What'cha'think

Blog article about cloaking

[willybfriendly]

I know very little about cloaking, having avoided it due to the risks associated with it. This interview presents a completely different view than that I am accustomed to. Any validity to what this guy is saying?

[searchengineblog.com...]

Best regards...

[redzone]

Ralph's been around for awhile, and Fantomaster products to date, have basically been considered "poor man's cloaking" software. They also market an IP list of known spiders, but it's about the same information that is "freely" shared at WebmasterWorld.

Ralph paints a very antagonistic relationship between SEM companies and the SE's. I think he is still living in 1999.
The SE's that have inclusion programs are basically partners with the SEM companies, using them to drive new clients into the program.
The "one" true spidering engine left, Google, has GoogleGuy very present here at WebmasterWorld, and he is very open to helping/communicating with everyone.

As for Ralph's statements about cloaking itself, I agree with the majority. Many web sites have progressed far past text based content, and the SE's have difficulty properly indexing the majority of this content.

But, XML based inclusion programs (INK/AV/FAST/TEOMA-ASK), allow representative text to be fed directly to the indexer, rather than "un-indexable" content for a specific URL. As for Google, you would have to ask GoogleGuy what he thinks about Ralph's comments. :)

Ralph's new dynamic cloacking product, is nothing new to the industry. Most of the major SEM firms have developed some type of proprietary system that accomplishes the same results. My one question for Ralph would be, why would anyone need the ability to dynamically generate up to 10K pages per hour, unless they planned on "spamming", multiple URL's attempting to target the same keyword, in the same SE?