering. This is the so-called "302 hijack".
There are a number of reasons for a lack of cache, we'd really need some more technical detail on the HTTP headers returned to be specific.
The over-riding factor, of course is whether a URL ranks. You can rank anything for ultra-specific queries, and Google is usually pretty good at handling the more obvious spam tricks - not necessarily removing sites, but just preventing them from appearing in results.