Why Cloaking Is Always A Bad Idea

[Advisor]

For anyone who may have missed this week's newsletter for whatever reason, you missed a very important article written by our very own Alan Perkins.

I think it's an important article for everyone in the SEO biz to read, so I'm taking the liberty of reprinting it here, along with my intro and comments at the end. The archived link to it at my site is here: Why Cloaking Is Always A Bad Idea (http://www.highrankings.com/issue041.htm#guest).

~~~Guest Article~~~

++Why Cloaking Is Always A Bad Idea++

Our guest article today is one that is near and dear to my heart. I
asked my friend Alan Perkins to write it for me because I was sick of
seeing prominent people in our industry saying that cloaking is "okay
under certain circumstances." In reality, many who have made that
statement were not really talking about cloaking at all. For
instance, in an interview I published here last year with Stephen
Baker from FAST <http://www.highrankings.com/issue004.htm#seonews1> he
said, "Cloaked pages may be okay depending on their intent." But
guess what? Turns out he was talking about trusted XML feeds, not
cloaking.

Unfortunately, too many people misuse the term "cloaking." Even Danny
Sullivan has referred to XML feeds as cloaking, and so have many
others. As you will learn from the following article, trusted XML
feeds are NOT cloaking, nor are many other content delivery methods
that some people call cloaking. Once you understand what cloaking is
and isn't, you'll hopefully agree that cloaking is *always* a bad
idea.

So without further ado, here's Alan...

Guest Article
Why Cloaking Is Always A Bad Idea
By Alan Perkins

All the search engines say "don't cloak" in their Webmaster FAQs.
That's pretty clear advice, isn't it? But wait. Why should the search
engines dictate how we create our sites? And don't search engines
themselves cloak - if they can, why not us?

What Is Cloaking?

To answer these *apparent* contradictions, you need to know what
search engines mean when they say "don't cloak." They all mean the
same thing, which Google defines as follows:

"The term 'cloaking' is used to describe a Website that returns
altered Web pages to search engines crawling the site. In other words,
the Web server is programmed to return different content to [a search
engine] than it returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to
distort search engine rankings." (See:
<http://www.google.com/webmasters/faq.html#cloaking>.)

So cloaking is something a server is programmed to do only when it
sees a search engine robot visiting the site. It's called 'cloaking'
because it involves hiding the content people will see, and
substituting it with content designed to rank higher in the search
engine results pages (SERPs).

Search engines have a problem with cloaking because it makes a mockery
of their ranking algorithms. These algorithms rank pages partly
according to what people will see on the page. When this information
is deliberately withheld, the algorithm cannot do its job. Cloaking is
the ultimate form of invisible text - nobody sees it, not even by
viewing the HTML source code.

Personalized Content Delivery Is Not Cloaking

One reason why there's so much debate over whether cloaking is okay or
not, is because there are other techniques Webmasters use on Websites
that some people call cloaking, when in reality, they're not cloaking
at all. Remember, cloaking is *only* showing one thing to people, and
another thing to search engine robots.

So, what about all these other things like geo-IP delivery, secure
content or personalised delivery?

Cloaking is none of these things. Cloaking is *only* an application
that exists to hide content from the search engines.

Here's a quick rule of thumb to help you understand what cloaking is
(and more importantly...what it isn't) - if you need to know a search
engine's IP address or some details from its HTTP request (e.g., its
user agent name) in order to deliver content, you are probably
cloaking. If you don't need that information, then you are certainly
not cloaking.

XML Feeds Are Not Cloaking

In the last couple of years search engines have introduced XML feeds -
a way of automatically submitting hundreds or thousands of pages to
some search engines, while providing extra information about those
pages that does not appear on the actual pages people will see. Some
people describe these XML feeds as cloaking, but they are absolutely
not cloaking. They are XML feeds that are sanctioned by the search
engine -- that's all. If you are delivering an XML feed to a search
engine, then of course the search engine knows about it. You are not
hiding anything from them, and therefore, you are not cloaking.
Cloaked content is almost always HTML, not XML.

Cloaking Is Not A Technology But An Application

Another thing you hear about cloaking is "cloaking is only a
technology; technology is passive - it's the application of technology
that makes it right or wrong." Let me clear this one up too.
Cloaking is *not* a technology. Cloaking is the application of other
technologies to do as I've described above. The other technologies in
question are things like IP delivery and user agent delivery, which
are passive technologies. They have many applications other than
cloaking and are not wrong or bad in and of themselves. Cloaking is
an application, not a technology.

Cloaking Is Deceptive Advertising

I am against cloaking, as defined in this article, because cloaking
amounts to deceptive advertising in the search results. To illustrate
this, I'll draw a quick comparison between cloaked content and
pay-per-click (PPC) advertisements. Both offer ostensibly the same
thing: the ability to improve a page's position in the search results
without changing the content that searchers see. The difference is
that PPC advertisements are clearly labelled as advertisements.
Cloaking achieves a similar result, but it involves using deception to
obtain a commercial advantage. And, of course, the cloaked pages are
not clearly labelled in the search results because the search engine
did not know they were cloaked! So cloaking amounts to using
deception to obtain an unlabelled improved position for commercial
advantage - deceptive advertising.

Relevancy Makes No Difference

Another question you may have is what if the cloaked content is
relevant? Does that make it okay? Relevancy makes no difference.
PPC ads are relevant too (they are often checked by editors to ensure
this) but they still have to be labelled as advertising. An FTC
investigation into a complaint made by Ralph Nader's CommercialAlert
confirmed this last year. (See:
<http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php?category_id=1&subcategory_id
=24&article_id=113>.)

Cloaking Is Always A Bad Idea

Hopefully you now know what cloaking is and what it isn't. You should
also now know why some people (and search engines) think it's a bad
idea.

The way to improve a page's position in the search results without
paying for advertising is to 1) make sure the search engine spider can
find and index the page, 2) improve the content on the page, and 3)
improve the positioning of the page within the Web as a whole. You
never need to cloak. A perceived need to cloak usually indicates a
more fundamental problem with a site. Solve that fundamental problem
and you will probably improve your site for your visitors. A better
return on investment -- for less effort!

Alan Perkins, Co-founder
e-Brand Management
http://www.ebrandmanagement.com

[Jill's comments: Alan has been a leader in the fight against search
engine spam for many years. Google reps often quote his white paper,
"The Classification of Search Engine Spam"
<http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/>,
during the "Spam Police" sessions at the Search Engine Strategies
conferences.

As a side note, when I first read Alan's paper many years ago, I
didn't agree with it completely. In fact, I seem to remember
vehemently arguing against parts of it in a search engine forum.
Interestingly enough, I read it again a few weeks ago and found myself
in absolute total agreement with everything he wrote. I assumed that
Alan must have changed it over the years, yet he told me that he
hadn't. So if the paper hasn't changed, then what did? Hmm...maybe
Alan has me hypnotized or something! - J]

Jill

[Alan Perkins]

:D

[Advisor]

:green:

Ya think?

[ihelpyou]

That article absolutely sums things up very nicely. Great article! :cheers:

I liked this statement by Jill at the very start:
I asked my friend Alan Perkins to write it for me because I was sick of seeing prominent people in our industry saying that cloaking is "okay under certain circumstances."
