|This isn't spamful cloaking...|
I have a client who has PR0 and not a single link. Nor is there a single index-able word of text on site site - entirely flash. I want to create an alternate version of the site, all text and indexable by Google. I then want to use IP delivery to show Google what the site is all about, and keep the flash version for humans. This helps Google.
I'm not up to date on what is and what isn't spam to Google. I don't want to do anything that'll be considered spam. So, am I in the clear here? Or is it a no-no?
Would it not be better to create a non flash site also i.e. have the index contain a link to either page... [Just a thought]
There might be other ways on creating a text site without all the formatting i suggest :)
Yeah, wheres the point in cloaking it?
If you're going to build it anyway, build it so folks can see it.
That'll help a lot of folks with slow connections or poor sight. You'll be amazed at how many people choose the text site over the flash site...
That was my suggestion, but the client is in love with the flash site. I can get it a large number of inbound links, but I need text on the pages that Google sees. Is this considered deceitful? The text would be legit description of the products.
It's more work but is best to create parallel non-flash pages. Am actually in the process of doing this for a client and it took a heck of a lot of convincing -- he didn't want all the fancy flash stuff lost.
Had to explain -- well, I see Nick beat me to some of the stuff -- and then my own pet peeves: "You must have the most up-to-date version of this or that to view this site. Download it now?" And then a couple of minutes of download, install and "You must restart your computer for the changes to take affect."
That's a site I won't be back to visit.
Don't take this the wrong way but in light of the current situation I found your past position on cloaking interesting. GoogleGuy has some thoughts on the subject on page 5 of the same thread.
|If they are targeting just the Googlebot, it's SPAM. |
Quote from mosley700 on Feb 7, 2003,
he he, good one, Key_Master.
Cloaking seems to be SPAM in your eyes there, mosley700 :) Now that you are talking to a client...and there might be money in it, you want to know if it really *is* SPAM as you said before?
This kind of funny...and one of the main reasons that, when it comes to SEO, you should keep an open mind, and not let ethics, or silly notions cloud the decision making process.
Balance risk / reward, and consider the financial implication for you - explain the risk to the client, have them consider the options, then provide the service they want.
Simple as that, ya?
LOL. That's cute. But seriously, if the IP delivery is simply delivering the same thing that is in the flash site, it's not deceptive. And, yes, I am not sure in this situation, and that's why I asked for opinions.
So, you do a nice non-deceptive cloak that fairly represents the flash site in html. What will happen?
If you are not in very competitive markets, you will likely be fine. In less competitive markets, your site is less likely to be scrutinized. A penalty for cloaking will only follow manual scrutiny of your site by google.
In a competitive market, you must expect manual review of your site by google.
It all comes down to: will your site survive the manual reviews by google?
If you carefully, fairly and non-deceptively represent the flash site as html, you may (depending upon tha vagarities and fleeting whims of the google gods in all their infinite glory and wisdom) survive that scrutiny. But, if you succumb to temptation, if you start tweaking the html to improve rankings and traffic, if you go to far, your site could be sent to google hell.
You cannot hide from google that your site is cloaked if they focus manually on your site and ask that question. You gave them spider version of your site, you cannot hide the human version from them and it is easy for them to compare the two.
A site cannot survive long term in a competitive market with cloaked pages unless google accepts the site in occassional manual reviews.