Danny's Article on Cloaking

[ihelpyou]

Since Danny closed the current debate on cloaking and how many out there are confusing the general public as to the "real" meaning of the word, what do we think about his article on this cloaking issue?

http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2165231

Some of us want to clearly make sure NO one is confused, so let's discuss this further.

[lots0]

Lets not Doug.

I think it is obvious from the previously closed thread that the only person here that does not understand what "cloaking" is, is you.

You simply refuse to accept what the rest of the SEO industry accepts as fact.

Stop beating a dead horse.

[ihelpyou]

Lets not Doug.

I think it is obvious from the previously closed thread that the only person here that does not understand what "cloaking" is, is you.

You simply refuse to accept what the rest of the SEO industry accepts as fact.

Stop beating a dead horse.
Dead horse?

I guess you did not read the many posts in that thread, and not just posts from me? Try reading it again lotso.

When I'm done with something else, I'll start this thread off with a point by point of the article.

If you think I'm going to let the spammers spin their stuff and continue to blur the issue of cloaking, you would be mistaken.

And no, the "industry" does not accept this issue as fact at all. I guess if you consider yourself as the "industry", then it might hold water.

[Daria_Goetsch]

Hi everyone,

Before more posts are made, please be sure to keep personal remarks out of the thread. If we're going to discuss this topic, let's keep to the subject.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Allthough I would personally express myself different than lots0, I do agree that there is really no problem here - maybe except for the fact that some SEO's seems to want simple answers to complex questions. I think i have, like many other good SEOs, managed to communicate such complexities to the neccesary level with the clients I work for. I never found a need for black and white definitions of things that I experience is mostly gray areas.

In that sense I think it's right as some say, that this is mostly about one "spin" or another. I have one profile and policy (or "ethics" if you like) on the work I do that I found work well. Off course I will argue that my way is a good way but I am not trying to make everyone do like me.

And that's where I have a problem about debates like this - it turns "religious". I do not like to be told things in the line of "my way is the only right way (ethical, morally corrct or whatever way you define being better)". I have no problems discussing different points of view on a case like cloaking but I do not think it lead to anything usefull if one side of the discussion will only be happy once everyone follow their (in my oppinion narrow minded) "religion". It's not going to happen.

[Nick W]

I will not take part in the promotion of agendas.

Nick

[Marcia]

From the article:
Someone who's going to engage in unapproved cloaking and who is professional will tell you the risks and not try to make you think that cloaking content is something "everyone does." Instead, they'll explain why they do it, why they think it works and what the possible downsides will be. They'll do this because they often work with clients prepared to take those risks, so they aren't interested in trying to disguise what they are doing.

That sums it up perfectly.

lots0:
I think it is obvious from the previously closed thread...
I think it's obvious from the previously closed thread that enough is enough.

[ihelpyou]

My "agenda" as you put it is the same one of many of us.

Education

Does anyone have a problem with that?

We don't wish to educate 'you' as such, as your views are clearly expressed. You think that cloaking should use it's broadest form of all content delivery is cloaking.

Some of us use the word cloaking with the form it closely relates to:

The word is defined as something hidden, or secret, or a cape, etc.

If that is indeed the definition of the word, I see no reason why some of you have a problem using the word in the right way.

[ihelpyou]

Someone who's going to engage in unapproved cloaking and who is professional will tell you the risks and not try to make you think that cloaking content is something "everyone does." Instead, they'll explain why they do it, why they think it works and what the possible downsides will be. They'll do this because they often work with clients prepared to take those risks, so they aren't interested in trying to disguise what they are doing.
That sums up nothing at all.

There is no "unapproved" or "approved" cloaking.

All cloaking is deceiving the search engine spider. That's simple.

Any type of 'trusted feeds' is not cloaking. The search engine is "not" being deceived in any way. A trusted feed has the 'permission' of the search engine, so that is not deception at all.

Cloaking is deception.

[Marcia]

The above quote sums it up perfectly as far as the ethical issue is concerned with SEO/client relationships. Just as it does for any high-risk techniques.

Here's the summary of the definition

"Cloaking is getting a search engine to record content for a URL that is different than what a searcher will ultimately see, often intentionally..."

So that sums it up nicely as far as terminology is concerned.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I do not understand what your goal is...? You do not agree with Danny Sullivans definitions. You clearly do not agree with people like me, lots0, NickW and littleman (realizing we may not even have the exact same oppinion). I know there are other people that defend you oppinions, ihelpyou and I have, as I said, no problem with that. But you just seem to have a big problem with the rest of us that believe different.

