Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.83.7

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

What about static cloaking?

Too simple to be called cloaking?

     
10:35 pm on Aug 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Aug 11, 2007
posts:1
votes: 0


Hello there, I am new at this forum and don't have any programing or cloaking experience. I have a question:
There is an inexpensive cloaking software (no Names allowed)which generates a lot of static pages based on the keywords I type, if you want to take the risk those html pages can be directly dropped in your main domain directory, if you dont want to take that risk they can be redirected via Javascript to be used in a disposable domain. Is there any probem whit this kind of very simple cloaking? Is it easily discovered by spiders? I know redirecting is not the best choice because of the URL change, but is this enought reason to ban the site?
Thanks a lot for your comments.
12:31 am on Aug 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 22, 2001
posts:2450
votes: 0


Welcome to WebmasterWorld, LuchoPhoto :)

I don't consider a quick redirect to be a form of cloaking, but it is definitely proscribed by Google. They don't like it a bit.

There are ways to obfuscate the JavaScript, but Google is getting a lot smarting about figuring that sort of thing out, and if they ever have an editor take a look at the page it will be immediately obvious as spam.

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members