| 1:12 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, I work with a couple of websites and I feel no problem anywhere till date. My clients are happy. They have better PR. Better Indexed websites and what not. I see some changes, but on the better side. New website indexed 70% (2000 pages total) in less then a week. PR4. What else does one expect. It's a clean website. I prefer never to sue any spamming techniques AT ALL. Helps me long run rather then have a TOP Rank for one month and then falling for ever.
| 1:17 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, cloaking isn't "black hat". Cloaking is mainstream and it is a viable means of protecting your source code and delivering targeted content. Besides, there's no need to cloak, just write an entire site about whatever, mention your product once, link out once to a site that sells your product and you'll rank higher than your competition.
Better yet, create a dynamic BS directory that creates pages from the query terms and let it fly. :)
| 1:32 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If Google decides to stay with this current aldo, then I will absolutely be pulling the cloaking tools out of the closet.
With all the upcoming changes in the search space, there is no way I'm going to start dramatically altering pages that are doing well in Ink/Teoma/Fast/AV in order to satisfy Google.
If they feel that quality results means that they must return a completely different set of results than their competitors, then I'll just cloak all content to Google so I can tweak it to match their rediculous filter.
| 4:38 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Remember, a Jediís strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."
| 5:13 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WebGuerrilla, you're not really in the dark as to why, your home page at least, is not ranking well are you? I see you are in the SEO business so you should know.
| 6:26 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My best friend called me Yoda when we were in high school. Partly cuz I always knew what he was gonna do next, and partly cuz one of my thumbs is yoda like for some reason.
Personally, I don't think cloaking is the key. I just took a hard look at the top two sites (4 listings) for the important searches related to my site. It seems cross linking a network of sites from every page is now back in vogue. The sour cream rises to the top.
| 7:23 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Whatever the colour of your cloak, aren't you still influenced by off-page factors?
There are competitive search queries (high adwords spending) for which Serps have been "cleaned" but for which some commercial sites still rank high in Google as well as the other search engines. I'm all for going down that road of analysis.
| 7:56 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I will guarantee you this huge change as it stands is gonna come back to Bite back google x 10. With the relavancy of titles and headings being so dimished, countless porn pages are gonna start disguising things alot more. If they stick with this it will be bad for all, especially google. I remember Altavista, right at the time I just started having success on new google by creating real relavant sites and working hard to get decent links. I couldn't get found on Altavista.
3 years with good steady traffic and now you can't find my stuff on google.
| 8:15 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Okay, I am cloaking now, sort of. I mentioned in another thread that when I uploaded my links to alta vista I accidentally uploaded a restaurant's homepage over my wedding site's. I joked that I wished it had been crawled because it would improve my ranking. I thought it wasn't crawled because of the time stamp (eastern time) used in my logs. It was crawled and I moved up from 349 to 194. The problem, I guess, is that the page I uploaded was also related to weddings (the restaurant holds many receptions there). Otherwise, I'm certain I would have moved higher.;)
| 12:41 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Whatever the colour of your cloak, aren't you still influenced by off-page factors? |
I guess he means giving a bigger picture to G and focussed content to Ink and others.
|there is no way I'm going to start dramatically altering pages that are doing well in Ink/Teoma/Fast/AV in order to satisfy Google. |
This is a real concern. Most SEO's would be in a dilemma over how to handle this. Untill now there was a way in which we could satisfy major engines.
I would not be surprised if overall cloaking popularity increases.
| 3:44 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The other blackhat techique that Florida has opened the doors to is creating spam links (e.g. lots of links stuffed with exactly the same keywords) to competitor sites.
This has been posited elsewhere on the boards, and GoogleGuy's silence on the subject of blackhats now having the power to sink competitors has been ominous.
| 4:17 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Better yet, create a dynamic BS directory that creates pages from the query terms and let it fly. :)"
Now, there is some very good advice.
| 4:29 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|"Better yet, create a dynamic BS directory that creates pages from the query terms and let it fly. :)" |
These are doing great on Google at this time.
The more I read about this, the more I search, the more I am convinced that Google have lost the ****ing plot. :(
| 4:36 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<Besides, there's no need to cloak, just write an entire site about whatever, mention your product once, link out once to a site that sells your product and you'll rank higher than your competition. >>
Delete the 1000's of posts about Florida and just read this. Sums it up.
| 4:58 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|With all the upcoming changes in the search space, there is no way I'm going to start dramatically altering pages that are doing well in Ink/Teoma/Fast/AV in order to satisfy Google. |
Amen, it's a bitter pill to swallow after spending 12 months cleaning up sites so not to trip googles filters, only to be hit hard on every E-commerce site we manage, yet across every other search engine we rank it the top 3, and then been out placed by a few newspaper reports and amazon, I afraid that google will become a a cloaking SE only. I know we have had to switch two Informational only sites onto a redirect for the time being.
Google hasn't really left any other option, I like the guys at google and generally feel bad, but my gut feeling is that a lot of webmasters will now try cloaking as the easier option to rank in all the search engines.
| 5:10 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can see quite alot of cloaked sites ranking top 10 so I guess it's an option.
IMO Google have not only shot themselves in the foot, but have shot their IPO in the foot too.
As a monopoly Google has a responsibility.
| 6:07 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|As a monopoly Google has a responsibility. |
Google does not have a monopoly so much as they have Mind Share.