And boy is that soooooo VERY true. Even FAST search seemed to say in that last interview they gave; "okay under certain circumstances".

That is sooo not right and soooo very wrong.

[Advisor]

Exactly, Doug. Which is why I wanted to post the article here too.

Hopefully, we can get everyone to agree on the definition of cloaking...what it is and what it isn't. Once that happens, we'll begin to see who really believes cloaking is okay and who doesn't.

I read a post in the Link Exchange Digest by a prominent SEO recently, where she mistakenly said she had no problem with cloaking when it was sanctioned by the engines (or something like that), but again, she was talking about Trusted Feed. Trusted feed is not cloaking!

I hope that industry experts will look to this article as having a good standard definition that we can all use. I knew Alan would be up to the task, and it came out perfect, imo!

Jill

[Farhan]

Very good article! I think it leaves no grey area to the issue. I've also heard of IP based cloaking ( Hope I am saying the correct word) and been told that it is ok. What actually is IP based cloaking?

[ihelpyou]

Yes. If you are not a spammer, the article should clear up misconceptions and any doubts you may have about what cloaking is and is not. If you 'are' a spammer, the article will not matter and will be ignored by you. The only arguement you have left as a spammer is to say things like:

"But Google cloaks, so why can't I"

The article clearly spells out that the way a spammer tries to confuse the issue simply ain't gonna work anymore. The spammer will still try.

Hopefully now, SEO's and others who do not quite get it, will now understand and will now 'get it'.

[ihelpyou]

Farhan; The only type of IP based delivery that IS cloaking is the kind that detects a search engine's spider IP address and delivers that IP/spider a page that is different than the browser sees.

That is cloaking. That is spam.

[Farhan]

Ah ok! So it was just another name for the same old ways of Cloaking. Very similar to the several names we have for doorway pages or Zebra Pages :D

[ihelpyou]

Well yes, but there are legitimate ways of using IP based delivery that is NOT cloaking. EX:

Detecting IP's based on a region, etc. You may wish to send visitors to a page based on what region of the country or the world or whatever. Only when you are detecting the spider IP's are you practicing 'cloaking'.

Correct me if I'm wrong Alan. :)

[Alan Perkins]

Looks like the article failed to do its job. :(

There is a technology called IP Delivery. It has many applications, some good, some bad.

IP Cloaking is the application of IP Delivery technology to deceive search engines, i.e. a bad application of IP Delivery, IMO.

[ihelpyou]

I gotta say the worse form of abuse about all the confusion of what is cloaking is when these "spammers" get up in front of a bunch of newbies and others who don't know any better at these SES conferences put on by internet.com.

All they do is talk about how ALL forms of content delivery is 'cloaking' and how all search engines practice cloaking and about how you can cloak as well as long as you are relevant, etc.

This is the absolute biggest farce we have going in our industry. Alan's article clearly tells us this and clearly spells out the fact that these conferences and heads of them are letting it go on and doing so either not knowingly, or doing so knowing how confusing it is. I don't know which.

If Danny Sullivan and others don't know what the difference is, then they should be alerted to this article to learn what 'is' the difference.

We should not have these people in front of a microphone teaching others the cloaking is 'okay' because of this and this and that and this.

IT AIN'T OKAY. It's never okay to cloak.

Please get it right, okay? I also expect and trust that at the next SES conference in Boston someone who knows what the flip they are talking about can explain Alan's latest article and even show it to the masses for all to see and learn from.

We have to put a stop to the spammers having a podium to tout their wares and to 'teach' people the WRONG ways. That SES conference should be one of learning the right ways, not the wrong ways.

[french dread]

Personnaly I hate region detection, it is a deceptive action of SEs as if I type hotbot.com i do not want to be redirected to hotbot.fr :) ugly spamming SE lol (joke)

[ihelpyou]

To all you spammers out there who are hiding behind private forums and maybe discussing this latest article....

Yes, we know what you try to do and say but it ain't gonna work anymore. You can call us the 'holy' whiners or anything else you wish but read that article over and over again to get it right.

The next time I see any of you spouting off at a conference or in a forum anywhere, I will 'call' you on it in a heartbeat and announce it to the world just what you are..... a spammer. And a low-life spammer at that. One who preys on the innocent for your own financial gain.

[Alan Perkins]

I agree, french dread. One of the principles of the Web is accessibility and equality to all. If someone says "Hey, french dread, take a look at Hotbot's home page today" you want to be able to see it!

Doug, you have to realise the debate is not about spam, but the meaning of a particular word in an SEO context. Most of the people who talk at SES are against spam (with certain notable exceptions). If we can just get the meaning of this word cleared up, I think it will help a lot of people.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, it's the spammers though who are using this word 'cloaking' in the wrong context and doing so to confuse people. I agree that it will clear up things with people who simply did not understand the difference. A spammer does know the difference and chooses to use it to describe all forms of delivery in order for confusion to take place. The article says that 'cloaking' is the 'application' of one form of 'delivery. Knowing there are many forms of delivery that do not use this 'application' goes a long ways to clearing up all the confusion. :)

[Advisor]

Unfortunately (and sadly) the main problem is that we cannot get everyone to agree on Alan's definition. That's really the only problem at the moment.

Most professional SEO companies do not use cloaking. Many use XML feeds, however, which is certainly like cloaking. It's easy to want to call xml feeds cloaking because it is so similar.

If we could all just agree that you need to find out a search engine spider's IP in order to cloak, we'd all agree.

But it seems that this definition is not acceptable to everyone, which is fine, but a shame, imo. It would solve a lot of problems to agree on this definition.

Like most SEO arguments out there, it's really a matter of semantics and definitions.

Oh well. Maybe we can petition Webster's Dictionary to use our def.? :D

Jill

[ihelpyou]

That's the point Jill.

It's not a matter of 'agreeing'. It's a matter of understanding. When it comes to people who do Not spam, it's a matter of understanding.

When it comes to people who DO spam, it's a matter of Not acknowledging the type of article that Alan put out. To acknowledge it and say that the article is right, would be saying that the only argument a spammer uses is uttered completely useless now. There is no way that segment of our industry will 'agree' with it. No way at all.

Heck, when you have that Tim guy from FAST search and Transfer Not understanding the definition of 'cloaking', you know you have a problem. By saying what he did, he clearly is confused about it and is blurring together the application of cloaking right along with all forms of content delivery.

It's funny that the only search engine that seems to understand the differences of ALL the forms of content delivery is Google. Now why is that?

[ihelpyou]

A very good example:

http://www.searchengineworld.com/misc/cloaking_agents.htm

of what is all around the internet and what is very wrong information. Brett Tabke needs to read and then reread Alan's article to get it right. Maybe he is confused? I don't know, but that page is wrong. Sorry Brett, but it's the facts.

Getting you to understand the differences and quit saying that cloaking is the 'technology' and then there are the applications. In reality, cloaking is one form of an 'application'. The others you list on that page are Not cloaking and Not spam. You are the type of people that has to understand the differences as you are 'out' there. Please feel free to respond to Alan's article. :)

Cloaking is always spam and is never okay.

