homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.108.167
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

    
Has Big Daddy busted cloaked pages?
Le Roi Soleil




msg:679505
 5:35 pm on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I installed a cloaking system on my domain about 3.5 years ago after realizing that my flash website and my dynamic store pages simply weren't going to get traffic. Over the years I have added many cloaked pages, totalling around 1,200 pages of content. It worked fairly well for a while until Yahoo! penalized my site 3 years ago and I have never had yahoo traffic since. Google's traffic continued and increased though so i didn't mind. Starting in March 06 with Google's Big Daddy update I noticed that strange things were happening to my cloaked pages. Slowly they were being indexed as broken in the index and then the cloaked page would be replaced by the actual page it was redirecting the human visitors to. That happened on all of the highest level pages, while the low PR pages with no links simply got pushed into the supplemental index. Now I see that all of my cloaked pages have a cache, even though I have had noarchive tags in place for two years. When i realized this was happening I added noindex/nofollow tags to many of the cloaked pages to pull them from the index but Google has ignored them. The worst thing is that my non-cloaked online store pages have also been pushed into supplemental status! now only the topmost pages of my site with links coming into them are regularly indexed and non-supplemental. My traffic has dropped by over 90% and my business is dead in the water for two months now. I think with big daddy we can safely say that cloaking no longer works. Seeing that Google doesn't respond to noindex tags, the only alternative is to just remove the cloaked pages completely and let them go 404. Does anyone know of a better way to handle the transition away from cloaking?

 

volatilegx




msg:679506
 9:32 pm on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Welcome to WebmasterWorld :)

Slowly they were being indexed as broken in the index and then the cloaked page would be replaced by the actual page it was redirecting the human visitors to.

Interesting. I know this question is off topic, but I am curious... were you using an actual form of redirection to send the visitor to the destination page? Did the URL in the browser actually change? Did this also happen for search engine spiders?

Le Roi Soleil




msg:679507
 10:01 pm on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

were you using an actual form of redirection to send the visitor to the destination page? Did the URL in the browser actually change? Did this also happen for search engine spiders?

Yes, on page of text was fed to the spiders and another one to humans. The URL did change for humans, but it never changed for the spiders. The human pages contained simple redirects to pages on my site. In a way it wasn't really spamming since they were being redirected to content that matched the cloaked page...but the uncloaked pages just didn't rank well on their own since they had little text and were dynamic. There has been some talk on here about Google sending out spiders which mimic browsers and then comparing the two pages...if there is a mismatch then straight to supplemental hell. The only pages I have had spared are ones with direct links coming in to them. Unfortunately, all of my indexed pages from my online store which aren't cloaked have also been pushed into supps...and the cached version is from 2005. many people are seeing that, not just me

jimbeetle




msg:679508
 10:06 pm on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Now I see that all of my cloaked pages have a cache, even though I have had noarchive tags in place for two years. When i realized this was happening I added noindex/nofollow tags to many of the cloaked pages to pull them from the index but Google has ignored them.

Fits with what's being talked about in the Google ignores the meta robots noindex tag [webmasterworld.com] discussion. Seems like this has all been happening since G instituted that new multi-spider routine.

the_nerd




msg:679509
 7:51 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

The only pages I have had spared are ones with direct links coming in to them.

did you consider the possibility that Google simply doesn't KNOW of your inner pages without external deep links, because your cloaked pages also contain the navigation/links to the inner pages? Why not add some real links from your homepage to some inner pages and see what happens?

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