Ink Dropping Cloaked Pages

[nell]

All my cloaked pages dropped. Non-cloaked pages ok.

[GoInkGo]

Hello All,

For those who got their pages dropped or their site demoted...

The post of Afterburner is a good one. You did something against the Inktomi rules.

Be on the side of their policies or get your site trashed in the Inktomi toilet.

And if you decide to put the pages dropped on a new domain, they will find you; be sure of that!

[nowhere]

I’m putting the exact same pages in another domain anyway; I’ll keep everyone posted on how long it takes for them to catch me. I’ll keep doing that until Google takes AOL, and then I’ll let my subscription run out and be done with it.

What are all the new C classes? Does Nell have them all? I notice that some on that list aren’t old.

[Consumer Info]

Yeah I know it might be question most have the answer to but Im looking for sources for lists of spiders...someone help me out..thanks

[john316]

If you want to find out what INK is indexing just run the validator from the PT control panel, it will show you whether or not they have the cloaked or non-cloaked page in the index...you can decide from there if you just got sloppy with IP updates or got busted.

[seoboy]

john - i'm not sure about this. i think the validator checks your current pages, not the ink db/cache. so it wont actually show you what ink got, but rather what a general visitor will get. just checked the ip and its an ExecPC one (ie. positiontech)

so this wont tell you much, except what PT is seeing...

(although its a handy tool for finding bad html code)

GoInkGo - i dont really see how this is any different than the "game" some of us have been playing for many years now...its still cat and mouse. they'll try to build a better mousetrap, and we'll find a workaround... just that the stakes are higher now, with the cost of inclusion.

seoboy

[mattb]

Our pages appear to have been buried on the 18th. Just updated the ip list on the 28th. I guess it's just wait and see now. I did notice on a couple new pages submitted on the 28th that USR_Agent slurp hit them and then about 30 minutes later a different ip hit them with USR_Agent IE Explorer 4.0. Perhaps this is not new, but I just noticed it.

I guess it's just a matter of time to see if they re-appear.

[john316]

>>so it wont actually show you what ink got, but rather what a general visitor will get.<<

Thanks seoboy..good call!..maybe the validator is the cloakbuster..

[nowhere]

Mattb - What were the ip numbers?

[seoboy]

mattb - the timeframe is the same for us - new ip appeared on the 16th, pages dropped on the 18th, ip added on the 28th. problem is, we wont get a spider until today, meaning a june 1 update at the earliest... i'd really like to know if i need to switch my domains before the june 1 deadline, though...

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

did ANYONE add the new IP *last week* (ie. on the 16th-19th)?

if so, have you seen evidence of an update since then?

and if so, how are you ranking now that you're delivering "proper" pages? did you "recover" or are you still seeing a penalty??

seoboy

[Jester]

Hi SeoBoy, We added the new spider last week, and updated our pages with a new description. Our new pages are in but burried. Doesn't look like the "penalty" has been lifted.

[nowhere]

Oh for Pete's sake...will someone just post the number!

[nell]

We have some 430 paid P/T pages up on a domain. Some 310 were cloaked and dropped - owing to new spiders not in our IP list. The remaining pages that were not cloaked were using just the IP address and not the domain name. These are holding in fine at positions 1/2 and are keyword stuffed.

First of the week we substituted out the cloaked with uncloaked versions. They were substituted out using the domain name. They have yet to show anywhere and still have a "submitted" status against each of them.

If this domain name is banned or penalized it sure doesn't affect pages using it's IP address. Who knows what will happen to those 310 pages? The question now is whether to wait until AFTER June 1st to find out.

This situation is all too coincidental to the June 1st deadline. I'd bet that the pages buried will stay that way. There is no reason to expect they'll be restored after June 1st. In fact, all reasons to expect they will stay buried. INK (and you can bet P/T in cahoots) wouldn't be going through this crap for nothing. I'd bet a few senior INK asses were kicked after they lost that AOL deal. I'd also bet the major reason AOL gave INK for not continuing with them was that INK search results were full of spam.

It's now cleanup time for INK. The best shot I reckon we have is to substitute the domain on those buried pages while the goin's good and hope for the best.

[Consumer Info]

Hey this is the third time Ive asked...does anyone have anyother sources for IPs besides Fantomaster? As of now the only place I can find this ips are tehre and these new Inktomi IPs are not there?? What gives...somebody help a brother out...

[nowhere]

Consumer - Maybe this site is cloaked so that we are invisable.

