homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
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

Google AdWords & Cloaking - Newbie
Anyone submitted a cloaked URL to show up as an ad

 5:38 pm on May 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

Have just created a few "ethically" (!) cloaked mini-sites on different domains, all xreferenced and was wondering how to get them into Google ASAP.bearing in mind the recent refresh.

Do I just submit each cloaked page as standard or is it any advantage to pay for an Ad?

If I do pay for an ad for my cloaked url & its reviewed by a human, am I just asking for trouble or is this rhetorical?

Thx in advance



 7:22 pm on May 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Welcome to wmw johnser!

Adwords and getting in the index are not really related. If you want to be in the index then submit the cloaked sites and wait for the refresh. If you decide to buy some clicks then cloaking doesn't really figure into it. There are a number of sites that were already in the index and then adwords were purchased for them. Presumably the Google staff would have reviewed the pages intended for regular visitors for those sites and I don't see any harm having come to them.

Anyone have a similar or contrary experience?


 8:29 pm on May 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thanks Air. I've read a lot of your posts before diving into this cloaking stuff and they're always excellent.

Speaking of cloaking & Google, does anyone use:
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache"> on the Google-optimised page and how does it rate against their proprietary NOARCHIVE tag?

Not being an expert, I've seen it mentioned briefly in 1 or 2 places but am wondering what (if any) is the downside seeing as most cloakers are wary of any potential witchhunt of those that use the noarchive tag?

As this is my first big foray into this area, I'm just "slighty" nervous about all this so if I could get an answer on the above I'd be really happy :)

Thanks again


 12:15 pm on May 3, 2002 (gmt 0)

>how does it rate against their proprietary NOARCHIVE tag?

I would not use <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache"> to prevent Google from caching (it doesn't work, it use to), as a result I would rate it as poor.

>wondering what (if any) is the downside
I guess the poor rating pretty much answers this question.


 12:25 pm on May 3, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thx - Thats 1 more potential glitch ironed out :)


 5:04 pm on May 3, 2002 (gmt 0)

Air, does the <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache"> tag work in other engines that cache? If it does, I can't see how it would hurt.


 8:11 pm on May 3, 2002 (gmt 0)

If you're really afraid you might wanna reprogram your cloaking scripts. For what ever content pages you're cloaking (I program in php so my cloaking script I programmed was in php) I would put an include of the php file or what ever before it hits your content so it checks to see if it's a spider or a user so the user can't use something like webwhacker or some spider simulator to grab your page and also it'll redirect them appropriately. No program could grab or catch your pages now unless the use IP spoofing. As for cached files....they'll just be redirected.

If your scripts in perl well then you're outta luck.


 9:06 pm on May 3, 2002 (gmt 0)

>If you're really afraid you might wanna reprogram your cloaking scripts.

I'm not sure I follow, what you describe is pretty much what a cloaking script does whether Perl or PHP (or any other language), but I think I am missing your point, help!!

I am not sure if the "pragma" format works on other engines, it is supposed to keep browsers from caching, so it might have some undesireable effects by slowing down the page rendering for your visitors.


 11:55 am on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

A cloaking script works by looking in a database of spiders and either finds it in the database and redirects it to the cloaked site or it doesn't find it and redirects to the normal site. My site is in php so all the documents are php. If you programmed a php file that would check to see if it's a spider or normal web surfer and if it found out it was a user it would redirect it to the normal website and put this before the html tags on all your cloaked pages a normal web surfer wouldn't be able to see your cloaked site. Cached or not it would still be redirected before he could try to see it because it's server side. Now all you'd do is just do is include that php file that checks to see if it's a user or not in all your cloaked pages. But that pragma would be the best way to stop search engines. Does not allowing se's from caching your site hurt your rankings?


 1:03 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Does not allowing se's from caching your site hurt your rankings?

My experience has been that it has not hurt my rankings when used. However, in the Google forum, a rep from Google stated fairly directly that sites using the "nocache" tag had been more closely scruitinized for spamming violations.


 1:06 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

So you're saying that google will consider it or penalize a site for having a no-cache tag on the page?


 4:24 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

They won't penalize it just for having the "nocache" tag, but if you are doing something on the pages they consider spamming you have more chance of getting caught.


 4:46 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

So what you're saying is they pay special attention to such pages?


 6:00 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Maybe easier if you read what they are saying [webmasterworld.com] for yourself.


 7:33 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

97% of all noarchived sites were cloaked sites....hmmm....that's scary that google went to all the noarchivce sites and found out people were cloaking and that they can see this.

I also was kicked from altavista today temporarily on one of my clients sites because a human went and either reported me or a person from the company saw it? They didn't catch my cloaking....lol even after I told them to examine the site. They found my cloaked pages from either their database of my site or from the cached pages but I use such a sneaky tactic that they can't even get the source nor would they even believe it's anything more than an old page with 4 words on it. Saved my a$$. LoL I can't believe an altavista search engine representive told me what a cloaked illeagle page I had up looked like.....omg, it was staring him right in the face, and he just said it's an old page that new one's need to replace it or we will not list you until the site is finished.

What I don't understand if everyone's (search engines) ignoring the noarchive then what's the point of even having it? If google is recording these sites with noarchive on it then inspecting it then they are archiving it and furthermore exposing cloaked sites. So I guess we really shouldn't noarchive our pages unless we're begging for company from search engines to inspect our sites.

Who knows. I feel that after reading all of that about noarchive it just seems like you're putting yourself on the radar. I'm going to test it with my new SEO marketing invention when it gets out of beta testing which should pretty much make any keyword number 1 on most any search engine which will clearly put me right on the radar screen.

While I'm on the google subject, has anyone noticed google putting sites at top ten/1 positions? I've run some sites through some of my analyzers and they do not come close to googles ranking algorithm or even come close to an optimized site.


 11:22 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)


I believe you're getting those results on your analysis because a lot of the characteristics Google uses to rank a page are off-site.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times... I don't bother submitting cloaked pages to Google. It's more effective to get your home page listed and work building relevent link popularity.

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