Cloaking good or bad?

[amar.seo]

Hi every one is it cloaking good or bad, can I be banned from search engines for it?

[seopool]

it is depends how you use it, most of the time is has bad effect,

[pawan]

Bad things are always bad it not matter what way it use.

[seopool]

:) Agree,
but we can cloaking for different purposes, not only for SEO, so its not bad all the time, basically cloaking is a part of web development, not of SEO

[offshoreSEO]

[QUOTE=seopool]:) Agree,
but we can cloaking for different purposes, not only for SEO, so its not bad all the time, basically cloaking is a part of web development, not of SEO[/QUOTE]


How it is useful and for what purpose?

[seopool]

if you develop A web based application for multi users, and offer different interfaces to ever user you can use cloaking, (This is just an example, you can use cloaking in many different ways as per your requirement)

[kutsarita]

[QUOTE=seopool]if you develop A web based application for multi users, and offer different interfaces to ever user you can use cloaking, (This is just an example, you can use cloaking in many different ways as per your requirement)[/QUOTE]

I think hes got a point... it only became bad if someone use it in a bad way..

[BSolveIT]

Hmmm...well...I see where you're coming from seopool. But if your deploying cloaking techniques to achieve "themes", then your going about it the wrong way and likely to get penalised, banned, or devalued in some way.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from. However, when people talk about cloaking, it's fair to say they are talking about presenting different content to the search engines than to regular users. Theming is a different concept altogether, but always starts with a default user who'll see things exactly as the search engine spider would. Therefore, it's not cloaking. As I said though, inexperienced developers might use cloaking techniques to achieve themes, but thats a mistake.

Google state quite clearly that under no circumstances should you deploy any form of cloaking. By this they mean that their spider, googlebot, should be presented with exactly the same content as users, at least a default anonymous user.

Some webmasters have wrongly intrepreted some of the webmaster guidelines to mean that you should use cloaking in some situations (such as if your site uses session id's in the URL's) to mean that you should use cloaking in order to help googlebot spider your site. Again, it's not true. You will be penalised for any cloaking that causes the spider to see different content/pages than a default user - no matter what your intentions.

So, cloaking (having different content for users than for SE spiders) is always a bad thing - without exception.

Themes are completely fine, and there should be no reason to deploy cloaking techniques in order to enable theming support.

:)

[seopool]

[QUOTE=BSolveIT]Hmmm...well...I see where you're coming from seopool. But if your deploying cloaking techniques to achieve "themes", then your going about it the wrong way and likely to get penalised, banned, or devalued in some way.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from. However, when people talk about cloaking, it's fair to say they are talking about presenting different content to the search engines than to regular users. Theming is a different concept altogether, but always starts with a default user who'll see things exactly as the search engine spider would. Therefore, it's not cloaking. As I said though, inexperienced developers might use cloaking techniques to achieve themes, but thats a mistake.

Google state quite clearly that under no circumstances should you deploy any form of cloaking. By this they mean that their spider, googlebot, should be presented with exactly the same content as users, at least a default anonymous user.

Some webmasters have wrongly intrepreted some of the webmaster guidelines to mean that you should use cloaking in some situations (such as if your site uses session id's in the URL's) to mean that you should use cloaking in order to help googlebot spider your site. Again, it's not true. You will be penalised for any cloaking that causes the spider to see different content/pages than a default user - no matter what your intentions.

So, cloaking (having different content for users than for SE spiders) is always a bad thing - without exception.

Themes are completely fine, and there should be no reason to deploy cloaking techniques in order to enable theming support.

:)[/QUOTE]

Nice Ideas, But again You are thinking as a SEO, not as a user,
but don't forget we are doing SEO for Users not for search engines,
Search Engines are just a way to reach the right visitors :)

[BSolveIT]

Actually, I was thinking/talking as a developer.

As a developer, we create sites for users, ...and as a website owner (or as an SEO) we want that site to do well on the search engines. Thats true, of course. ;)

If considering users when developing a site, to the point of catering for themes and customisation - it still requires a default/anonymous user. This user has all the default settings before anything gets customised. The view of the site that a spider see's will be the same as this anonymous user. If thats not the case......it should be.

:)

[seopool]

actually I think you can't understand the situation which I am talking about, You know the Idea of cloaking is very old,


Hey why don't you join me.... ha ha ha....:D

[BSolveIT]

hehehe ;)

I'm pretty sure I do understand. I'm maybe not making myself very clear though.

No matter what your multi-user interface application does, and how many different ways it can be customised, the way it's achieved doesn't involve cloaking.

