homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.8.138
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Cloaking
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Cloaking Forum

    
The Cloaking Process?
I'm going crazy...you may be too after reading these questions...
Canton




msg:677025
 2:27 pm on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)

Please pardon me if these questions seem elementary...I'm new to this but have an intermediate level of understanding about the elements involved in cloaking.

My question is extended and follows: 1) Due to the constraints of my web server and another application that runs behind optimized pages, it is necessary for my pages to have an .asp extension (bottom line, the cloaking script/program I want to use requires this on an NT box, as does another dbase application we're running behind the scenes). 2) I have to serve a short-term cookie to those human visitors that come to the optimized page(s) 3) The "pretty page" that will be served to human visitors will be located on another server (client site). 4) I'm going to be specific as to spiders, so that each of the primary engines' spiders gets a page optimized just for them.

OK...finally, the questions. Question 1: If the page that the human gets is on another server, and the page the spider gets depends on the user agent/IP, what page is actually SUBMITTED to the engines? You see, I'm going to use the most reliable guidelines I have in optimizing pages (from several years of research), including the use of themes, inter- and intra-linking, etc. I can see how to build themes-based "sites" for each engine, but to differentiate them in the root directory or sub-folder of the site will require differing names for differing pages, and will be taken further when considering multiple page versions for different engines.

Question 2 is this: the engines will pick up the correct page, presumably, but will they index it as the name of the page as it reads on the server or the name of the page that was submitted to it?

Question 3: And if they read it as the name of the page that was submitted, does that page actually have to exist?

e.g. - I submit index.asp and when the engine goes to spider it, it is directed to the appropriate engine-specific page on the server...there will be multiple version and obviously they canít all be name the same thing, so does the index.asp page even have to exist, since it's never going to be looked at by either a spider or human?

Or should the approach be completely different - e.g. - create the basic pages index.asp, kw1.asp, kw2.asp, etc. for one engine (Google, for example), and serve that one when Google comes and the other, engine-specific pages when the others come calling?

Question 4: Should I try to serve pages with different extensions than .asp? In the past I've shied away from anything but .htm or .html extensions, but lately I've read that .asp is no problem as far as indexing and crawling...can anyone confirm?

Question 5: Will serving a cookie present problems in this whole equation?

Again, sorry for the convoluted nature of these questions...my mind is swimming a bit now trying to understand how all of this is going to work.

Thanks in advance,
Canton

 

Air




msg:677026
 4:39 pm on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)

Q1
>If the page that the human gets is on another server, and the page the
>spider gets depends on the user agent/IP, what page is actually SUBMITTED to the engines?

Ok, this is related to Question 3, so take it in that context and it will make more sense. I gather from your preamble that the optimized pages will live on one server and the human pages on another, let's call those optimized.com and the latter human.com for reference sake. The pages submitted to the SE's would always come from optimized.com. Let's say that a page is named kw1, when a human visitor is detected then serve optimized.com/kw1 with a redirect to human.com/kw1, never redirect the search engine spiders though, only the human visitors. The search engines would have optimized.com/kw1 submitted to them.

Q2
>...but will they index it as the name of the page as it reads on the server or
>the name of the page that was submitted to it?

You will have to submit a URL that is resolvable by the server(or the cloaking script), that is what the engines will display. The cloaking script should handle hiding the true path of the page and produce the content in the URL so that it is consistent for all engines. You're probably saying, what does that mean? Let's say that the true path for the page kw1 is g:\root-path\se-folder\se1\kw1, normally this would translate to a URL of optimized.com/se-folder/se1/kw1 but the script should handle retrieving the page content from it's true path and poducing a URL of optimized.com/kw1

The point is you could have multiple versions of the page "kw1" and the script would retrieve the approriate one based on who is requesting it (human, or SE? if SE which one?) and serve that content in the same URL i.e. optimized.com/kw1 without any trace that all versions of the page kw1 are not the same.

Q3
>Or should the approach be completely different - e.g. - create the basic pages
>index.asp, kw1.asp, kw2.asp, etc. for one engine (Google, for example), and
>serve that one when Google comes and the other, engine-specific pages when the >others come calling?

IMO this is the best approach, the answer to question 2 is really a way of showing how this would work, i.e. the same URL produces different content depending on who asks for it.

Q4
>Should I try to serve pages with different extensions than .asp? In the past
>I've shied away from anything but .htm or .html extensions, but lately I've
>read that .asp is no problem as far as indexing and crawling...can anyone confirm?

It will not be a problem to use .asp extensions, I prefer .htm and .html it makes the illusion complete, .asp, .cgi, all scream of dynamic content.

Q5
>Will serving a cookie present problems in this whole equation?

Should not be a problem at all, but because you will be on two servers you may encounter problems retrieving the cookies set. You'll probably need to use some hidden form elements and execute a script on the human.com domain that actually sets the cookie.

Canton




msg:677027
 5:59 pm on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)

Thanks Air...I think I understand all of this, but want to follow up, if it's not too much trouble:

1) You note: "Let's say that a page is named kw1, when a human visitor is detected then serve optimized.com/kw1 with a redirect to human.com/kw1, never redirect the search engine spiders though, only the human visitors. The search engines would have optimized.com/kw1 submitted to them."

The cloaking script/program I'm going to use actually will allow for a server-side redirect to the human.com site...is this what you were referring to?

2) AIR: "It will not be a problem to use .asp extensions, I prefer .htm and .html it makes the illusion complete, .asp, .cgi, all scream of dynamic content."

I really DO want to use .htm or .html extensions, but the script I've got requires .asp when run on NT servers. BTW - are .cfm extensions also search engine "friendly," even though they do suggest dynamic content?

Again, thanks in advance...

Canton

WebGuerrilla




msg:677028
 7:35 pm on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)


The .asp requirement in the script really has to do with how the server is set up. By default, on MS servers, the .asp extension tells the server that it needs to parse the page for code to execute before delivering the file.

If you have access to the server, it is possible to set it up so that it will treat .htm or.html they same way it does .asp

I don't have the specific instructions handy, because I'm not a regular MS user, but I have worked on projects where this has been done.

Air




msg:677029
 9:34 pm on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)

Not exactly what you're looking for, but you'll find some discussion on changing extensions so that they are server parsed HERE [webmasterworld.com].

>The cloaking script/program I'm going to use actually will allow for a server-
>side redirect to the human.com site...is this what you were referring to?

Yes, either within the script since yours allows it, or simply by using a meta refresh tag in the human served page only.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Cloaking
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved