sinyala1 - 7:33 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

97% of all noarchived sites were cloaked sites....hmmm....that's scary that google went to all the noarchivce sites and found out people were cloaking and that they can see this.

I also was kicked from altavista today temporarily on one of my clients sites because a human went and either reported me or a person from the company saw it? They didn't catch my cloaking....lol even after I told them to examine the site. They found my cloaked pages from either their database of my site or from the cached pages but I use such a sneaky tactic that they can't even get the source nor would they even believe it's anything more than an old page with 4 words on it. Saved my a$$. LoL I can't believe an altavista search engine representive told me what a cloaked illeagle page I had up looked like.....omg, it was staring him right in the face, and he just said it's an old page that new one's need to replace it or we will not list you until the site is finished.

What I don't understand if everyone's (search engines) ignoring the noarchive then what's the point of even having it? If google is recording these sites with noarchive on it then inspecting it then they are archiving it and furthermore exposing cloaked sites. So I guess we really shouldn't noarchive our pages unless we're begging for company from search engines to inspect our sites.

Who knows. I feel that after reading all of that about noarchive it just seems like you're putting yourself on the radar. I'm going to test it with my new SEO marketing invention when it gets out of beta testing which should pretty much make any keyword number 1 on most any search engine which will clearly put me right on the radar screen.

While I'm on the google subject, has anyone noticed google putting sites at top ten/1 positions? I've run some sites through some of my analyzers and they do not come close to googles ranking algorithm or even come close to an optimized site.