[Advisor]

Doug, it has absolutely nothing to do with understanding the definition. To say that is to say that those people are unintelligent.

It has everything to do with agreeing on it.

There are many intelligent and informed people who simply don't agree that XML feeds are not cloaking. They understand perfectly and don't agree, as is their right.

It's too bad, but that's life.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

No Jill. We have to all understand what the word "cloaking" actually is.

No person out there who practices 'cloaking' in the way the article defines it, is going to 'agree' to anything about that article. It ain't gonna happen.

BUT, the people who do not 'cloak', according to the articles definition, are the people who we can get to understand the article's definition of 'cloaking'.

You are not understanding what my point is. :)

[dannysullivan]

"If Danny Sullivan and others don't know what the difference is, then they should be alerted to this article to learn what 'is' the difference."

I understand perfectly what cloaking is, as I define it in terms of search engine marketing:

"Cloaking is showing a searcher something different that what a search engine spider sees or records in its index."

That pretty much matches these definitions direct from the search engines themselves:

INKTOMI: Pages that give the search engine a different page than the public sees (cloaking).

TEOMA: Web pages that show different content than the spidered pages.

FYI, FAST and AltaVista have no definitions of cloaking on their web sites because neither has a specific ban that they've posted. As for Google, I'll come back to them below.

Alan, who I have great respect for, is incorrect in my view when he says that XML feeds are not cloaking. They are. They show spiders one thing and users the other.

Having said this, the point isn't whether XML feeds should be classed as cloaking or not. The point is, "When is cloaking acceptable?"

There's an easy answer here. It's acceptable when you have the full knowledge and cooperation of the search engine you are cloaking with. That happens for some people who use paid inclusion programs, in particular XML feeds. That's why Inktomi and Teoma have guidelines that say cloaking is bad yet allow it via XML.

Anyone who cloaks -- without the full knowledge and cooperation of a search engine -- is likely on shaky ground, at least for those search engines with clearly posted anti-cloaking guidelines. That especially means Google:

GOOGLE: The term "cloaking" is used to describe a website that returns altered webpages to search engines crawling the site. In other words, the webserver is programmed to return different content to Google than it returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to distort search engine rankings. This can mislead users about what they'll find when they click on a search result. To preserve the accuracy and quality of our search results, Google may permanently ban from our index any sites or site authors that engage in cloaking to distort their search rankings.

As for this oft-cited defense of cloaking:

"But Google cloaks, so why can't I"

If you go with the definition I've provided, then Google doesn't cloak. It's not showing something different that's going to be recorded in a search engine index. Case closed; no need to confuse the issue any longer with that argument.

As for this:

"We should not have these people in front of a microphone teaching others the cloaking is 'okay' because of this and this and that and this.

IT AIN'T OKAY. It's never okay to cloak.

Please get it right, okay? I also expect and trust that at the next SES conference in Boston someone who knows what the flip they are talking about can explain Alan's latest article and even show it to the masses for all to see and learn from.

We have to put a stop to the spammers having a podium to tout their wares and to 'teach' people the WRONG ways. That SES conference should be one of learning the right ways, not the wrong ways."

I've often had a "Cloaking And Doorways" session at the show, primarily to help educate people about what goes on in the search engine marketing industry. It's a difficult thing to be new and told "Don't cloak, don't cloak, don't cloak" without ever having a chance to understand what that means.

The session has always had an ethics and issues portion of it. Alan himself, if I recall correctly, was even on it for one of our London shows. That's one of the ways we try to teach what's "right" or at the very least, help people make their own decisions in an often-confusing industry.

For the record, I certainly have never been a proponent of traditional, non-approved or sanctioned cloaking. And in fairness, even those who do endorse that type of cloaking will often say that it's not for the vast majority of people, it has real dangers and that most people should avoid it.

To conclude, the point isn't that cloaking is bad but that non-approved cloaking is bad. If all you do is add the word "approved," then even the proponents of cloaking can be accomodated in this debate. That's because, while they may defend their right to cloak without approval, they'll also readily then admit that in these cases, they risk being banned.


[Edited to show Doug's words in the quote box so that it was clearer which words were Doug's and which were Danny's. - Jill]

[Advisor]

Okay, so how about we use the terms:

Spam-Cloaking: Needing the search engine spider's IP address to give them one thing and your users another.

NonSpam-Cloaking: Having explicit prior permission from a search engine to show one thing to the search engine and another thing to the users, often times for a fee.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Will this satisfy everyone?

Jill

[ihelpyou]

No Danny. I welcome your opinion with open arms, but there is No way we will ever come to terms with what cloaking is with the understanding you have.

XML feeds are Not cloaking.

Cloaking is spam.

XML feeds are Not spam.

And no Jill, you second example cannot have the word 'cloaking' in it as cloaking is spam.

Please re-read Alan's white paper and then also re-read Alan's article.

BTW, we seem to be the only industry in the world who 'teaches' all the different ways, and then........ let's the people decide for themselves what's right or wrong.

Most other industries have it set in stone that you cannot go into a store and steal. It's not this And that and you make the choice.

With spam, it seems we want to teach all things involved, and not actually "tell" newbies and others to NOT do it wrong. Do it right. There is only one way. That way is to Not spam. There is no other way.

But no, we tell people to make your own decisions and even put people up there to teach everyone how to spam and how to 'get away' with spam, etc.

What other industry will do it this way?

[Advisor]

XML feeds are Not cloaking. They are cloaking if you believe that showing the search engines one thing and showing people another thing is what cloaking is.

Apparently, many, many people believe that is what the definition is. Just because you or I don't believe in that definition, doesn't mean we can just dismiss it as being wrong.

So rather than say NO, that's NOT the definition, why not come up with one that everyone can agree on.

I think spam-cloaking and non-spam cloaking is a good start.

It doesn't do anyone any good to argue over definitions, when we can probably come up with ones that work, that most people agree with, and that can eventually become industry standards.

spam-cloaking spells out what it means very well. Nobody could do your traditional cloaking (ala Fantomaster for instance) and claim that it was non-spam cloaking. Right?

Plus, even if people believe that geo-targeting is cloaking, it would be non-spam cloaking because the search engines have sanctioned it.

These definitions should work for everyone, and it makes it very clear what you can do that falls in line with acceptable search engine standards, and what you can't. You CAN do non-spam cloaking. You can't do spam-cloaking. (Well you can, but you risk the wrath of the engines.)

Jill

[ihelpyou]

By using that thought process, you are giving the spammers/cloakers the cover they need to continue to confuse.

Alan's article was an attempt to do away with the confusion. It did it very well.

Some are simply not looking at it the right way.

Of course if you are giving the spiders one page and the browser another page, then you are cloaking, but there has got to be more details involved than that. If not, then you simply say that XML feeds are cloaking as well, which defeats the whole point of things.

You also are saying that the word 'cloaking' has many different forms. That ain't the case as there is only one 'application' of cloaking. The other forms of delivery uses other 'applications'.

Alan, looks like you may have to make this more clear. :)

[dannysullivan]

Danny learns to quote :)

Please re-read Alan's white paper and then also re-read Alan's article.

