MrSpeed
msg:676937 | 2:03 pm on May 7, 2003 (gmt 0) |
johnser -
| Theres no X-linking between cloaked sites which are each on a unique IP. |
|
Do you mean you don't cross link between domains? Why not cross link?
|
johnser
msg:676938 | 2:21 pm on May 7, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Too easy to be picked up on. If Kartoo can do it, so can Google. I know loads of sites that got hit last Sept because of X-linking. They weren't even cloaking....
|
MrSpeed
msg:676939 | 2:23 pm on May 7, 2003 (gmt 0) |
How would you determine a level of effort for a certain keyword? I don't think certain keywords would require 100 domains, each withh 100 cloaked pages. I also think it's sometimes best to fly below the radar just a little when cloaking.(Listen to me talk like I know what I'm talking about!) I do want to give cloaking a try on a small scale. Here's what I was planning.
1) Select the desired keyword.
2) Go to overture and get a list of suggested terms for that keyword.
3) On my cloaked domain create a page for each of the suggested terms from step 2. Now I have a choice. I could click on term #2 from the overture list, create another domain and repeat. or I could use the same keyword list from the first domain but just work the content, titles and keyword densities a little differently. How's the plan sound so far? What are the thoughts in regards to cross linking between cloaked domains?
|
Blue Gravity
msg:676940 | 4:24 am on May 8, 2003 (gmt 0) |
MrSpeed - Which approach do you plan on taking? Why not try both?
|
BGumble
msg:676941 | 6:01 am on May 8, 2003 (gmt 0) |
If you don't cross-link the domains, how do the cloaked extra domains get any rank to show up in the SERPs for competitive terms? Thanks for the knowledege shared here.
|
digitalghost
msg:676942 | 6:10 am on May 8, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>how do the cloaked extra domains get any rank to show up in the SERPs for competitive terms From the domain farm you build. ;) Seriously, people set up entire networks of sites solely to build PR. A typical domain farm might have 300 sites in it, 50 of which are PR passers. That gives them 250 sites to direct PR with. Very few of those sites will be heavily interlinked. Coupled with the links that are purchased and acquired through link trades PR7 and PR8 sites can be built and maintained. The sites that pass PR pass it using perfect anchor text. It requires a lot of work but the return is there. Once the domain farm is established it doesn't matter if the target sites gets burned occasionally. The trick is creating a domain farm that doesn't look contrived.
|
MrSpeed
msg:676943 | 12:49 pm on May 8, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Let me see of I understand, because I currently do something similar. Here's what I do. The 50 sites are very clean sites that people don't mind linking to. You use these 50 sites for the link trades and perhaps buying links to feed PR to these 50. I divide the 50 into groups of 10 and I only moderately cross link between sites, almost never between sites if they are in a different group of 10. I then use these 50 sites to focus PR onto a site(s).
I suppose you can also filter the traffic from these 50 and use the traffic to feed toplists but that's another topic. digitalghost -
In your scenario how do the 250 sites come into play?
Are these only linked to from the 50?
It sounds like your cloaked domains are not in this group of 250 sites. Hence if a cloaked domain gets burned you disconnect it from the collective. Or are the target cloaked domains in the 50? Blue_Gravity-
>>Why not try both?
Indeed. And a question to all-
Is it just as effective to create 50 folders on a domain and treat each one as a seperate feeder site? Let's say you have some crazy domain name like qwerty.com and you create sites which may or may not be related in subfolders like
qwerty.com/widgets/
qwerty.com/racecars/
qwerty.com/famouspeoplenamedbob/
etc.... The benefit is that by using includes you can easily make changes across all 50 sites in the blink of an eye.
|
iThink
msg:676944 | 2:15 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0) |
The question that started the thread was:
"Cloaking for ranking: is it still worth the effort?" As most of us here are experienced enough to know that #10 position on page-1 of google SERP for some the competitive keywords is worth at least $6000+/month so if you can grab that #10 then it has to be said that cloaking is worth the effort. With some good commercial scripts available around it does not take any extraordinary effort also. Blue_gravity listed some of the most important precautions but missed an important one:
- Keep your list of spiders updated. -iThink
|
FredZeppelin
msg:676945 | 8:33 am on May 13, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I have recently purchased a "cloaking script" and it's in my cgi-bin.
Is there a way to disguise or rename the cgi-bin?
