Is it safe to cloak?

[chowcat]

Firstly, from what I can understand, loads of top ranking sites are using cloaking to obtain their positions. This must mean that it works?

Secondly, assuming it does work, can anyone recommend any free cloaking software.

Thirdly, if it is best just to stay well away from the whole thing, please say so.

Thanks.

[JayC]

It's best to "stay away from the whole thing" if you don't understand why some cloaked sites rank highly. There's no magic in cloaking, and using it won't guarantee improving your rankings -- and, yes, there is a risk of penalties and bans depending in large part on how you use cloaking techniques. And there's a very strong likelihood of retaining basically the same rankings you already have. Cloaking doesn't replace good seo, it's just a method of delivering the pages on which you've used sound seo techniques to specific search engines.

You should start by reading through even a dozen or so threads in this forum [webmasterworld.com]. This [webmasterworld.com] thread is good, if you haven't read it. But no one else can really tell you if it's "worth it" or if it will work for you.

[chowcat]

Thanks, I was just having a little play with web postion gold and it seems to me that the ONLY use that has is preparing a half baked attempt of a well optimised site. Metas, body text, etc, nothing that even a novice SEO wouldn't already do with his / her eyes closed.

I know this isn't cloaking as such, but it seems that a cleverly well optimised site doesn't need cloaking.

[volatilegx]

I know this isn't cloaking as such, but it seems that a cleverly well optimised site doesn't need cloaking.

From the perspective of a veteran cloaker, I think you are wrong, chowcat. Cleverly optimized pages are more in need of cloaking than any other page. It is these pages that are most in danger of being copied by shifty webmasters looking for an easy way to get a good ranking. One of cloaking's primary purposes is to protect your optimized code by serving it only to search engine spiders.

I do agree that cloaking can be risky even if you know what you are doing. If you do decide to cloak some pages, I'd recommend setting up a domain separate from your primary one to host your cloaked pages. That way, if the cloaked pages are discovered, you won't suffer much.

To get a good listing of cloaking programs, check out the ODP category for cloaking [dmoz.org].

[chowcat]

Is there anywhere I can get an overview of what cloaking consists of and how to go about it. I understand the concept, but would really like to read up on the whole subject a little more before attempting it.

[volatilegx]

Air wrote a good beginner's primer here: [webmasterworld.com...]

[GoogleGuy]

I would be really careful about cloaking. Google considers it spam and can remove sites for doing it. You run the risk of getting zero traffic from Google and its partners if you cloak.

[fiffy]

I think I understand this. Cloaking is setting up sites so they show google one thing, and everage users another?

[fiffy]

*average*

[mack]

yep you hit the hail on the head there.

Cloaking makes a search engine spider read a different story to a browser so the author can enable it to rank higher for a desired keyword.

Not one that should be recomended for anyone to try.

[fiffy]

Mack, can I email you a URL? It has totally confused me for some time. I believe it could be generated by this cloaking.

[chowcat]

That may well explain why at least 60% of the cloaking software sites in ODP are either grayed out or PR0..

It doesn't inspire huge amounts of confidence in you to buy the $$$ cloaking software.

[volatilegx]

I believe many of the cloaking sites listed in ODP have PR zero or are grayed out because they offer cloaking software and Google reviewers manually penalized them, not because they themselves cloak. They'd be kind of silly to cloak from their primary domains.

[chowcat]

..a good enough hint that it's a gray area. It seems if you know what you're doing you can get away with it, but if you don't then experiment with it a bit first - or as GoogleGuy says - don't do it at all.

[volatilegx]

That's a good warning from GoogleGuy, and I believe it... however...

It's my personal theory that cloaking for Google is probably not only dangerous to your listings there, it probably doesn't do much good either. Google uses a lot of off-your-site pragmas to determine where your site will appear in their rankings. The entrance page technique simply doesn't work on Google like it does for other engines. Instead of cloaking entrance pages for Google, build a good site, get other related sites (that you don't own) to link to it, and you'll do well.

I've seen cloaking applications that allow you to cloak for some engines, and not for others. You might want to consider one of these if you are still thinking about cloaking. You could always disable cloaking for Google using this method.

[JayC]

Google uses a lot of off-your-site pragmas to determine where your site will appear in their rankings. The entrance page technique simply doesn't work on Google like it does for other engines

Quite true, but the doorway or entrance page approach is only one way in which cloaking can be used. Other approaches wouldn't be adversely affected by Google's use of PageRank and other off-site elements -- and in fact could work quite closely with those elements, to put it vaguely.