Cloaking being the circumstances under which different content/pages are presented to search engine spiders, than to users.

What you were talking about has nothing to do with cloaking - although I can see where you might join those dots. But it's not the same thing.

I went on to explain in my previous posts whats actually involved (in very general terms) in setting up themes/multu user interfaces. They ultimately require 1 anonymous default user that has all the default settings. i.e. The first time a person vists such a site, they will be anonymous and have all the default settings - at least on their first ever visit. A search engine spider will see exactly the same content as a first time user. Therefore, what you were talking about isn't cloaking. Do you see what I mean?

There are actually no circumstances under which cloaking is allowed. None.

:D

[seopool]

[QUOTE=BSolveIT]hehehe ;)

I'm pretty sure I do understand. I'm maybe not making myself very clear though.

No matter what your multi-user interface application does, and how many different ways it can be customised, the way it's achieved doesn't involve cloaking.

Cloaking being the circumstances under which different content/pages are presented to search engine spiders, than to users.

What you were talking about has nothing to do with cloaking - although I can see where you might join those dots. But it's not the same thing.

I went on to explain in my previous posts whats actually involved (in very general terms) in setting up themes/multu user interfaces. They ultimately require 1 anonymous default user that has all the default settings. i.e. The first time a person vists such a site, they will be anonymous and have all the default settings - at least on their first ever visit. A search engine spider will see exactly the same content as a first time user. Therefore, what you were talking about isn't cloaking. Do you see what I mean?

There are actually no circumstances under which cloaking is allowed. None.

:D[/QUOTE]



Humm, I think I should Join you :D ha ha.... (Good Debate)

As per Wikipedia:

Cloaking is a form of the doorway page technique.

A similar technique is also used on the Open Directory Project web directory. It differs in several ways from search engine cloaking


[SIZE=3]Cloaking versus IP Delivery[/SIZE]

IP delivery can be considered a more benign variation of cloaking, where different content is served based upon the requester's IP address. With cloaking, search engines and people never see the other's pages, whereas, with other uses of IP delivery, both search engines and people can see the same pages.

One use of IP delivery is to determine the requestor's location, and deliver content specifically written for that country. This use isn't necessarily cloaking. For instance, Google uses IP delivery for AdWords and AdSense advertising programs in order to target users in different geographic locations.

As a mean of determining the language(s) in which to provide content, IP delivery is a crude and unreliable method; many countries and regions are multi-lingual, or the requestor may be a foreign national. A better method of content negotiation is to examine the client's Accept-Language HTTP header.

As of 2006, many well-known and well respected sites have taken up IP delivery to personalise content for their regular customers. In fact, many of the top 1000 sites, including household names like Amazon (amazon.com), actively use IP delivery. None of these have been banned from search engines because their intention is not deceptive.


Good Luck :)

[Mit]

[QUOTE=seopool][COLOR=Red]we can cloaking for different purposes[/COLOR], not only for SEO, so its not bad all the time, basically cloaking is a part of web development, not of SEO[/QUOTE]

Please make it clear buddy!!!

I am not getting you.

I mean, How we can use cloaking for different purposes ??? & How cloaking is being a part of web development.

Waiting for your fast reply.

[seopool]

[QUOTE=Mit]Please make it clear buddy!!!

I am not getting you.

I mean, How we can use cloaking for different purposes ??? & How cloaking is being a part of web development.

Waiting for your fast reply.[/QUOTE]

Hey Man Read the post carefully ;)

Most of TV and News channels are using this tech.

[Mit]

[QUOTE=seopool]Hey Man Read the post carefully ;)[/QUOTE]

That's not a reply buddy!!!!

I thought You have some useful answers but I am disappointed :(.

[seopool]

[QUOTE=Mit]That's not a reply buddy!!!!

I thought You have some useful answers but I am disappointed :(.[/QUOTE]


Amit,
I am not disappointing you, I just said to you to read my posts carefully, then if you have any questions in your mind we can discuss that,

Actually In present situation we all are thinking cloaking is a Search Engine Optimization Spam,

But Most of the TV Channels and Newspapers Website using advance cloaking for distribute their information IP wise, (I don't think that is a spam)

[Mit]

[QUOTE=seopool]But Most of the TV Channels and Newspapers Website using advance cloaking for distribute their information IP wise, (I don't think that is a spam)[/QUOTE]

Please give me one example for that....

let me also see that....

[seopool]

[QUOTE=Mit]Please give me one example for that....

let me also see that....[/QUOTE]

Google uses IP delivery for AdWords and AdSense advertising programs in order to target users in different geographic locations.