[Jester]

Hi Nell, Think you hit the nail on the head. Time to start swaping. However have to wonder if the new domains that we swap in with will be under penalty by association.

[Jester]

Nell, I wonder if it is clean up time so they can sway Yahoo into using inktomi instead of Google. Nothing would surprise me these days.

[nowhere]

have to wonder if the new domains that we swap in with will be under penalty by association.

I'll answer that question if you give me the new ip number.

[john316]

Hey Consumer info...those requests have been falling on deaf ears for as long as they have been asked, you have to subscribe to those services ($)., or compile your own.

[SEOPTI]

I replaced my buried domains with fresh domains using a different IP.

But the new set of domains seems also to be buried.

I just wonder how they find out that all the domains belong to you or your account when you use

a) a different domain
b) different IPs

Maybe they look at the nameserver?

[Jester]

Hi SEOPTI, If you swapped them through position tech, or any pay service if position tech/inktomi simply flagged anything that went into that slot figuring that those who were caught would be scrambling to replace urls before June 1.

[SEOPTI]

When you go into your positiontech account
and try to submit your domains IP (for example 216.111.55.684) instead of www.domain.com

Which one will be listed when it's spidered and included? The IP or the domain name?

Maybe trying this technique will help.

[mbauser2]

This shouldn't be such a shock. The Inktomi spam FAQ [inktomi.com] couldn't be more plain-spoken about it:

Q: Is cloaking permitted?
A: No.

Today's "SearchDay", coincidentally enough, discusses Inktomi's publically-stated policies.

[nowhere]

Jester - Not sure if I buy it. I have other domains registered to a different name in the same PT account that haven't been touched, although they use the same cloaking. Anyway, I'll just got a new one for fun, and I'll see in a few days. No sense in me leaving it the way it is when I can buy a $9 domain and $20 for a cheap hosting quarter.

[nell]

I start to get paranoid when I see new members with but a few posts under their belt getting deeply involved in a thread. I remember "Betty Blue" who, out of nowhere, was very active in a single Looksmart thread never to be heard from again. I don't remember a thread with so many new members as this one has.

[mattb]

Nowhere: The ip that didn't have slurp as the usr_agent was 169.207.238.180. It's actually an old Position tech webpage so I don't think it means much. Just a guess, though.

I checked iplists and it is on their list so it is a known spider.

Nell: Perhaps more people are vocal on this one since alot of traffic was lost due to the recent LookSmart change and now Ink. Just a thought.

[littleman]

<disclaimer>My opinion...</disclaimer>
The debate over cloaking is silly, inktomi has let it's results deteriorate to such a point that cloaking is necessary to be a contender for the more competitive kws. Many webmasters have been forced to cloak to compete. This is they way it has been for at least three years now.

For most of the more competitive key word terms it is the only way one could get a decent return on inktomi's pay for inclusion model. If inktomi had any type of long term quality control this would not be an issue.

Like I said above, this is a moral breach of contract.

[nowhere]

Thanks Matt. Had that one in my list already, so it must be something else.

[nell]

We cannot afford the luxury of time in resubmitting paid pages over and over again to keep ahead of INK's games. They are forcing the serious players into better products than theirs. For example, I can take any fresh domain and get it's pages ranked, first time out, with a PR4 all over Google, Yahoo, Netscape and soon to be AOL. The following month it would be a PR5 and then one can begin to develop from there. I don't need to cloak, just put good content pages up together with good SEO techniques. This requires a small fraction of the work it takes just to keep pages in the top 5 of INK search results for the same keywords. We have over 1400 pages in various P/T accounts that will not, save but a few, be renewed. The money P/T would have gotten will instead be spent selectively on PPC and other positioning alternatives.

[mayor]

Nell, I have to agree with you. For the cost of four paid pages (about $100) I can run a highly themed mini-site for a year with a ROI much greater than I would expect from the four paid Ink pages.

At ten dollars a page, it made sense to pay to index pages in some less competitive, low traffic, areas but a twenty five dollar renewal fee will be too much for about 80% of the pages we registered at the lower rates.

Paid Ink is great for jump starting new sites but there's not a whole lot of pages that are going to give suitable ROI on the long run.

I was happy to be feeding the hand that feeds me while getting a lot of unpaid pages indexed by Ink, but now they dumped a whole free site of mine so my attention and ad dollars are starting to shift toward greener pastures.

[nowhere]

The thing is that the pages are already paid for.