Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: open
Re " 'lexa" I meant Alexa, just have a nasty habit of not wanting to drop crawler trails / bread crumbs in groups. It isn't exactly like the "Cone of Silence" in here ;-)
I'm wondering if G would actually take the time to analyze differences between the A cache and their own - I provide completely different URLs to surfers than I do to engines, so they would not be able to do an "Apples for Apples" comparison, but it still rather creeps me out. My gut is that they would be using A data for traffic patterns rather than to ferret out cloakers, but from my perspective, "Only the paranoid survive..."
There's a thread here:
Where a guy firmly stated that, but it is the kind of thing would hit the news. So I don't think that happened.
Google has many more issues to worry about than catching cloakers. It would take an awful lot of processing power to compare google cache to Alexa. And there could be many false positives for many reasons. Also the percentage of sites that cloak appears to be miniscule.
If someone cloaks to rank for "blue widgets" and that's what the user finds then that's great. It's sucks when a surfer searches for "blue widgets" and a site for online gambling appears.
[edited by: MrSpeed at 1:22 pm (utc) on June 30, 2005]