Amazon (amazon.com), actively use IP delivery

[Ared]

Cloaking is for those who want to stay in the first pages for a couple of weeks or months, after they get caught by the SEs they will get banned and the glory is over. cheers

[seopool]

[QUOTE=Ared]Cloaking is for those who want to stay in the first pages for a couple of weeks or months, after they get caught by the SEs they will get banned and the glory is over. cheers[/QUOTE]

Only on that situation when you use it for search engine rankings... :)

[BSolveIT]

Well, it's a fairly safe bet that amar.seo (the chap who started this thread) was asking if cloaking was a good or a bad idea as it related to SEO and search engines. He asked the question in SEO-guy, and even picked the SEO Discusssion forum.

Personally, I wouldn't consider delivering content based on IP to be cloaking. Simply because it's not trying to establish if a web request is coming from a spider, and delivering different content to it as a result. Quite the opposite, whatever criteria is used for a web request will applied in exactly the same way when a spider makes the request. Therefore - it's not cloaking.

When it comes to a definition of cloaking, the only one that matters is that of the Google Webmaster Guidelines, for obvious reasons:

Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

Just to re-iterate. "Cloaking" is always a bad idea. There really are no exceptions. Honest.

8-|

[offshoreSEO]

[QUOTE=BSolveIT]Well, it's a fairly safe bet that amar.seo (the chap who started this thread) was asking if cloaking was a good or a bad idea as it related to SEO and search engines. He asked the question in SEO-guy, and even picked the SEO Discusssion forum.

Personally, I wouldn't consider delivering content based on IP to be cloaking. Simply because it's not trying to establish if a web request is coming from a spider, and delivering different content to it as a result. Quite the opposite, whatever criteria is used for a web request will applied in exactly the same way when a spider makes the request. Therefore - it's not cloaking.

When it comes to a definition of cloaking, the only one that matters is that of the Google Webmaster Guidelines, for obvious reasons:

Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

Just to re-iterate. "Cloaking" is always a bad idea. There really are no exceptions. Honest.

8-|[/QUOTE]

I am 110% agree with Bsolve comment.Website ranking is heavily dependent on Google views(algo)...if they say cloaking is wrong then it is WRONG in any condition.

[seopool]

[QUOTE=BSolveIT]
Personally, I wouldn't consider delivering content based on IP to be cloaking.
[/QUOTE]

So what is cloaking as per your view ... ??

I think delivering content based on IP or User is a way of cloaking 8-|

[BSolveIT]

LOL!!
I've said it in almost every post I've made:

delivering different content to users than to search engines

It's a deliberate attempt to hide the true content of a page from the search engine spiders. Like offshoreseo and I said, the only interpretation of what cloaking is that matters, is Googles. And that's what Google says it is. Anything else a developer might do to improve the site experience for users at different geo-locations based on IP isn't cloaking.

Using CSS/DHTML to hide page elements based on user settings isn't cloaking either, unless the hidden elements can't ever be seen no matter what the user does - then it's cloaking.

e.g.
On our site, we have an Xpress Contact System. It's hidden from view using CSS, but can be viewed if you click to open it. There's nothing wrong in that. On the other hand, if the hidden content couldn't be seen by clicking somewhere, or a user preference or something....if there was no way any user could ever see it, then clearly the content is there purely for a search engine to index it even though no user will ever see it. Thats cloaking.

If you use script to determine that a web request is coming from googlebot, for example, and show a page specially design just for googlebot that no user will ever see - thats cloaking...on a much more serious level. hehe - but either one will get you banned.

What it all boils down to is a deliberate attempt to differentiate perceived content based on whether the web request is coming from a user, or a search engine.

If you ever find yourself adding content to any page because you want it to be indexed, but that you don't want any users to see (ever) - it's cloaking.

[BSolveIT]

Sorry, I wanted to add, delivering content based on IP or User is completely fine and isn't considered cloaking, unless what your actually trying to do is determine if the web request is coming from a search engine spider and delivering content based on that determination, which differs from the content that all other users would see.

If the determination of IP or User is merely to deliver an improved experience to the user based on their location or settings - thats just good web design. In these circumstances, the same logic gets applied to the IP of the search engine spider which would then in turn see the same content as a user at that location, and/or an anonymous user. Therefore, it's not cloaking.