[mosley700]

"It's my personal theory that cloaking for Google is probably not only dangerous to your listings there, it probably doesn't do much good either."

I beg to differ. I competitor of mine has over 100 of these cloaked pages. He consistently is number one on Google for the targeted terms.
The cached site looks like a list of search term counts, with 30 or so deeplinks to his site. Quite a bit of content on the cached page. But click on it and you get re-directed to the highest bidder for his advertising program. He sells "1,000,000 uniques for $2,000".

His claoked sites have been top for some time, so I doubt they will get banned anytime soon.

Google is smart, and I'd never try to fool them. But it can be done.

That is probably Google's only problem. Not enough humans looking at the sites.

[johnser]

"can remove sites for doing it"

Hi GoogleGuy!

I think everyone here has enormous respect for the fact that a G rep actually bothers to engage with users as you do so regularly here.

But why is delivering a different page to a search engine based on their IP so bad in G's eyes - or is it? Theres a world of difference between G's use of "can remove" & "will remove".

Most search engines frown upon cloaking to some extent as everyone on this forum is only too well aware. However Inktomi & AltaVista actively encourage the delivery of different content to them than what users see via the "XML Trusted Feeds" from which they generate revenue. So cloaking is OK if we are paying to do it on G's competitors.

G's first "Don't" on the "Do's & Don'ts" list is "don't cloak" - Fair enough. Read the FAQ on cloaking however and G's position on the matter is that you "may" ban sites. Its never that you "will" ban.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the only logical inference possible is that G is now and in the future turning a blind eye to cloaking if the methods used:

> Target searchers with relevant content
> Accurately display the site's content on the SERPs
> Improve the SERPs by allowing the spidering of Flash content
> Do not mislead searchers
> Do not degrade the quality of the SERPs for ANYONE
> Do not obtain more than 2 listings for 1 company in the Top 20 for a relevant keyphrase
> Do not promote purely affiliate sites
> Do not promote link farms
> (I'm sure you could add a few)

Would it not be in EVERYONE'S interest (G, searchers & webmasters) to adopt the above as G's "Cloaking Charter"?

Make it a simple yes or no issue. Fall foul and you automatically get banned by [e-mail] until you comply. That'll sort out newbies who might be tempted to try it without figuring out how to do it ethically & properly therefore creating very limited risk to the quality of the G SERPs.

(G could even charge to manually review previously banned cloaked sites - not that I want to be giving you ideas....)

As a simple example of the benefit to G of having cloaked websites in its database, Googlebot usually picks up phrases on pages and throws them all together on the SERPs where they frequently look like rubbish.

Theres always <meta content> which you could list but thats <really> hard to manipulate which is why G doesn't use it unless theres no spiderable text on the page.

Webmasters & normal people usually detest the use of frames on websites for usability reasons.

However if <noframes> is used on a framed cloaked site, educated webmasters can accurately deliver a concise summary of a (non-framed) page's content to G so as its easier for searchers to see if the site is of relevance to them. Net result? Everyone wins, G included.

I've had several conversations with Google at 18 Soho Square in London this week in relation to a client of ours wishing to become a "Premium Sponsor" for a 3 month campaign. The client is looking at paying £3,000 for page impressions TARGETED AT UK USERS!

How does G target UK users? By IP. It isn't rocket science. All cloakers are doing is trying to make an ethical living from the same technologies by offering a valuable business service to their clients. (I believe most of us are also, this issue aside, among your biggest supporters!)

Any chance G could adopt some or all of the above ideas, improve its SERPs by co-operating with educated cloakers, use cloaking to possibly generate the all-important revenues and delivering "a better search experience" which one presumes is the corporate mission?

All thoughts & comments welcome
J

PS - I haven't quite managed to figure out how to put a "quote" in a box! Clues by stickymail please :)

[Air]

Those are excellent points johnser, Google needs to reconcile the page caching and the spam reporting. Under those circumstances it seems to me that it is difficult for them to put forward a more liberal cloaking policy, but as you suggested the clues that it might exist are there.

[volatilegx]

mosley700,

I didn't say it was impossible to get a good ranking on Google using cloaking techniques. I've done it as well for several web sites. My point was that it can be dangerous and other techniques might work better.

That is probably Google's only problem. Not enough humans looking at the sites.

I guess that depends on your perspective. :)