Owning the market through Mind Share
Mind share is a situation where a brand becomes so identified with the activity or industry that the consumer by default thinks of the brand itself.
When you cut your finger you put on a Band Aid, and when you blow your nose you reach for a Kleenex. And for many people, to search is to Google.
Mind Share can be lost
Years ago, to go on the internet was synonymous with going on AOL- AOL had Mind Share. Today AOL no longer has that hold and AOL is just another ISP, because Mind Share can be lost.
I recently experienced this phenomenom first hand after I installed the AltaVista Toolbar and after experiencing the amazingly convenient tools AV offers, I realized that Mind Share had had such a hold on me that it had prevented me from enjoying other tools.
It was a strangely liberating experience, like driving on the left hand side of the road in the United States.
[edited by: martinibuster at 6:18 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2003]
| 6:15 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I find that experience can be be rather, well, incarcerating.;)
|It was a strangely liberating experience, like driving on the left hand side of the road in the United States. |
All the same I'll go check out that toolbar.
| 6:26 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I abandoned the cloaking a good while back, but believe it now has more merit than EVER. With proper cloaking you could:
- deliver the crummy pages to Google to get a good ranking under their new algorithm and then show the user a page that actually makes sense.
- deliver any current pages that rank well in other search engines to those search engines.
As much as I hate to admit it, cloaking may the viable means of addressing the new Google and the other search engines at the same time.
Another good way (one that I'm planning) is to change jobs and get the heck outta Dodge -- let some other poor sucker explain to management what Google is doing.
| 6:32 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>rather, well, incarcerating.
Well... I have to say, the more I learn about search engines and optimization for them, the less I like Google. Very sad.
I think the problem here is that Google KNOWS it has responsibility, and is taking it a bit too seriously, in a direction most webmasters aren't willing for it to go. They've changed a lot of things with Florida, and while I don't know that they inteded to shut down such a tremendous number of Mom And Pop businesses while driving the rest of the whitehats to cloaking and spamming, I do know that whatever they're doing, they're not doing on a lark. They probably still believe that they're crusading against the misuse of search.
I don't know; there are a lot of very bitter people, and a lot of them are posting under the handles of people I've come to think of as honest, hardworking people. I find that upsetting. It's not just beginners whining that they're so totally going to boycott Google and become spammers.
I'm also seeing a lot of experts reduced to repeating the same banal reassurances. They don't really know what to do either. So, yes, to answer the original question-- I can see a whole lot more reason to spam now than I could before. Whether more people will, I can't say, but I have to admit I always used to think spamming was lazy and irresponsible-- and I don't quite feel that way anymore.
| 7:57 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Possibly one course of action is to ignore Google. My sites got 60% of their traffic from Google. I thought this update would kill my traffic. It has gone down about 10-15%. It has forced me to expand my content target more terms and build more links with good traffic sources. I hope that I will be recovering and better than before within a few weeks. I don't believe cloaking is the way to solve problems, it only leads to new problems. Sticking with things that are honest and work is the best policy.
| 8:22 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is all from personal experience...
Myself and some business associates have legitamite, high quality sites that will never be banned or considered in anyway spamming. High quality original content sites even.
Well, with these latest changes, our profits from certain high quality content sites has gone down. So what is the result? Creating NEW sites that might just break a few rules... or at least be borderline. I mean what the hell! Many of the new SERPs are rubbish, and I know of at least 8 new borderline grayhat sites that are popping up because of the florida update (from myself and friends).
There's a difference between google tweaking their algo to minimize spammy sites, and what actually happened. What actually happened is completely wrong and needs to be fixed. Until that day comes, grayhats will be emerging everywhere.
| 8:31 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"GoogleGuy's silence on the subject of blackhats now having the power to sink competitors has been ominous."
Nah. I'll reaffirm the statement that webmasters can't really sabotage other people's sites--that wouldn't be fair. People who believe that are barking up the wrong tree.
| 8:35 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy - Sorry if I'm unable to see all your posts, but have you commented on the low quality results of many search terms? Especially certain commercial ones.
| 10:25 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And with that googleguy disappeared in a puff of smoke and we were non the wiser
| 10:56 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google has brought this on themselves!
They now have a whole new Army of cloakers, most likely the number of cloaking sites will increase 100 fold.
Searchers will buy locally, internet companies will go out of business. A lynch mob will show up at the Googleplex. Google will loose the 10 billion in new money from the IPO in less then 6 months. A new phrase will be coined, "you Googled me".
But most certainly no one will ever trust these words "make your site for the user"
| 11:34 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I do have faith in google still.
Even with this craziness, their search engine is still better than the others out there.
They went too far with this latest algo, and it would be perfectly fair for them to modify it a bit...not only fair, but logical.
| 11:54 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I disagree "Nah. I'll reaffirm the statement that webmasters can't really sabotage other people's sites--that wouldn't be fair. People who believe that are barking up the wrong tree."
When the new links I got for my competitors with the keywords in them show up, they are gone!
Thats a MAJOR MAJOR part of Florida, its actually TOO obvious, so you take your competitor whos having a field day because he didnt put keywords in the few links they he had, and you give him a few new links with the keywords in them(on fresh botted links pages) and hes gone. All ready did this and it works.
| 12:03 am on Dec 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
deanril, I really, really hope I'm one of your competitors. Keep the links coming. ;)
| This 75 message thread spans 3 pages: 75 (  2 3 ) > > |