Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.244.186

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Search Engine Cloaking?

does it still work?

     
5:32 am on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 17, 2004
posts:68
votes: 0


hey guys, ive been researching lately on search engine cloaking which includes both ip cloaking and user agent cloaking.. ive heard that they still work, but how can they work when search engines such as google and now yahoo have pages that are cached, which show you exactly what they visited. yet one of the most accredited people i know in search engine marketing says that he still uses ip cloaking to find out which search engine is hitting his pages and than forwards those specific spiders to specific templates of his website... any ideas?
3:13 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 27, 2004
posts:36
votes: 0


Nkakar,
most folks use a script that tells the search engine not to cache the site.
5:03 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 22, 2001
posts:2450
votes: 0


They use this meta tag:

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

8:24 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 27, 2004
posts:36
votes: 0


There is speculation that google penalizes the noarchive tag so some folks are using a java script instead.
8:27 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38048
votes: 12


we can garantee you that g does not even consider the noarchive tag for rankings purposes. Noarchive is about liability protection and privacy concerns.
11:29 am on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 21, 2002
posts:60
votes: 0


Brett, are you really sure it's not even a small factor?

It's obvious that they can't bind a big penalty on it, but I too have the feeling there is a small penalty associated with it.

10:32 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 5, 2003
posts:102
votes: 0


we can garantee you that g does not even consider the noarchive tag for rankings purposes. Noarchive is about liability protection and privacy concerns.

I know G doesn't ban you for having it, but I do think that some type of red flag goes up to be reviewed for cloaking tactics.

3:11 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Sept 9, 2003
posts:107
votes: 0


Doubt it
7:29 am on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 5, 2002
posts:1562
votes: 0


From what I remember having "noarchive" is a red flag but won't have any effect unless other bad things/lots of spam reports are discovered.
5:51 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Sept 9, 2003
posts:107
votes: 0


It's a red flag for SEO eyes meaning come in and look at my source code etc etc. But I've seen plenty of mom and pop sites that use it and every other version of a meta tag likewise. They read the tutorials on creating meta tags and think they have to put 15 metas in their head :)
6:00 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 29, 2000
posts:12095
votes: 0


It's still working. I just came across another one a couple hours ago at Google - with the cloaked page sitting right there in the cache. And another at Yahoo just the other day, had to look a little further for that one.