Again, with great respect to Alan, his opinions are his, not absolutes. Similarly, my opinions are mine, not absolutes.

The only absolutes we have about search engine spam are what the search engines themselves say. And, as my earlier message said, two of them don't post anti-cloaking guidelines at all. For another two, how they define cloaking goes against what they allow with trusted feeds. Google is absolutely clear -- and that's fine, for Google. But Google's definition works only for Google.

BTW, we seem to be the only industry in the world who 'teaches' all the different ways, and then........ let's the people decide for themselves what's right or wrong.

Hardly. Let's take PR. There are commonly accepted ways of trying to get good PR, such as press releases, staying in contact with reporters and so on. But should you promote a movie by posting anonymously in a forum? Absolutely not! Of course, this has happened, and people have gotten caught and been embarrassed by it. Yet, others have not been caught, will continue to do it and may even argue that hey, anything goes -- it's guerrilla PR.

Search engine marketing is not some unique creature because there is lots of gray. There are plenty of industries like that. The way you deal with it is to educate yourself and make decisions you believe to be correct.

I can only say again that the debate of cloaking=spam causes more confusion than it's hoped to clear up. If you accept that there is approved cloaking, the issue is far easier to deal with.

You cloaked with the search engines full approval? OK, then since they set the absolutes, you're OK.

You didn't have approval? Then I don't care if it was IP-based, frame-hidden, JavaScript-hidden, agent-detected or whatever, you may be standing on dangerous ground.

Anyone can understand this, and we don't go off into technical tangents. Nor does it "enable" non-approved cloaking or provide a smokescreen. If you don't have approval, then you are doing something risky.

Even someone like Fantomaster, I feel confident, would agree with this. I've heard Ralph talk on cloaking many times. He wants to do unapproved cloaking. He feels there are reasons for it, and he understands the risks. He also points out those risks to others. Fine. If he's doing someting risky, then the search engines (and others) may spot it.

[Alan Perkins]

What we are debating is the meaning of a word. Not whether spam is OK or not (I think Danny, Doug, Jill and I agree that it isn't) but just the meaning of the word "cloaking". Nothing more. Nothing less.

Given that cloaking pre-dates XML feeds, it obviously meant something before then. What it meant before XML feeds was simply "Giving search engines one thing and humans another". The question is - in that instance, which content was cloaked?

I believe - and maintain - that the content searchers see was cloaked from search engines. Danny believes the opposite - that the content search engines saw was cloaked from searchers. Before trusted feed, it didn't make any difference which way around you looked at it.

Since trusted feed it does make a difference which way you look at it, since trusted feed content is seen by the search engines but not by searchers. So if you look at if from Danny's perspective, it is cloaking. If you look at it from my perspective, it isn't.

I contend that my perspective is the more sensible one. Why?

There's a reason that the word "cloaking" was coined in the mid-90's. Cloaking means hiding something. But who from - human or search engine?

When a site is cloaked, humans see the same thing whether they visit the site as a result of a search, or visit the site directly without searching. They see the content designed for humans to see. So, from a human perspective, nothing is hidden.

However, with cloaking as I define it, something IS hidden from search engines. Search engines want to rank pages based (partly at least) on what their searchers will see when they visit those pages. Cloaking (as I define it) involves deliberately hiding the content that searchers will see from search engines, and substituting content designed to rank better than the content that searches will see. This fits the "intuitive" definition of cloaking - hiding something. It also fits the underlying concept of "deception" that comes with the word "cloaking" - the search engine is being deceived into ranking the page higher than it would have ranked it had it seen the real content.Originally posted by dannysullivan
INKTOMI: Pages that give the search engine a different page than the public sees (cloaking).

TEOMA: Web pages that show different content than the spidered pages.Both Inktomi and Teoma have XML feed programs. For them to say "Don't cloak" clearly means they don't think XML feeds are cloaking.

Google also says "don't cloak", and they define cloaking as follows:The term "cloaking" is used to describe a website that returns altered webpages to search engines crawling the site. In other words, the webserver is programmed to return different content to Google than it returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to distort search engine rankings. This can mislead users about what they'll find when they click on a search result. To preserve the accuracy and quality of our search results, Google may permanently ban from our index any sites or site authors that engage in cloaking to distort their search rankings.Nothing about XML feeds - no surprise there, since Google doesn't offer them - but notice it mentions webpages, which aren't XML feeds.

In other words, three of the leading search engines clearly don't think that XML feeds are cloaking. AV and FAST also use phraseology that indicates that they don't like cloaking...

On the Web outside SEO, the word "cloaking" means nothing. Within SEO, its meaning is confused. It's time we settled on what it means. The search engines (those who publish a meaning) are clear its meaning does not encompass XML feeds. I am clear it doesn't. So is Jill. Danny, why do you insist that it does?

FWIW, I see XML feeds as simply like an extended <HEAD> section of a document. Any search engine that uses an XML feed knows that the content in the feed is not going to be seen by searchers, and can treat it similarly to other meta-data in the ranking algo. They have to get the blend right, as AltaVista discovered. But this is totally different to cloaking (as I define it) because search engines don't know that people won't be seeing the cloaked content, therefore don't know they have to treat it any differently to uncloaked content.

[SuperDp]

Very impressive cast of characters here. So now I will make an attempt to interject intelligently.

I do see Danny Sullivan's point that XML feeds could well be construed as a form of, as Jill coined, Non-Spam cloaking (based on rigid definitions offered by many search engines.) However, I understand Doug's concern that this view could be confusing for someone looking for an absolute truth. Alan was trying to clear the air. In the end, spam is bad and more often then not, cloaking is spam.

As I understand it, the main purpose for an XML feed is to submit large numbers of pages to a search engine when a site requires that sort of indexing. i.e. A large database (Non-search friendly) driven eCommerce site. Makes sense. Many very good sites that are quite functional are not particularly search friendly. So.. Through an XML feed, we send, directly, what we need to become relevant. In this instance, this seems justified and therefore not worthy of being lumped in with "Spam- Cloakers"

Except for the fact that XML feeds tend to be pricey, I do see the potential for abuse. I suspect that is why Google, in its quest to be the most relevant, has not offered an XML feed of any sort. (Probably right around the corner ) I suspect that when this becomes more affordable, there will be an increase in abuse and these feeds may to become out-moded as inviting spam.

I guess for now we will have to debate weather or not cloaking is always spam. Fair to say that there is a negative connotation, and is better to be avoided. However by definition XML feeds can be seen as an acceptable form of cloaking. Jill's right, we need a phrase that makes everyone happy that does not confuse the issue :) In any event.... Be Well.
Dan Pinto
8)

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums SuperDp! :hi:

Very good post! You too Alan.

One reason I believe this definition of the word 'cloaking' needs to be ironed out is this:

Cloaking:
All forms of content delivery including agent based, regional based, georegional based, etc, etc.

That definition we see on many sites is lumping all forms of 'content delivery' together and calling it 'cloaking'. This enables others to say that things like 'trusted feeds' are also cloaking. Then we have the problem of having to break it down more and more.

Why not simply break it down at the start?

Instead of the 'main heading' being:

Cloaking

The main heading should be:

Content Delivery

Then we can have 'application headings' and subs of application headings.

