rogerd - 2:41 pm on Jan 31, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think it's really hard draw a firm line. The "I know cloaked spam when I see it" argument doesn't really hold water when it's not blatant.

Here's an example: just about everyone in this thread seems to agree that feeding text content to user agents that can't handle Flash is OK, or at least should be OK. We also know that hidden text is frowned upon, and unless you are Jakob Nielson, may get you penalized. Well, if I'm feeding text to non-graphic user agents, I'm going to be sure it contains my keywords. The only difference between my text page and hidden text is I won't have to make it match the background color and it may have to sound like proper English.

How would you like to be the SE tech trying to figure out if the text content is a good substitute for the graphic presentation, or if it crosses the line? Sure, you can catch the blatant spammers and keyword packers, but a well-written and formatted page is going to be a different story (even if it is keyword-laden). This is a tough one for the SEs - if they acknowledge that cloaking (or "providing alternative content") is OK for some purposes, it really opens Pandora's box.