homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.172.0
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Cloaking
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Cloaking Forum

    
Search Engine Cloaking?
does it still work?
nkakar

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 5:32 am on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

hey guys, ive been researching lately on search engine cloaking which includes both ip cloaking and user agent cloaking.. ive heard that they still work, but how can they work when search engines such as google and now yahoo have pages that are cached, which show you exactly what they visited. yet one of the most accredited people i know in search engine marketing says that he still uses ip cloaking to find out which search engine is hitting his pages and than forwards those specific spiders to specific templates of his website... any ideas?

 

Str0ud

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 3:13 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Nkakar,
most folks use a script that tells the search engine not to cache the site.

volatilegx

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 5:03 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

They use this meta tag:

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

Str0ud

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 8:24 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

There is speculation that google penalizes the noarchive tag so some folks are using a java script instead.

Brett_Tabke

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 8:27 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

we can garantee you that g does not even consider the noarchive tag for rankings purposes. Noarchive is about liability protection and privacy concerns.

willamowius

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 11:29 am on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Brett, are you really sure it's not even a small factor?

It's obvious that they can't bind a big penalty on it, but I too have the feeling there is a small penalty associated with it.

Blue Gravity

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 10:32 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

we can garantee you that g does not even consider the noarchive tag for rankings purposes. Noarchive is about liability protection and privacy concerns.

I know G doesn't ban you for having it, but I do think that some type of red flag goes up to be reviewed for cloaking tactics.

seomike2003



 
Msg#: 576 posted 3:11 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Doubt it

ThomasB

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 7:29 am on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

From what I remember having "noarchive" is a red flag but won't have any effect unless other bad things/lots of spam reports are discovered.

seomike2003



 
Msg#: 576 posted 5:51 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's a red flag for SEO eyes meaning come in and look at my source code etc etc. But I've seen plenty of mom and pop sites that use it and every other version of a meta tag likewise. They read the tutorials on creating meta tags and think they have to put 15 metas in their head :)

Marcia

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 576 posted 6:00 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's still working. I just came across another one a couple hours ago at Google - with the cloaked page sitting right there in the cache. And another at Yahoo just the other day, had to look a little further for that one.

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