One 'application heading' would be:

Cloaking

Another 'application heading' would be:

Trusted Feed

Another:

Agent based regionally

Another:

IP based regionally

etc, etc.

If we can agree that all forms of content delivery each have all their many 'applications', then why would this not be easier for all to understand? Doing this would clearly indicate that the application of 'cloaking' is spam. It could not be any other application. The application of 'trusted feed' would not be spam eventhough we are delivering different content to the spider as to the browser.

In comes Alan's latest post about cloaking being content hidden from the search engines instead of being hidden from the searcher. I agree with this and it also solves the problem of thinking the 'trusted feeds' are a form of cloaking. The xml/trusted feeds would then be simply another form of an "application".

Now granted, virtually every different "application" Could be spam, but not necessarily spam. We would know for sure though that the application of "cloaking" is definitely spam and could not be any other thing by Alan's definition. Then, taking into account the post by SuperDp, in that the application of 'trusted feed' could become spam over time.

For simplicities sake, the word 'cloaking', which Does mean 'hidden', would be far easier to separate than it is right now. Because now, many web pages out there are using the word "cloaking" as the Main Heading. Use the phrase "Content Delivery" as your main heading, and then break out into separate headings of "Applications". Give each application a definition. Note in each definition which applications could be used for deception, and which ones could Never be used for anything other than deception.

Do that and you will find that the 'application' of cloaking will always be spam. The other applications are not necessarily spam but could be if abused.

Well, I understand the above but not so sure it's clear. :)

[Matt B]

Originally posted by SuperDp
Except for the fact that XML feeds tend to be pricey, I do see the potential for abuse.

Exactly. That is why I don't think highly of XML Feeds, but I still to use them for certain clients.

I know of many companies that knowingly use XML feeds FOR cloaking. To them, it is easier to maintain an XML feed than to create a website that is built "correctly," (by that, I mean the feed does not mirror the information on the website, both in size and content.) Does that make all XML feeds cloaking or spam? No, as with other applications and technology, when used properly, they can benefit everybody. Hopefully, these feeds will be regulated more frequently in the future.

I think everyone is correct in their definition of cloaking - there is not problem here (in this thread at least) of anyone challenging that notion. In most presentations I hear, purveyors of cloaking software mainly use the example of IP-based delivery by search engines as justification for "doing the same." Simply a twist of terms meant to confuse the webmaster that doesn't know any better.

XML feeds tend to have a life of their own. IMO, the label of cloaking is affixed at the very moment the feed differs from the actual code in the site.

[one_pocket_player]

In the end ... It boils down to the Golden Rule...


If using cloaking makes you more **** than not using cloaking,
then cloaking is the way to go.

Add all the costs, potential websites being banned from engines,
costs of setting up new ones, lost business opportunities until
the new ones are highly ranked.

What applications make the most money is important
... the rest is BS.

Profit rules, poverty *****.

It is no disgrace to be poor, but it is damn unhandy.

If you make money cloaking... go for it... and give
other cheese to go with their whine. 8)

[markymark]

Ignoring the intellectual pygmy who just posted, surely the difference between cloaking and xml feeds is the intent to deceive. Cloaking, as Alan has defined it, is intended to deceive the search engines while an xml feed is solicited by them. Quite a difference I would say. Thus, by definition, an xml feed is not cloaking as there is no intent to deceive the search engines.

[Advisor]

You know, I've been thinking about this all day, and have read lots of stuff from Alan and Danny which all makes good sense, even though we don't all agree.

I was hoping that we'd have Danny agreeing with us on these definitions, but I can see that's not gonna happen.

But I think those of us who believe in Alan's definition should continue to go by them and promote them. Who knows, maybe we can eventually get some sort of consensus some day!

(Of course, tomorrow I'll probably cave again and have a new definition, but whatever!)

Doug, very good post there. I like the different categorizations, etc.!

And onepocket, save that discussion for another thread please, as it's not relevant to this one.

Jill

[PhilC]

Originally posted by markymark
[B]Ignoring the intellectual pygmy who just posted....
Don't you have rules about flaming here, or are insults like that not considered to be flaming?

Advisor wrote:- But I think those of us who believe in Alan's definition should continue to go by them and promote them. Who knows, maybe we can eventually get some sort of consensus some day!
That's just not gonna happen Jill - except in this small corner of the world.

[Matt B]

[off topic]

Originally posted by PhilC
Don't you have rules about flaming here, or are insults like that not considered to be flaming?
It's a sad day when a comment like that is classified as flaming.

Flaming is an art. Call the comment what you will, but please, not a flame. The whole concept of flaming has been wildly taken out of context. It disheartens me to see offhanded comments given flame status.

[/off topic]


Stick around, Phil, I'm sure you will get your share. :D

[Advisor]

That's just not gonna happen Jill - except in this small corner of the world. Egad! I have to argue with you here now too! ;)

Well, we'll just have to see if it will happen or not.

:D

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yes Phil, Stick around awhile. You may just find we are not the small little corner of the world of which you speak. ;)

[Advisor]

I've moved the off topic posts here. (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6819)

This subject is too important in my opinion to start throwing stones about things that have nothing to do with it.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Very good, now where were we? :)

[ihelpyou]

But I think those of us who believe in Alan's definition should continue to go by them and promote them. Who knows, maybe we can eventually get some sort of consensus some day!
And a consensus is what we will get someday. I believe more sooner than later.

[Advisor]

One thing Danny's brought up is how all the engines (besides Google) are allowing you to "essentially" cloak with them through their trusted feed program.

Which actually makes there no real reason to do "real" cloaking. Just make a deal with the engine, give them some money and your good to go. Sure if you're cheap, I guess you might still want to cloak, but you might as well do it with the engines well wishes.

Another reason why Google is so much better than the rest. Not only do they try to get rid of cloaking, they don't (as far as we know) sanction any form of special feeds, etc., for a fee.

Take a look at some Inktomi results for some tech products and you'll see all kinds of pages that have been given special status.

Of course, this is a whole other issue. But it does make you wonder if cloaking in the traditional sense is pretty much dead these days. If not now, then soon?

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yes, but as Alan brought up, Inktomi says 'don't cloak', which means they don't approve of cloaking and which also means they don't believe their 'trusted feed' is cloaking.

Cloaking is spam. Trusted feed is not spam. :)

[Matt B]

Originally posted by Advisor
Of course, this is a whole other issue. But it does make you wonder if cloaking in the traditional sense is pretty much dead these days. If not now, then soon?

Jill

Maybe dead to SE's, but traditional companies seem to run a couple years behind conventional wisdom. I mean, when companies think Meta-keywords are still the answer, how can they distinguish between a good idea and a bad idea when a new concept is presented to them?

Has anyone heard of a company getting penalized for mis-using their trusted feed program?

[Advisor]

The original intent of the article was not really to argue about what trusted feed was.

It was more an attempt to explain to people what cloaking is and what it isn't.

I get people that think all kinds of weird things are cloaking. They got a new domain, so they wonder if they're cloaking :confused:

They redirect a page, so they wonder if they're cloaking.