:)

[seopool]

You must review the thread more closely

I already discuss "Cloaking versus IP Delivery" before, (review that)

Again if you use cloaking for better SE ranking then it is really harmful (Search Engines are not Fools) and I did not said anywhere that it is right,
But you can use cloaking for better content delivery to your users and I don't think there is any bad thing in this way :) simple

[BSolveIT]

hehehe!!

Thats why I said I can see where you join those dots. I mean, I really can understand where your coming from, and why you would say what your saying - completely. Honest.

It's just that what your talking about in terms of improving the user experience isn't what we would refer to as cloaking - but as I say, I can understand why you (and anyone else) might think of it as cloaking. ....but it isn't cloaking, not in terms of SEO.

And your right again also, that improving the user experience is a good thing. A very good thing actually. I wouldn't have got involved in this thread at all other than it worried me that the chap who started the thread might mis-understand you and think it's ok to use "cloaking".... which of course it isn't.

All the best!

;)

[seopool]

[QUOTE=BSolveIT]hehehe!!

Thats why I said I can see where you join those dots. I mean, I really can understand where your coming from, and why you would say what your saying - completely. Honest.

It's just that what your talking about in terms of improving the user experience isn't what we would refer to as cloaking - but as I say, I can understand why you (and anyone else) might think of it as cloaking. ....but it isn't cloaking, not in terms of SEO.

And your right again also, that improving the user experience is a good thing. A very good thing actually. I wouldn't have got involved in this thread at all other than it worried me that the chap who started the thread might mis-understand you and think it's ok to use "cloaking".... which of course it isn't.

All the best!

;)[/QUOTE]

You looks very confused.... :) ha ha ha,

As per your point of view if a website delivering different content to their user then that is not cloaking but in same case if the website delivery different content to search engine then its called cloaking ….. :D

I hope its your personal thought …

[Mit]

Simple and Straight ANSWER -

please don't make search engines as well as your visitors fool around....

Cloaking is bad, we all know that....

So,,, why this debate ???

[BSolveIT]

Mit - I have to admit, this is getting on my nerves now too. hehe

seopool - exactly. Cloaking is when you deliver different content to a search engine than to a user. That includes hiding content from all users that because it's there only to be indexed by search engines.

Anything else by way of dynamic content is WEB DESIGN.

Cloaking isn't cloaking because some piece of content isn't visible under certain circumstances - it's cloaking when it's not visible under ANY circumstances.....unless the request comes from a search engine.

Again, I really do understand your point of view. But as I'm sure everyone will agree, it's not your opinion of whats cloaking that really matters, or mine. It's Googles. Google only cares if you attempt to deliver different content to them than to a user, simply because they are Google. It is quite rightly wrong, and misleading - not just to Google, but to people doing searches... like you and me. Thats all that matters.

Anything else you might do is nothing more than web design. If it improves the visitors experience, then thats great - absolutely no problem at all because your not cloaking. Cloaking being the deliberate attempt to mislead search engines (specifically) as to the content of your pages - when in fact no user will ever be able to see that content.

:D

[jocelyn]

[QUOTE=Mit]So,,, why this debate ???[/QUOTE]Cause some like to debate maybe... had a friend that would argue a lost cause just for the sake of argueing... lol

One legitimate form of cloaking is the way I see threads and sections as a MOD and how google see it... I see the tons of deleted posts and threads... so I see it but googlebot doesn't. That would be a form of cloaking, but from my point of view only, not from yours, cause the cache you'll get is like what you see, but I don't see the same content as you.

[chrisbroad]

[QUOTE=BSolveIT]Hmmm...well...I see where you're coming from seopool. But if your deploying cloaking techniques to achieve "themes", then your going about it the wrong way and likely to get penalised, banned, or devalued in some way.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from. However, when people talk about cloaking, it's fair to say they are talking about presenting different content to the search engines than to regular users. Theming is a different concept altogether, but always starts with a default user who'll see things exactly as the search engine spider would. Therefore, it's not cloaking. As I said though, inexperienced developers might use cloaking techniques to achieve themes, but thats a mistake.

Google state quite clearly that under no circumstances should you deploy any form of cloaking. By this they mean that their spider, googlebot, should be presented with exactly the same content as users, at least a default anonymous user.

Some webmasters have wrongly intrepreted some of the webmaster guidelines to mean that you should use cloaking in some situations (such as if your site uses session id's in the URL's) to mean that you should use cloaking in order to help googlebot spider your site. Again, it's not true. You will be penalised for any cloaking that causes the spider to see different content/pages than a default user - no matter what your intentions.

So, cloaking (having different content for users than for SE spiders) is always a bad thing - without exception.

