| 7:43 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Want to say, I love India!
But the answer to your question is NO! Common sense tells us that if sites were penalised for using cookie's to "show different content" then every important site in the world would be affected!
| 5:53 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks to love india :)
But i heared that directed page will not get same PR as the original page... right!
But in my situation the redirected page gets the same PR as original page...how its possible..please let me know in detail
| 9:20 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Similar question. We have a site that displays a different home page based on the referrer. If the users comes to the site directly, they will see home page version 1 but if they get there from a search engine or a few other specific sites, they see version 2. Is that considered cloaking? There is no hidden content.
| 11:29 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There are plenty of reasons why the page being redirected to would have equal PR. Perhaps it is a useful page that is linked to, directly or indirectly, by the doorway page.
In this case, the only real question is if the pages are ranked equally, why bother having a doorway at all?
The answer is probably keywords, i.e. the doorway page may be more successful at ranking in SERP's for specific keywords, but the redirected page is more user-friendly. Remember that page rank has less and less bearing on actual ranking on SERP's.
Hope this helps...
Bit out of my depth here - where's VolatileGX when you need him?
Interested to know, though, are you presenting different content to a specific SE when indexed, than to searchers referred to you by that SE? I would think this qualifies as cloaking, but not even sure since referrer is a browser-dependent value...
| 5:55 pm on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> Bit out of my depth here - where's VolatileGX when you need him?
Speak of the devil...
Yes, it is considered cloaking. It's called HTTP_REFERER cloaking. I've gotten away with it for years on sites indexed in Google.
| 8:10 pm on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I've gotten away with it for years |
There you have it, cymbal, if vgx does it, you know that it's a no-no!
Please, guys, tell me ... what does it serve to cloak by referrer?
Volatile, I know that you habitually cloak by IP address, so why cloak by referrer (laziness?).
Cymbal, I would like to know your reasons, too. Why display differently depending on the SE the users clicked on? Or were you simply trying (and apparently succeeding) to deceive SE's?
| 12:21 am on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> Volatile, I know that you habitually cloak by IP address, so why cloak by referrer (laziness?).
There are a lot of tools in my toolbox. I tried it as an experiment to see how long it would take for the engines to catch on. So far, none of them have.
A lot of people do HTTP_REFERER cloaking to serve appropriate content to people coming from search engines. They deduce the keyword phrase used in the search and maybe do a database lookup and serve matching content, or possibly redirect to a page that has appropriate content.
| 4:00 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our intent is not to cloak the content for the bots. They will see the same thing the end users see. The client want's to show all visitors from engines a slightly different version of the home page than those that go directly there. It's sort of A/B testing. They want to see if SE referrers act differently than direct visitors.
| 8:58 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Is that considered cloaking? |
In a broad sense, yes, it is.
In the sense that it meets the Google webmaster guidelines definition of cloaking? Probably not. If the version the spiders see is substantively the same as the version human users see, the search engines most likely* won't have a problem.
* I don't work for a search engine so I can't give you a definitive answer.
| 3:11 pm on May 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks. I felt the same way but wanted someone to back up my opinion.