Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Cloaking and dynamic sites

Providing a static site for the search engines

         

webgator

8:03 pm on Jul 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




We have a client whose web developer is creating a static site version for them at our suggestion that is a copy of their extremely dynamic site. Currently the dynamic site isn't indexed by any search engines. The static site they created looks great. It has plenty of text and product images and the category pages all feed into the dynamic site for ordering purposes. However, the web developer wants it that the search engines can find the static site, but everybody else would normally find the dynamic site if they simply typed in the company's URL or came in via a PPC listing. However, this sounds way too much like cloaking.

My two questions are...

First, is that even possible? Can we make it that Googlebot, etc finds a website: www.example.com/static.html and a user who didn't come in thorugh a search engine would find a dynamic site: www.example.com/crazydynamicURL

And second, if this is possible, would it be considered spam. What if we put a robots.txt file on the dynamic content so the search engines couldn't index the dynamic part?

Thanks

Mike_Jones

12:09 am on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Hi there

I have also been thinking about using cloaking to get the best out of SE:s and yes it is possible and you can even have the se indexed page to deliver the "real" users to the desired page. Now as I see it - it is dangerous if the SE:s find out about it, but will they? that I cannot say and the power of your cloaking device depends on how good database it will have concerning the SE:s

Thats just my 2cents worth.

bcc1234

12:54 am on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Why not just make your dynamic site appear static?

webgator

1:07 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I thought of doing that, though I am not sure if its possible. The URLs are pretty complicated and the site uses Micrsoft commerce server I believe. If anyone has experience with this that would be great.

Thanx

andrewrab

11:52 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Hi there... I have plenty of experience with this, and you don't have to worry about it... or... let me say, you can use an ISAPI.dll to conver query strings (e.g. '&' to '_A_' and '=' to '_E_ for example)... and if you take this query strings into account at the PROGRAMMATIC level, then you are *NOT* actually cloaking.

That is how I've done it... and I actually surprised myself the other day by seeing that a few sites each had thousands of dynamic pages that were ALL FRAMESETS where I'd forgotten to even optimize them! (Then again, my partner is the queen of the known universe when it comes to SEO ad SEM, so she certainly helps!).

Where you could theoretically run into an issue -- MAYBE - is if you don't change things programmatically, and you have different links on the site. In other words... say your .asp/.aspx pages all continue to use '&' and '=' and the like. They will run fine. But if you then create links that use '_A_' and '_E_' instead, and you don't get them ALL, then you could in effect be providing duplicate content (though it's actually just the same page)... that's because an ISAPI.dll simply interprets query strings... it does not force code changes...

Still, we did all the code changes on all the pages and so now the '_=_' and '_&_' don't actually exist... very easy to do regardless of what you're doing and how you're doing it... though less complex in .asp than in .aspx.

At any rate, this is undoubtedly the worst explanation ever provided... but, I can give you more details and even give you a free ISAPI dll... it works like a charm... pm if you want or need more information.

Bye.

andrewrab

11:54 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Whoaaa... hold on now... just read the rest of your post... DO NOT DO IT THE WAY YOUR DEVELOPER IS SUGGESTING... that IS cloaking and it will hurt... why? Because you'll have duplicate URL's for all your pages... bad, bad, bad...

It's so freaking easy... pay me... hmmm... let's see... a six pack and I'll do it for you... bwahahahahah.....

andrewrab

11:58 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



And Mike_Jones... in response to what you're asking... unless what you're suggesting is going to done for SEO/SEM purposes (e.g. one version that reads better vs. a second that is better optimized -- in other words, CLOAKING)... then this is unecessary.

Just use what I suggested in my previous post... then it handles things for you.

-- And sorry for all these posts -- I should have put all in one!

At any rate, you're both dealing with 2 good solutions -- the first is what I've described and FAR easier and more graceful (and with virtually no overhead in IIS) than the second, whish is to write pages on the fly.

Now the only way I would sugest the second (easy for someone like me who's a programmer, but tough for a non-programmer) is if you don't have control/access to your server (particularly IIS) and can't install custom dll's. If you can install custom DLL's go with the ISAPI.dll.