|
#61
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But, redirecting is the best method of allowing the bots to understand the content of a 100% Flash website. Not only that, but it's really the only method of sending the user to a specific location within a Flash site based off of their search results. Very nice if you are the user. redirecting levels the playing field for Flash...I know, I know, no one here cares about Flash....but hey, always trying to help my clients. 
|
|
#64
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the same page that the flash file exists on link to a PDF file that descibes everything that's in the Flash file that you want the search engines to pick up on and just make sure that the text isn't locked when you create and save the PDF. Engines that read PDF files will then index your information.
|
|
#66
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
that really isn't that helpful, I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a lesson on optimizing Flash, you can find that here: htt[p]://www.search-this.com/website_promotion/ASP.NET_redirection.aspx (remove braces around the p in htt[p]) , but my point is audoredirecting comes in very handy in this case.
|
|
#67
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Getting off topic but...
>flat file vs.MySql You would be amazed at how fast a flat file can be referenced, especially if you come up with creative ways to keep the file sizes down Off topic even more. fantomaster, you still making a living promoting your warez? I mean the heyday for machine generated stuff has come and gone unless you are talking about bottom feeding. I remember the way you use to logspam the net, did you get much of a return on that?
|
|
#68
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, apodictic statements like that tend to be a mite too black-and-white for my personal taste. Depends entirely of what you actually produce, mechanical or otherwise - there's plenty of human generated stuff around that wouldn't hit the mark if you rubbed it on with a wad of Brillo. We can probably agree that at the end of the day, all that counts are results. So yes, we're quite comfy with selling our fantomas shadowMaker(TM), thank you very much. But of course, the real money is in actually servicing SEO clients with the caliber of results we do tend to achieve. Quote:
 Sure beats the hell out of banner ads.Actually, Brett brought it up in an exchange and we decided to have a bash at it. It's quite effective, provided you target the right people, i. e. the more tech savvy webmaster, with the right sort of product. That apart, it's a pretty good method for getting a fairly reliable indication of how many sites are actually online under which TLD, etc. - invaluable for statistical analysis.
|
|
#69
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
>highly targeted "logfile marketing".
That is priceless, I'll have to quote you some time. Well, I don't know how targeted you actually were, I had a couple hundred thousand pages floating out there and I got several hundred a day from you. >apodictic statements Okay, I'll put it this way... cloaking = radio link pop = television Or more: cloaking = polyester link pop = cotton You can bottom feed for F500 companies though, I've done it plenty -- those 200k pages weren't for porn.
|
|
#70
09-02-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But why would anyone other than a SE want to spot a cloaked page in the first place?
|
|
#71
09-02-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
What we did target, however, was webmasters who would actually look at their logs and follow up links - that's one a very, very tiny minority but what you do get in the end is highly prequalified techie traffic. Now, all you need is some product or service that will appeal to this specific crowd, and bingo! Anyway, kudos to you for noticing it at all - that makes you a member of a very select elite. As if you didn't know ... Quote:
In any case, I find the analogy pretty much flawed, just as is Google's PR rationale: link pop may - possibly - work like a song in academia (after all, it's nothing but an overblown citation index - and let's not get into the issue that there are plenty of those who would reasonably argue that citation indices are nothing but a load of bull in the first place, blatantly copycatting the music industry as they do ...). But in a commercial/commercialized Internet environment? Bah! Call it human nature, call it stupidity or call it entrepreneurial shrewdness - people simply aren't that amenable to cross linking with their competitors. Which begs the obvious question of what to do if you're running a company nobody important wants to link to. Plus, we've always viewed cloaking as being just one option in a whole arsenal of tools. A very powerful one, indeed, but it's never been a particularly wise policy putting all your eggs in one basket. And if you know how to get decent link pop to your cloaked domains as well, why not make use of it? Of course, link pop shouldn't be equated with PR (not saying you did - just pointing to the fact that lots of people seem to subscribe to exactly this simplistic view these days) as it's a lot more than that. But that is quite another story. As is the manner in which Google's continually been demoting the linkpop aspect of their PR algo for ages now ... Quote:
|
|
#72
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a couple of questions if I may fantomaster:
The reason I ask the first one is because I cloak some sites in a rather mild manner. I've not done anything to hard-core with the techniques but am always interested to see the possibilities... Presumably hiding links, and networks..? Nick
|
|
#73
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Though I'm not fantomaster
>> What purposes do webmasters use cloaking for other than on-page stuff? Once you have their spiderspy(TM) list then it's on. You can just match IP's when regular pages are loaded and add or subtract blocks of code ie meta tags, additional text, navigation etc... Since the spiderspy.txt file is structured like so: 216.22.22.22 #216.22.22.21 #216.22.22.20 216.22.22.19 It's fairly easy to use a $buffer = fget(...) if($buffer == $_SERVER["REMOTE_ADDRESS"]) to see if it's a spider. Of course this code is just a partial example but you can see where I'm going with it. I call these hybrid cloaks because you serve the same page to both user and spider. Just remember that the # comments are bots you don't want. Example would be bablefish. You let that sucker through and it will translate your spider only site and when someone tries to view your site in spanish they see a translated version of your spider food ha!
|
|
#74
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
I use this:
Code:
function isbot() {
$iplist=file('/path/to/ips.txt');
$bot=0;
foreach($iplist as $key => $val) {
$remote=$_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'];
$ip=trim($val);
if(preg_match("/$ip/", $remote)) {
$bot++;
}
}
if($bot == 0) { // Human
return FALSE;
} else return TRUE;
}
 Nick
|
|
#75
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do have a question for the great fantonmaster. I have seen your apps in action and they are as you say very "industrial".
I came across a small site offering a cloaking solution http://www.searchenginecloaker.com/ do you have a comment on that product compared to yours, this one seems new to me..... Thanks Fantomaster for showing up here ! Cheers WC Last edited by Incubator : 09-03-2004 at 11:56 AM.
|
|
#76
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi, Inubator,
and thanks for the friendly welcome! Quote:
However, I guess I may point out that AFAIK it's not an entirely "new" product - I seem to remember having seen it around for the better part of a year and a half or so.
|
|
#77
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#79
09-03-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I was cloaking to hell I had servers doing a lot of work. Because of that I would actually hard wire my IP regex code into the script itself instead of grabbing an external file and throwing the IPs into a foreach loop. The response time made a difference. The system completely smokes some big operations out there pushing *SQL DBs on a lot more horsepower. Of course, today servers are a lot stronger, so it is probably less important
|
|
#80
09-03-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
However, for large scale systems you still want to embed the most resouce entensive processes in some more controlable and fast executable envirements than scripting. It's less flexible but still more stable, in my experience
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