Right now it seems to me that,
"www.widget.com/cgi-bin/big-widgets.pl",,,
"by appearances" is a cloaking URL and will result in detection. Any pointers guys? | With some good commercial scripts available around it does not take any extraordinary effort also. |
|
Could someone please sticky me with examples of these
"good commercial scripts". Thank You!
|
FredZeppelin
msg:676946 | 8:40 am on May 13, 2003 (gmt 0) |
How many words should a page consist of to be effective?
I've read everything from 300 to 1000 words, and what kind of keyword density? Would cloaked pages have a higher density? My apologies for the "newbie" questions.
But I'm trying to be thorough. Thanks again!
|
MrSpeed
msg:676947 | 3:16 pm on May 13, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Is there a way to disguise or rename the cgi-bin?
Right now it seems to me that,
"www.widget.com/cgi-bin/big-widgets.pl",,,
"by appearances" is a cloaking URL and will result in detection. |
|
One way is to add some code to your.htaccess file to allow .htm file to be ran as cgi even outside the cgi-bin. Here's what mine looks like. AddType application/x-httpd-cgi .htm
options -Indexes This may not work for you depending on your host and how they have the server set up.
|
Blue Gravity
msg:676948 | 8:53 pm on May 13, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Fred, MrSpeed has a great method to use, but if you cannot get it working, just get yourself a new virtual host for $10 a month. Make sure that when you use a cloaking script or program, that it can work from outside the cgi-bin, otherwise it's pretty detectable, and do you really see a lot of high ranked /cgi-bin/ sites? Most of the mainstream scripts and programs do the same thing as the other. If you're looking to buy one specifically, try it before you buy it. If there's no demo available, then compare the product features with their competitors.
|
oLeon
msg:676949 | 5:50 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Cloaking for ranking: is it still worth the effort? |
|
My answer to the main question is YES.
As iThink mentioned, if you can get on the 1st serp, it's worth it.
I think, that there is no mystery that not everyone could detect. No rocket technics at all. But our experience is, that the difference of appearance on the 1st or the 2nd serp is worth it to accept the danger of cloaking, and sometimes to reach this aim it's important to cloak so that your competitors aren't able to see immediately what you are doing resp why you are that successful. We have to handle thousands of products, and to do it best is to cloak our pages and to redirect directly to the pages of our customer.
|
MrSpeed
msg:676950 | 12:26 am on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0) |
That's low.
|
Blue Gravity
msg:676951 | 4:42 am on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Thank you everyone for the stickies of support for the guy who ripped this post. Makes me feel a lot better.
|
seo4life
msg:676952 | 7:50 am on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0) |
@ oLeon aren't you afraid of getting spamreported as you redirect to the customers page? even if your redirection is a server-side one (like cloaking works) compeitors can see that the text in the SERP is not the same as on the site of your client. how do you handle this?
|
MrSpeed
msg:676953 | 12:29 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| aren't you afraid of getting spamreported as you redirect to the customers page? even if your redirection is a server-side one (like cloaking works) compeitors can see that the text in the SERP is not the same as on the site of your client. how do you handle this? |
|
If cloaked properly the only way a competitior can see if a page is cloaked is to view the cache (if the search engine has one like google) or to use some sort of a tool that spoofs the site to think he is a search engine. In google there are ways to make it more difficult for a competitor to determine if you are cloaking. I think the answers have been pointed out in this thread and this one.
[webmasterworld.com...] I think most would agree however that you do not need to cloak in google to reach a top serp.
|
mil2k
msg:676954 | 12:56 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Thank you everyone for the stickies of support for the guy who ripped this post |
|
Shouldn't that be :- Thank you everyone for the stickies of support against the guy who ripped this post :)
|
scottiecla
msg:676955 | 2:25 pm on May 30, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Lovely. Can someone point me to a tutorial for cheating on my taxes now? THANKS!
|
Blue Gravity
msg:676956 | 6:58 am on Jun 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
LOL!
|
oLeon
msg:676957 | 11:13 am on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| however that you do not need to cloak in google to reach a top serp |
|
Thatīs correct, though there are a few smaller factors in ranking which could be worth to hide.
However, cloaking is an issue related not only to top ranking but to a special services you may offer to a customer: that a searcher can reach the clients site with only one click without landing on a DWP. | aren't you afraid of getting spamreported |
|
Of course I am. But as mentioned before, if I want to offer a direct landing on the client page with only one click, the advantage of this may be and is bigger than the risk of detecting.
Most of the time it works well.
|
| This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 51 ( 1 [2] ) |
|
|
