| 8:33 pm on Feb 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ATW has no anti cloaking statement on their help pages.
I would suggest however, if the page the user gets is irrelevant to the query it would be viewed as spam.
| 8:37 pm on Feb 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>if the page the user gets is irrelevant to the query it would be viewed as spam.
I would go another small step and say it is spam.
| 8:49 pm on Feb 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The thing to keep in mind however is just because ATW doesn't explicitely say they don't mind cloaking doesn't necc. mean they wouldn't act on it.
There's always the possibility of a jealous competitor turning you in.
Frankly I don't know how the people at ATW would act.
| 10:16 pm on Feb 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have competitors.
I know nobody from a major insurance company is going to say, it is working for us. But sometimes these things get to the street.
Disclaimer: the insurance referance does not nessary mean a major insurance company that was busted.
| 11:57 pm on Feb 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This should answer your question...
| 12:26 am on Feb 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
...where you are saying:
|There are specific techniques that can be used appropriately but are used to spam in the majority of cases. Cloaking would be one of these techniques |
So I take it that means IF a hand review is made you would look at relevancy of the page to the user to decide if it's spam or not?