They can't view the source on all the sites they visit (cuz their cache is full) so they think everyone in the world now cloaks.

Regardless of what trusted feed is or isn't, I think the article does a good job of explaining what cloaking is and isn't. It's a good thing to point people to who are wondering what it is, and if they're already doing it, and if they should do it.

We may want to have a whole new thread to discuss trusted feed (since that's not cloaking ;) ) :green:

Jill

[Advisor]

So now we have Brett muddying the waters again, and basically saying the exact opposite of Alan's article.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum24/411.htm

:rolleyes:

[amica_webmaster]

How much time does it take to create cloaked content just for search engines? It seems to me that cloaking is bad if only because it must suck up a heap of time that could be better spent just creating and maintaining one good site.

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Damn good point!

[Kal]

Originally posted by SEO Guy
Has anyone heard of a company getting penalized for mis-using their trusted feed program? No, but I'm sure that's because few engines implement quality control monitoring of content (it is "trusted" feed and not "reviewed" feed after all).

Shame, because as it stands the engines offering "trusted" feed are most likely clogging up their indices with irrelevant or duplicate content by giving the :thumb: to paying spammers :rolleyes:. They should take a leaf out of Google's book and put the needs of searchers and the quality of their index first.

I can think of a few companies currently using trusted feed to sneak their spammy rubbish in via the back door. If AltaVista and Inktomi introduced XML feed reviews, quite a few spammers would be out of business.

[dannysullivan]

If AltaVista and Inktomi introduced XML feed reviews, quite a few spammers would be out of business.

They do review their feeds. They would be shocked to hear you think they don't. Having said this, if you don't like the content you are seeing, be assured that for whatever reason, the search engine does.

Which brings me back to my original point. Everyone can go on and on that "cloaking" is bad, with cloaking in my book when you hide from the user what the search engine sees in its index.

Then suddenly, some like Alan want to argue that it's not bad when you then take the exact same content -- sometimes what many would consider spammy content -- and feed it through XML? And that's OK because now the search engine knows about it? Now it's not spam in your books because cash changed hands?

The problem is not that cloaking is spam. The problem is that low content doorway pages have long been considered spam. Cloaking has done nothing to help these pages magically work better in search engines. It has simply been away to hide content that the SEO doesn't want the user to see.

Other than cloaking, people do the same thing with invisible text, hiding in frame sets, using JavaScript or fast meta refresh. Not all of these things are considered spam, but they have been seen in close proximity to spam -- like cloaking.

If you can accept that your real issue is with the content, not the delivery tactic, then you can move forward into the 21st century of search engine marketing.

Content that some of you dislike now gets to be fed directly into search engines, reviewed and approved by them and further cloaked from users. Outside such a program, you'd hate it. Inside a program, you want to excuse it? That means you aren't thinking content. Instead, you're stuck over technicalities of delivery mechanisms.

Not all XML is spam. And, quite honestly, those that are knowingly allowed to use XML to deliver content light pages have a good argument that they aren't doing harm. They are sending people to pages that basically deliver what's promised. Moreover, they are doing this with the full approval of the search engines offering such programs. It's not that they are spammers. It's that the search engines have changed their standards as to what's acceptable, as they are allowed to do. The search engines themselves also have some good arguments to change these standards. In the end, the changes will ultimately get judged by users. If quality goes down, users will go away.

Finally, while all that can make you feeling like the game is up and cash wins, it's not the case. You are going to see more and more paid inclusion content doing well in search results, and especially for commercial-oriented specific queries. Yahoo did not spend $300 million on Inktomi because it's just going to give away its search results.

However, you will continue to see good content-rich sites receive high rankings. In the short term at least, you'll also see Google continue to be the big counter-balance to the creep of paid inclusion boosting, and since they are the lion's share of search queries, content will continue to be rewarded big time.

[John Brown]

Hi!

That's a mighty interesting forum and subject!

I read every word - don't know if I can add something useful - but I'll have a go...

Now, what did he say exactly IS cloacking??

"The term 'cloaking' is used to describe a Website that returns
altered Web pages to search engines crawling the site. In other words,
the Web server is programmed to return different content to [a search
engine] than it returns to regular users, usually in an attempt to
distort search engine rankings." (See:
<http://www.google.com/webmasters/faq.html#cloaking>.)

So cloaking is something a server is programmed to do only when it
sees a search engine robot visiting the site. It's called 'cloaking'
because it involves hiding the content people will see, and
substituting it with content designed to rank higher in the search
engine results pages (SERPs).

OK - I know it looks fancy - why did I do all that?

I see root of the problem in this debate is the confusion / mix between TWO different aspects of the definition:
- What is the ACTUAL ACTION involved in the cloacking process
- What is the INTENDED PURPOSE of that action.

[Note the magnificent matching of colors with the original text... :) ]

The two elements are hopelessly entangled. As with every walks of life, some people may not have a problem in deceiving, be it other people or search engines, if it brings them money. Hack, some will go quite a long way further than that too! 8)

The basic question, as I see it, is:
BY DEFINITION, does the ACTION of cloacking necessarily demonstrates an INTENTION to deceive?

IMHO - it does not. I can think of many cases where providing a different set of results to SE has no intention to DECEIVE or at least is highly debatable if that is the intention. For example, a dynamic site that contains all the sites of Restaurants in Paris, for the benfit of the tourists there.

That site allows the tourist (or even the resident :) ) to choose the type of food, the area, perhaps opening times etc. - and gets a list of restaurants that match his taste and budget. All in all - a very useful site. Sadly, the SE doesn't know how to make all the possible selections, so the webmaster added a special 'delivery' for search engines, showing them ALL the sites in one go.

No user can get that list - so it is cloacking in the ACTION - but not in the INTEND.

Voila - Bon Apetit!

JB

[Alan Perkins]

Danny, you say XML feeds are cloaking, but ... from Inktomi's spam FAQ page (http://www.inktomi.com/products/web_search/spampolicyfaq.html)
Q: Is cloaking permitted?
A: No.Please unravel this apparent contradiction:

1) Inktomi says don't cloak.
2) Inktomi has an XML feed program

For me there is no contradiction. XML feeds aren't cloaking.
The whole purpose of my article was to clear up the confusion around what search engines say (don't cloak) and what some people say search engines do (cloak).

Cloaking involves hiding content from search engines. Cloaking has no meaning outside of the search engine context. XML feeds are not hidden from search engines. They are not cloaking. It is clear that Inktomi sees it this way. :)

Welcome to the forums johnbrown :hi:

The answer to your question is that if you are not intending to deceive then you are not cloaking. You may be using a technology upon which the application of cloaking is based. And you may mistakenly be taken for cloaking. But you are not cloaking.

[John Brown]

Alan,

Thanks for the welcome :) Feels already home :cool:
You say:

Cloaking involves hiding content from search engines.
IMHO the use of the word 'hiding' is the context of 'cloacking' may be counter productive, although I can see why it would be pointing to that direction...

The original definition was talking about 'altered' pages, which is much clearer.

For example, if the webmaster feeds the SE with the SAME page as the user - but ADDS more keywords to it, so that the SE will rank it higher - it is still cloacking, although no content was HIDDEN as such.

