Forum Moderators: open
We are building a web site with dynamic content, using user tracking via a session id that is appended as if a quasi directory on the end of all urls.
However with googlebot (and similar bots) recognized via the HTTP_USER_AGENT we will turn this feature off.
This would mean that normal users receive a slightly different page to recognized search engines, namely all urls will either have or not have the session id appended to them.
WOULD THIS BE DEEMED "CLOAKING" FOR WHICH WE COULD BE BANNED FROM THE GOOGLE INDEX?
Also we spoof the browser to see if its javaScript enabled. Depending on the result, we will send an appropriate page. In regards to content, both are identical, the javaScript version only having a few user conveniences added.
Our concern is, if google is using some form of robot masquerading as a regular browser to check for "cloaking", it, not being a human, may deem that the pages we send to googlebot and those we send other users are not identical. And then quiet automatically exclude us from the google index. This would not be appropriate, or in the best interests of either google or ourselves.
It may be that we are over reacting, however we do feel a little more information from google in regards to their policy towards "cloaking" and methods of dealing with it would be beneficial. After all, a great deal of "cloaking" or "abstraction of form and content", is not done with the intention of deception.
The question is, does google rely solely on the judgment of automatons, or do they also make a subsequent human assessment on sites deemed suspect by the bots?
It would be interesting to know the thoughts, suggestions and opinions of other web developers and users regarding this issue of non-malevolent "cloaking".
If I went to your site with lynx, or with a browser with JS turned off, would I get the same page that google gets? If that was the case, then you should be safe as long as the cloaked page truely represents the site. But there is still a possibility that you could get nailed with a hand check. I would put a comment in the source stating something like <!-- Version for browsers without javascript -->