I am not going to stop talking about this just as well as I know others will continue to express their oppions on this and other sensitive subjects. I am always willing to listen to new arguments on anything - thats why I like debates, but I have yet to hear anything that will change my mind on cloaking.

But then maybe you, ihelpyou, and likeminded's goal is not to change my mind, Dannys mind or others oppinion about cloaking (no matter where they are on the "good/bad" scale). In that case I am just generally confused on what it is your side of the argument is hoping to acomplish ...

[ihelpyou]

I thought the other thread was clear in what we wanted to accomplish?

We simply want to use the word cloaking in the right way. It's the way the definition of cloaking has been used for years.

We also want to make sure there is no confusion to the general public. We know that you and others with your opinions about this do not want to change your particular opinions about it. That's not to say that we should not be wanting to "educate" the general public as to what true cloaking actually is. We want to get rid of the confusion, and we are trying to use the word cloaking in the best way possible to do this.

[Daria_Goetsch]

My "agenda" as you put it is the same one of many of us.

Education

Does anyone have a problem with that?

Education to me means sharing information and learning from it. What you do with that information once you receive it is an individual choice.

In my experience, educating others means providing the information and then letting them formulate their own conclusions.

[seomike]

Funny thing ihelpyou is that when I explain cloaking people get it and want it :) Just depends on how you explain it and what type of bias you have towards it.

Someone that explains cloaking as the plague of the internet will have educated people toward their agenda people like me that say, "hey here is cloaking this is what you can do with it but there are risks but just to let you know the cloak we are talking about has never been broken", all seem to have a different opinion. They want it but we just won't do it for them. We've educated them and detoured them at the same time from doing it to their core site. 3rd party sites now are an entire different ball game ;)

[ihelpyou]

Yes, exactly Daria.

Which is why this cloaking debate needs to be discussed thoroughly and completely.

If we don't discuss it, all readers of these forums are left with:

Google cloaks.
Yahoo cloaks.

That's misleading and not helpful.

[Daria_Goetsch]

Ok, then let's leave out the "us" and "we" arguments, as no matter what anyone says, we will undoubtedly need to agree to disagree.

Instead, let's talk about what cloaking is, what it means to the search engines and optimizers, and what it means to clients who use it.

There are members who know much about cloaking, please feel free to share your experiences, good and bad.

[seomike]

What's wrong with a cloaked 3rd party domain that is just used to as a PR/link pop generator for a core site? 1. it isn't built to out rank others 2. it's a dedicated site to boost the clients core site. 3. doesn't bother anyone. 4. Willl never jeopardize the clients site because the client doesn't link to it. 5. is on theme and is a good tool? 6. Its the type of optimization that you can turn off if a client screws you over and doesn't pay his bills.

Please educate me?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

If all you get from this, and previous similar discussions is: "Yahoo cloak and Google cloak" as an argument against your believes I think you are missing a lot of valid arguments put out not just by me and others in this thread but also in the article Danny wrote some time ago (referenced in the top of this thread)

Headline: Cloaking Does Not Equal Spam
This is an important distinction to make, because some people like Perkins want to declare that cloaking is automatically equal to spamming search engines. To me, that's not necessarily the case.

I may have different ways of saying this but I basically agree with this, and a lot of other things, in his article.

[ihelpyou]

The point seems to be missing.

"Cloaking" should not be a broad-based term.

It should be used for it's intended definition and purpose.

Google does not cloak. It's not deceiving a search engine spider, so it's not cloaking.

Detecting a disability and sending that disability to the correct page is not cloaking either. It's simply another form of content delivery.

Specifically detecting a search engine spider and sending that spider to a particular page is cloaking. It's deceiving the search engine as the browser gets a different page than the spider. It's done with the intent of spam. It's done to improve the relevance of the page over and above which it would not otherwise attain.

Instead of actually "fixing" the page or actually implementing a suitable other technique without risk, the user of cloaking assumes 'lots' of risks by detecting the se spider.

No other form of content delivery is cloaking as no other form is deceiving a search engine spider.

[seomike]

Content delivery = Catering to all user types including spiders, bots, browsers, platforms, operating systems, language and screen resolution.

Cloaking = all of the above :) just kidding

Cloaking = Switching or redirecting files for only bots and spiders.

[lots0]

That's not to say that we should not be wanting to "educate" the general public as to what true cloaking actually is.