Just a thought..

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums John! :hi:

For example, if the webmaster feeds the SE with the SAME page as the user - but ADDS more keywords to it, so that the SE will rank it higher - it is still cloacking, although no content was HIDDEN as such.
No, no, and then no.

I am stumped as to why a few of you think XML feeds are cloaking when Inktomi says 'do not cloak'.

I am further stumped as to why a few of you think cloaking involves hiding content from the browser and not hiding content from the search engine?

Those two issues are why we don't agree with the definition of cloaking OR what the heck XML feeds are.

Danny wrote:
The problem is not that cloaking is spam. The problem is that low content doorway pages have long been considered spam. Cloaking has done nothing to help these pages magically work better in search engines. It has simply been away to hide content that the SEO doesn't want the user to see.
Of course cloaking really does not help with ranks. But, cloaking is decieving the search engine. Period. You say cloaking involves hiding content from the user. I say cloaking involves hiding content from the search engine. Two totally different views. I contend that your view is actually helping the spammers out there by being able to keep their cover when they talk about cloaking. They can continue to confuse and obscure the issues by people looking at cloaking that way. If you can look at cloaking as pages being hidden from the search engines, you can take the small leap to seeing that all cloaking is spam and all cloaking is an application for only deception. If you could do this, no spammer can lump all forms of content delivery under one roof anymore.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by John Brown
The original definition was talking about 'altered' pages, which is much clearer.Once you alter a page ...

a) you have two pages (one altered, the other not)
b) you supply the altered page to the search engine
c) you supply the unaltered page to the user

... you are hiding the unaltered page from the search engine.

[Advisor]

Content that some of you dislike now gets to be fed directly into search engines, reviewed and approved by them and further cloaked from users. Outside such a program, you'd hate it. Inside a program, you want to excuse it? That means you aren't thinking content. Instead, you're stuck over technicalities of delivery mechanisms.

I don't think any of us want to excuse crappy pages getting into the search results, whether sanctioned or not.

But that's really a different issues. There's an issue of hiding things from the search engines, which by most search engine guidelines is spam.

Then there's the issue of the search engines knowingly allowing crap into their results because people are willing to pay for it.

Now we're getting to the definition of spam, as opposed to the definition of cloaking. In my mind, spam isn't what WE as SEOs think it is. Who are we to say what spam is? We're not the search engines. Spam is whatever the search engines say it is, because it's their engine.

We can have a feeling that the results are spam-like or spammy. And probably some trusted feed and other paid stuff feels very spammy. But since it's not our search engine, and it's allowed by the search engine's it's not spam, and it's not cloaking. It stinks, and it's something we should all be concerned with, but again, it's a whole different issue.

The search engines that allow that stuff and in fact solicit it will only find themselves having worse and worse results and fewer and fewer users. Which of course is all great news for Google.

You know this all ties in with how Google is tops, and why they're the only game in town. A major reason for this is because the other engines allow people to basically spam them for a fee. As long as Google can stay "pure" they will only get more power.

But again, we have two different issues going on here. Cloaking, in the traditional sense by hiding stuff from the search engines and search engine sanctioned allowing of low-quality content.

Perhaps an article on all the behind the scenes stuff that some engines are allowing would be in order? (I know you've done some stuff on that before, Danny.)

Jill

[Matt B]

Originally posted by Alan Perkins
Danny, you say XML feeds are cloaking, but ... Please unravel this apparent contradiction:

1) Inktomi says don't cloak.
2) Inktomi has an XML feed program

For me there is no contradiction. XML feeds aren't cloaking.
The whole purpose of my article was to clear up the confusion around what search engines say (don't cloak) and what some people say search engines do (cloak).

I think part of the issue is that, (and I don't want to speak for Danny,) is that the SE's have mixed the definitions by application in order to suite monetization.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by SEO Guy
I think part of the issue is that, (and I don't want to speak for Danny,) is that the SE's have mixed the definitions by application in order to suite monetization.Where?

The issue is that SE's need to be able to see content in order to rank content properly. If they can't see it, they can't do their job. Cloaking prevents them seeing it. This is why you'll find that all the techs at all the search engines define cloaking as spam.

The marketing depts at search engines spend more time speaking with Danny and SEOs than they do with their own techs. They learn the words that SEOs use from SEOs but, as we've found, as a group SEOs don't use the words consistently. This is why you'll find that the marketing departments often say contradictory things. It's not their job to teach you their language, it's their job to talk your language.

Look at what's written on the search engines' web sites. There is no contradiction. It all adds up, when you understand that cloaking means hiding content from the search engine.

[ihelpyou]

Without looking, so paraphrazing. And Danny mentioned a boost with xml feeds etc. Yes, I certainly agree. I also know that will be the huge downfall of Inktomi and altavista and even yahoo again when/if they deploy the inktomi results over Google.

Google is keeping the moral high ground with all of this. A good reason why their results will remain relevant. When they come out with improved technology having to do with filtering spam, etc, watch out!

Strong evidence that paid inclusion pages are being favored in both Inktomi and AltaVista. When you see well known spammers all the sudden being ranked again, you know you have a problem with that se's database. It's a very sorry sight that inktomi and alta choose to degrade their databases just because you pay. Very sorry.

Good post Jill. Completely agree! The se's say what is spam. Nothing we can do about the fact that XML feeds might be spammy as the se is allowing it so it's NOT spam. It's also Not cloaking. Why? Cause cloaking is always spam. Why? Cause cloaking is hiding unaltered content that the browser sees from the search engine. It's search engine deception/spam. Nothing else it could possibly be.

[Matt B]

from Alan
Look at what's written on the search engines' web sites. There is no contradiction. It all adds up, when you understand that cloaking means hiding content from the search engine.
Agreed.


So, an XML feed is not cloaking, simply because the engine says it is ok. Yet, IMO, it becomes cloaking when it varies from the actual information contained on the website. Intended or not.

I have never heard of the SE's monitoring the feeds as closely as Danny said. In fact, I run under the assumption that my feed is never reviewed. Like I said, I know of other companies that are using it to spam, and I have warned them. Up to now, they are still laughing about my warnings.

[Advisor]

If there's anyone here who uses Trusted Feed from any of the engines, and uses it for tons of pages, I'd like to discuss the process with them a bit if they have time! Please pm or email me.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

That's the whole point Matt. You just said the xml feeds could be spam. In reality they cannot be spam as that se says it's not. Inktomi states on their site 'don't cloak'. XML feeds cannot possibly be spam to them because of this.

You have to look at things from the view that cloaking is hiding unaltered content from the search engine.

By looking at it from the view of cloaking is hiding altered content from the browser, you are confusing and obscuring the issues. You are also allowing the main heading on top of pages such as Brett's to be:

Cloaking

instead of:

Content Delivery

Main heading should be:

Content Delivery

Application headings should be:

XML Feeds
Cloaking
IP agent delivery regional
IP deliver georegional
IP deliver country-specific
etc

If you look at things like that, you are able to separate out the issue of what cloaking is and means. Content Delivery is the absolute main heading. All other applications of delivery fall under that heading. If you put the main heading as 'cloaking', you are confusing and obscuring the definition of the word.

