Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: open
These were being tested last week and were seen by a few people.
Now they are a official.
See the full article at [siliconvalley.com...]
1) spider our sites and use our bandwidth
2) use our content to further the AskJeeves search service
3) the show that content to people so they don't even click
4) then frame those clicks they do send to trap the user
Although, I do enjoy the Teoma search, someone convince me we shouldn't ban this bot as not worth the value of the bandwidth?
First - its just a screenshot, and its shrunken down.
Second - it will definitely help legitimate content sites beat out the spammy keyword-filled spam pages - they help no one.
Third - breaking out of frames is easy.
Fourth - Ask still provides a reasonable percentage of traffic. No reason to ban them.
You bring up a very interesting point. Maybe this type of instance is a perfect and legitimate use for cloaking.
Instead of banning the bot, why not detect that particular bot and use your favourite cloaking technique to redirect those to a page of your own that says something like...
"Dear Ask Jeeves user,
We appreciate your interest in our products and services... please CLICK HERE to enter our site..."
Make the CLICK HERE a framebuster... or even better, make a framebuster for your whole site (globally included) that automatically braks you out of others' frames.
After all, if Ask Jeeves gets mad at you for cloaking on their site, the worst they can do is de-list you... the exact same result as if you had banned them.
I wonder if Google and other search services would get mad at you for cloaking out someone else specific like that. I find it highly unlikely that their cloaking detection would go so far as to pretend to be other search service bots. (If for no other reason than the exposure to lawsuits from the other services claiming that they are somehow defaming or infringing on their names and trademarks)
I didn't see the sneak peek but I can't fathom a major doing anything "more agressive" than this.
I will come up with a clever cloak routine post-haste, as well as dig into the "how to get your images removed from the index" procedures.
Looks like backlink spamming works very well in aj these days, from the results I see.
The call has been made for creative design - seems like very large font w/colors is the order of the day. The new "creative" canvas is a 348x260 onmouseover.
This cuts down the occasional advantage of those sites which, though informationally inferior, are skilled enough to employ superior SEO techniques - and begins to restore the balance in favour of genuinely higher quality sites.
Of course higher quality sites which also employ superior SEO will be laughing...
I wonder if, on top of screenshots, Ask will update its algo to take greater account of how often SERPS are clicked on for a given query, on the basis that the sites they now represent can be "seen" prior to the click.
After presenting searchers with page titles, snippets and screenshots for a given query, if the ninth position SERP listing consistently has the highest CTR (proportional to its position) followed by the third position SERP listing and then the first, surely some reshuffling of the SERPS is in order? This has to be a more reliable indicator of "what people are looking for" than titles and snippets alone.
Also, as some in WebmasterWorld have noticed recently, in the U.S. we are in the process of removing the "AnswerFrame", as it's historically been called here. The complication is that the frame contains a search box, and many people find this box location very useful, saving them a click back to our site. In terms of "selfish motives" with the Frame, we run no ads on this frame and mere page views (for the sake of it) are of little to no value to our business. On the other hand, from an overall experience perspective, more people would prefer this tool to be set to default "off" rather than "on" in their user preferences, so we are moving to that model. In between we're trying to keep it live for people who have used it in the past and presumably find it useful.