Is this considered cloaking?

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Is this considered cloaking?

based on http_referer / session

erickoh

3:42 pm on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have used hidden text (robot excluded css) for years successfully but in view of the recent discussion about google getting tough on hidden text websites, I've decided to change my strategy to this:

If a visitor comes in without the http_referer field, or if this is the 2nd or more page he is viewing on my site (I track via sessions), then he is served the normal page.

Otherwise, I insert on top of the page an additional text paragraph (in proper english) with the keywords I want, ending with a disclaimer saying something like : "This is a self-promotional textual paragraph that will appear only once during your visit, sorry for the blah blah.."

Most visitors from my site come in via some link or the search engines, so the additional promotional text would almost always not be shown. On the other hand, I notice the bots always come into an URL directly, and I don't suppose they track sessions/cookies either.

Do you guys think this method would work?

Nick_W

3:45 pm on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is the question not really "Do you think I can get away with it?"

Really, you know the score. If you cloak, you take a risk. That's pretty much all there is too it.

Nick

erickoh

4:17 pm on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thanks but no, I'm really asking, is this considered cloaking?

Some sites use the same technique to make sure that pop-up banner ads are shown only once to each visitor. I'm doing the same, but for a pop-up text ad.

I'm not a professional SEO, and am not so familiar with the wrokings of goole's policy, so please bear with me. I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me if something like that can get my site banned. Or if I get banned, would my explanation above be good enough to get me unbanned? Thanks in advance.

Blue Gravity

11:23 pm on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

Why would you use hidden text in the first place?

volatilegx

8:29 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

The answer to your question. Yes, it is cloaking. Could it get you banned? Possibly but probably not likely.

dougmcc1

8:09 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

How about this one:

I am building a promotional website for a client who runs a news related website where the content changes regularly.
Instead of updating their promotional website every couple weeks or so to keep up with the main one, I created a page which uses a combination of JavaScript, CSS and IFRAMES to give the SE's an older, more friendly and optimized version of the website while giving the users the live version. This gives me the freedom to update the outdated version whenever I want.

Here's how it works:

The beginning of the code is like any other optimized page, but it is wrapped in <SPAN></SPAN> tags and set at a z-order of 0.
At the bottom of the code is <SCRIPT></SCRIPT> tags which reference an external JavaScript. These <SCRIPT></SCRIPT> tags are wrapped in <SPAN></SPAN> with z-order set to 1 so that the JavaScript code displays on top of the optimized code. And finally, the JavaScript uses document.write to put in the <IFRAME></IFRAME> tags which point to the main website with WIDTH=100% Height="100% and SCROLL=NO in the <BODY> tag so there aren't two scrollbars.

Is this considered cloaking? As far as I know, SE's can't read frames, CSS, or JavaScript so could this be detected?

volatilegx

12:42 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, It's not cloaking, however it might be considered hidden text. I'm not sure if Google or the other search engines are sophisicated enough to read the z-index of spans and divs to determine whether text is hidden. If they are, then the sight could be penalized for using hidden text.

Regarding the Iframe, I think Google is penalizing those who use Iframes to point to affiliate links, but I'm not sure about the rest of us.