First, why would the general public give a hoot about what cloaking is or is not?

Don't get me wrong I am all for "education" for those that want it. I do donate quite a bit of my time educating webmasters that want to learn about SEO.

But this idea of "educating" the general public on cloaking is getting to sound more and more like someone wanting everyone to agree with him and his definitions.

Personally, I don't see the word "cloaking" as negative. Stealth Fighters are "cloaked" is that evil? Did not Frodo use a cloak to keep the cold out? What about all those magic cloaks that always help the good guys in the fantasy stories? The statue of King Kamehameha is often cloaked in beautiful feathers.

If you see the word "cloaking" as evil or negative maybe you should consider changing your point of view...

Content delivery = Catering to all user types including spiders, bots, browsers, platforms, operating systems, language and screen resolution.
Content delivery = what my browser does, it delivers content to me.

[ihelpyou]

Cloaking = Switching or redirecting files for only bots and spiders.
That's seems to be good Mike!

That is using the word cloaking for what it was intended. It's more specific.

[seomike]

Content delivery = what my browser does, it delivers content to me.

Ha! I like that better
:D

or how about this.

Content Delivery = Could careless how it happens as long as it looks good in my screen :D

[lots0]

So When Google, Yahoo or M$N cloaks it is not deception?

How can you say that?

When someone in Australia searches google and they are redirected by cloaking to google.com.au without being told that they are being redirected away from google.com, the main google index how can this not be deceptive?

How do you justify this?

[dannysullivan]

As a reminder, we've just had a long debate about the definition on cloaking in this thread. I closed (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=9672&postcount=9672) that thread because it seemed points all around had been well argued.

Doug, you've since decided it's important to reopen the debate specifically around my article from last year. OK then, we'll give this new thread a bit longer to run.

Everyone should keep comments related to the points raised and examined in that article, since that's what this thread is supposed to be about. Also, if the arguments simply appear to be a rehash of what's already been covered in the previous thread on cloaking, we'll close this thread as well and put a hold on any future threads debating the definition of cloaking for the next two weeks, simply to give everyone a break.

Those are the ground rules for this thread going forward. If anyone has a problem with this, please PM me. Comments on this decision in this thread will simply be deleted as off-topic by moderators. Aside from that, have it the debate over the article, and try to advance things past where the last thread on cloaking left off.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, I agree. Your article is mostly about cloaking and that is why I started this thing. To discuss cloaking and your article.

Anyway:

Lotso: That's using the word cloaking as a broad meaning. Cloaking should be discussed in the context of SEO. That's like saying:

All things a website can do is cloaking.

My forums use a cookie to detect whether it's a returning user who is logged in. These forums use the same type of cookie. To use the broad definition, would also say that "all" forums cloak. That's not how the word cloaking should be used. That's only serving to keep the public confused.

Cloaking should be discussed in the context of the search engines and SEO. If you are detecting a search engine spider, you are deceiving that spider. If you are delivering any other type content and are not detecting a spider, it's just a form of content delivery.

Danny's article wrote:
When cloaking, you show the search engine something different than what you show a user. There are many ways to cloak, but those who are serious about it typically do what's called IP cloaking. This means that you know all the internet addresses that the major search engines spiders use when they access the web, their "internet protocol" addresses. That's the IP in IP cloaking. If you see a request come from one of these known addresses, then you deliver your custom content. Meanwhile, a human user sees something different.

The page in the example above used cloaking. When I examined it, the content wasn't nonsensical. Instead, I got a simple page, easily readable, with two links that lead me to get product information about Christian artist Thomas Kinkade at other web sites. The person behind this page no doubt earns affiliate fees from clicks off this page. No doubt, the page will also be removed by Google soon. Google has a specific ban against cloaking and may take action against pages doing this.
That's good! That is cloaking.

[Marcia]

When cloaking, you show the search engine something different than what you show a user.
Yes, that's exactly what cloaking is. The article is very clear. So what's the problem with that?

[littleman]

Can you guys close this thread too? It is really going to confuse newbies, fill them up with BS from a guy who wants to make the word conform to his definitions with nearly religious fanaticism.

[Marcia]

>>Can you guys close this thread too?

Yes, please do close it.

It's nothing more than repetition; the article isn't being discussed, it's being redefined - and newbies will get more than confused, they'll think this is all that SEO is about and that couldn't be further from the truth.

[rustybrick]

I'll be more then happy to close a thread. It's not often where members request a thread to be close. I'll jump at that opportunity. :)