| 9:38 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well... I've seen "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)" since 3rd March 2004 and "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.google.com/bot.html)" since 15 June 2004, so this is pretty old news.
| 10:03 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Somewhere on the web, hundreds, maybe thousands of sites just became uncloaked :)
They will be caught and pulled from the SERPS.
This is a *good* thing!
| 10:08 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thats exactly what I was thinking amznVibe. Good work google. I don't know why they don't send a spider out "cloaked" as IE ;) I guess for all we know, they do..
| 4:23 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes we all know that they do and this is the UA:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/2003070
| 4:25 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yes we all know that they do and this is the UA |
You have that UA coming from the established Googlebot ranges?
| 9:49 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Aren't there some legitimate sites using cloaking in a legitimate way? Like IPB uses cloaking to deliver google a navigation that allows them to view pages correctly? Are they misguided?
| 10:00 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
They might get pulled from the SERPs if they are serving substantially-different content with intent to deceive, but the reason I noticed this in the first place is that one site I administrate was getting so badly abused that it is now "armored"; It won't allow access from any unrecognized user-agent. When the new Google user-agent visited, it got a 403-Forbidden.
Since it's a non-profit info site only, this is no big deal. But of course I fixed the problem by allowing the new user-agent. Googlebot came back the next day, and the site didn't suffer in the SERPs at all.
Additionally, the site *is* cloaked in that it returns a shortened, "prettier" title to search engines that do stemming for plurals like Google does. Still -- no ill effects from this situation.
Maybe this *is* old news, but I didn't see any other posts on it.