Themes are completely fine, and there should be no reason to deploy cloaking techniques in order to enable theming support.

:)[/QUOTE]


i m satisfied for ur suggestion

thanx...

[kostik]

Don't use cloaking if you don't want being banned.

[offshoreSEO]

Good Reply Amit!!

[QUOTE=Mit]Simple and Straight ANSWER -

please don't make search engines as well as your visitors fool around....

Cloaking is bad, we all know that....

So,,, why this debate ???[/QUOTE]

[amar.seo]

Hi Amit ,
After all I am agree with you.


Thanks
Amar
http://www.billigacigg.se

[Mit]

[QUOTE=amar.seo]After all I am agree with you.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Amar, Welcome to Forum,

Thanks guys that you agree with me here.

Actually, if something has bad consequences, then how could we say it is good. He should use ethical works.

[chrisbroad]

[QUOTE=offshoreSEO]How it is useful and for what purpose?[/QUOTE]

"Cloaking" is a technical method of analyzing search engine IP numbers and/or http user agents and accordingly delivering content dependant upon it. Each search engine has a range of IP numbers which they use to spider web sites. Cloaking detects whether a visitor is "human" or a search engine robot. If the visitor is a search engine robot then a special optimized page is delivered to the robot for indexation. If it is a human visitor then a normal web page is delivered. It is also known that if detected by many search engines, especially Google, it can lead to your site being banned or penalized. There are legitimate uses for cloaking (GEO delivery) but it is not something search engines officially approve of.

so Cloaking is use full for us but depend upon how to use it.

[seopool]

[QUOTE=chrisbroad]"Cloaking" is a technical method of analyzing search engine IP numbers and/or http user agents and accordingly delivering content dependant upon it. Each search engine has a range of IP numbers which they use to spider web sites. Cloaking detects whether a visitor is "human" or a search engine robot. If the visitor is a search engine robot then a special optimized page is delivered to the robot for indexation. If it is a human visitor then a normal web page is delivered. It is also known that if detected by many search engines, especially Google, it can lead to your site being banned or penalized. There are legitimate uses for cloaking (GEO delivery) but it is not something search engines officially approve of.

so Cloaking is use full for us but depend upon how to use it.[/QUOTE]


Really Nice Posting.... Keep it up

[Christine8]

Did you know that GoDaddy (or most of the cheapo hosts) run the ultimate cloaking system (http://www.colizer.com/internet-marketing/search-engine-marketing/cloaking.php) by serving AdSense on un-used domains?

[erzanajones]

The good
When is cloaking a good thing? When you decide to bypass some limitations of search engine spiders in getting your pages indexed so that your relevant content can be found.
• Modern browsers can interpret and render many more elements than a search engine spider can, to design an appealing page can mean condemming it to a life of poor indexability. To make it search engine friendly means you may not be able to use some of the people pleasing elements you otherwise might. Coaking let's you do both.
• Using javascript for navigation can mean that a search engine spider cannot follow any of the links. In this case simply using cloaking to deliver the exact same page but with text links instead of javascript will be a great help.
• You already have a great ranking page and are afraid to change navigation, images, layout, because you don't know how it will affect you ranking. By delivering the same well ranking page(s) as always to the search engines you are now free to change your design.
• You would like to add a little flash :) to your site but now the search engines ignore it altogether, delivering a text description of your flash site gets around the problem nicely.
• Using images for titles, links, etc. looks great but is not as effective as using plain text for search engines, ever tried to use <H1> tags around your images? :) The same page delivered with text links works great in this instance.
• To get exact placement many pages have very complex table structures, these pages make poor spider food, they simply cannon extract relevant text from many levels of nested tables. The exact same page delivered using a simple HTML structure is happily gobbled up and indexed with the relevant text being both easy to extract and very prominent.


• The bad
When is cloaking a bad thing? When you decide to bypass some limitations of search engine spiders and trick them in getting irrelevant content indexed.
• Delivering content that is irrelevant to what you will show regular visitors is a violation at all search engines (spamming), and will get your pages dropped or your site banned, depending on how far off base you are.
• Delivering many pages that all lead to the same page is bad, bad, bad (spamming), you should optimize one keyword phrase per page, and make more pages if you want to optimize for another keyword phrase. If a single page contains many different topics, then consider isolating the more impotant topics on separate pages. This will also work for a shopping site, have less items per page so you can properly describe what the page contains.
• Delivering other peoples content is bad10 (yes to the power of 10), this is the most sure fire way to get into trouble. Except for the ugly stuff.