mhansen - 4:29 pm on Dec 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

Maybe its also related to this post [webmasterworld.com] about the hacked site messages in serp's. When I tried the example search in the post (the site:.edu example), it looked like several of the resulting sites had a referrer based header redirect exploit in place, since you could type the URL into your browser and it was fine. Its obvious Googlebot sees something else, I thought that kinda stuff was already well addressed by Google years ago.

All I can ask as a Webmaster is for better clarification of what Google defines as malicious cloaking and redirecting.

- What if I send a mobile user to a mobile site?
- Is cached content vs. live content treated different? (random visitors sees cached copy, logged in users never see cached content, does google toolbar report the size difference, etc?)
- Geo based ads?
- What if an advertisement link is nofollowed and redirected through a tracking tool that uses a header redirect?

etc etc... just a bunch of ways a Webmaster could inadvertently pee in Googles cheerios without knowing it! I know its really judged on the spirit of intent.

MH