Cloaking Services??

[Guzman]

I am responsible for SEO on our company e-commerce site and senior management have given me a sizeable budget to specifically implement a Cloaking campaign as we have recently been badly affected by the "jagger" update.
I am researching the best Cloaking service provider and so far have only found www.fantomaster-services.com who seem to offer such a service.

Has anyone ever heard of Fantomaster? Do they have good reputation?

There must be other similar companies out there?

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Marcia]

Hi! There was a similar discussion a few months ago that you may want to read:

A Liittle Help Needed Regarding Cloaking (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=63362)

There must be other similar companies out there?Yes there are, but they're generally not as open regarding the services they offer.

[volatilegx]

There are a number of competing products available. I won't name any names, but you can check out the DMOZ listing for some examples: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Promotion/Cloaking/

Dan

[bhartzer]

I've used John Heard's IP Delivery for years now (since 2001 or so) and am totally happy with it. I've heard good things about Fantomaster from people I trust, so I would be confident recommending IP Delivery or the Fantomaster solution.

What possibly makes you think that cloaking your site is going to help you deal with the Jagger update? Personally, I don't think cloaking is going to help with this latest update. Most of the changes you're probably going to need to make are going to be related to off-page factors--nothing you can cloak anyway.

[glengara]

*What possibly makes you think that cloaking your site is going to help you deal with the Jagger update?*

I was sort of wondering that myself ;-)

[sytemaker]

...and senior management have given me a sizeable budget to specifically implement a Cloaking campaign as we have recently been badly affected by the "jagger" update.

Senior management might be best advised to instead invest some time in reading Google's guidelines (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html) in particular this section:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Guidelines - Specific recommendations:

# Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
# Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects.
# Don't send automated queries to Google.
# Don't load pages with irrelevant words.
# Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
# Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.

These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites). It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it. Webmasters who spend their energies upholding the spirit of the basic principles listed above will provide a much better user experience and subsequently enjoy better ranking than those who spend their time looking for loopholes they can exploit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure to live up to these guidelines may result in a far more sizeable budget repairing the damage caused when Google knocks your site into oblivion.