Looking at things with content delivery as the main heading and you can clearly see the application of 'cloaking' is always spam. The rest of the 'applications' are Not necessarily spam but could be. In other words, delivering content according to the country is legitimate and not necessarily spam But could be. Delivering content according to the IP of a search engine cannot be anything else but cloaking/spam. You are hiding unaltered content from the search engine, so you are cloaking... which is always spam.

[Matt B]

OK, I think I need to straiten out my terms - I got a fresh cup of coffee, so I am ready to think. :drink:



So, if I send a "variant" XML feed (by variant, I mean a feed that differs in content from my website), would I then be "spamming by content delivery" rather than cloaking?

[ihelpyou]

XML feeds cannot be spam/cloaking because Inktomi and AltaVista say they are not.

The se's say what is spam and what is not spam.

[Advisor]

would I then be "spamming by content delivery" rather than cloaking? No. It wouldn't be spam, because the search engine was allowing it to go in.

It might be User spam, however. But not search engine spam.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

There cannot be such a thing as user spam if you decide that cloaking is hiding unaltered content from the search engine. The user is going to always see the unaltered content. The deception comes into play when the search engine is given the adultered content and cannot see the unaltered content.

I contend that one day soon, we will see the FTC closely look into this PFI stuff and XML stuff that a couple of engines are using now. In my mind, it's a form of deceptive advertising. More to come.

[Matt B]

But technically, the search engine can see both versions, and that's where I get muddled.

So, and I think this is Danny's question, simply because I am paying for the it, I'm not spamming?

So then, would I be guilty of abusing the content delivery guidelines? What would it be called then?

An abuser not a spammer?

[dannysullivan]

Please unravel this apparent contradiction:

1) Inktomi says don't cloak.
2) Inktomi has an XML feed program

For me there is no contradiction. XML feeds aren't cloaking.
The whole purpose of my article was to clear up the confusion around what search engines say (don't cloak) and what some people say search engines do (cloak).

OK, Alan -- I'll make one more post, because I feel now I'm just going in circles by saying more. For the rest of you, Alan and I have been having our own back and forth debate via email, which is quite friendly, though we're not really convincing each other of anything.

Inktomi says don't cloak, and they define cloaking as:

Pages that give the search engine a different page than the public sees (cloaking).

With an XML feed, you give a search engine a different page than the public sees. That meets Inktomi's criteria of cloaking.

But wait -- you say it's not cloaking because Inktomi allows this, they are happy with it, because they can see the content.

Sure, I agree 99 percent. They do allow it, and maybe they don't consider it internally as cloaking because of this. But for the end user, the result is exactly the same as before -- the actual content is cloaked.

My first post also didn't start out with me trying to define what cloaking is according to the search engines. As I already said, Inktomi and Teoma have defined it in a similar fashion while AllTheWeb and AltaVista haven't done so AT ALL. Google has done so in depth, and that's what you started your article out with -- and implied that it was applicable to all the search engines. That's incorrect.

Instead, my first post told you what I consider cloaking, in terms of search engine marketing. That is when you get content recorded in a search engine index that is different than what the end user sees. My definition attaches no right or wrong to this. It simply states this is an action that happens.

From that, I also said that there are times when some search engines allow cloaking and when they do not. Typically, this is most commonly done through XML programs. XML programs are a form of approved cloaking. Crucially, most people don't go into them because they think, "Hey, this is a great way to cloak." They go into them because they have a big, dynamic web site that the crawlers have been ignoring, so this is a great way to finally get represented. Cloaking, in most cases, is not the primary reason why XML feeds exist. Nonetheless, it is a form of cloaking as I define, one that is allowed.

No one has to agree with my definition. I don't speak for the search engines. I speak to my readers and hope they understand what I'm saying and perhaps even agree with my thoughts.

By saying there is approved cloaking, this also means that there is unapproved cloaking -- and unapproved cloaking is risky business. I don't care how the unapproved cloaking is happening. IP delivery -- agent delivery -- hiding in Frame sets, fast meta refresh -- all is a form of cloaking, and if not approved by the search engine, it is likely to get you into trouble.

I contend that your view is actually helping the spammers out there by being able to keep their cover when they talk about cloaking. They can continue to confuse and obscure the issues by people looking at cloaking that way.

I contend the opposite. I'm not saying this to enable cloaking and spamming. Quite frankly, when you go into a situation of trying to detail exactly what cloaking is and isn't based on different situations (XML is OK; personalized delivery is OK; IP-based isn't OK), you are simply handing out more rope to hang yourself with.

My definition offers a very simple, binary test that anyone can understand. Do you have approval to hide the content you gave a search engine from users, yes or no? Yes or no, that's it. How much more do you want to break it down.

How about another view:

"Did mom say you could play outside?"

"Not exactly. It's just that on Fridays, I've noticed she often doesn't mind if I go out with some friends if I fail to ask, while in other situations if I have asked dad, he's said OK even though she didn't know, and last week, I did go out but she never noticed...yada yada."

"DID MOM SAY YOU COULD PLAY OUTSIDE, YES OR NO!"

No.

Right. Go to your room.

Finally, what about unapproved cloaking that happens accidentally, like if you have a system that automatically detects browsers. Are you doing something wrong? Technically, yes -- and I don't care what Inktomi says about "we don't consider that cloaking." Technically, it could cause you problems. It does cause people problems. Not most people, and if a search engine investigated it, they'd probably remove any penalities -- and suprise, that becomes a form of approval, as well.

[Advisor]

There cannot be such a thing as user spam if you decide that cloaking is hiding unaltered content from the search engine. Sure there can be. You mean there can't be user cloaking perhaps? There can definitely be user spam, even if it's sanctioned by the search engines. Just look at AltaVista's results!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yes Danny. And why you and Brett and many others will continue to put the word 'cloaking' at the very top of the page as the main heading. Not good. :(

To me, it's a bad way of explaining what cloaking is to a newbie and to just about anyone when all forms of delivery are lumped together under the guise of 'it could be cloaking, or it might not be cloaking'.

[ihelpyou]

Further:

Because people wish to look at cloaking as hiding content from the browser, this enables them to say stuff like this:

"I cloak because I don't want the browser seeing my html code."

"I cloak because the se's cannot index the unadultered content the right way."

Looking at things from the view that cloaking is hiding altered content from the browser allows everyone to continue to confuse the issue and say stuff like the above.

If we could look at things like this:

"Cloaking is hiding unaltered content from the search engines"

You can clearly see there would be no way to say you are cloaking to hide the html code from the user. No way at all. It would be cut and dried.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by dannysullivan
Inktomi says don't cloak... With an XML feed, you give a search engine a different page than the public sees. That meets Inktomi's criteria of cloaking.So what are you saying, Danny? Inktomi is confused? They say one thing and mean another?But wait -- you say it's not cloaking because Inktomi allows this, they are happy with it, because they can see the content.Yep.Sure, I agree 99 percent. They do allow it, and maybe they don't consider it internally as cloaking because of this. But for the end user, the result is exactly the same as before -- the actual content is cloaked.If you want to look at it that way, fine. But search engines aren't saying "Don't cloak from end users". They are saying "Don't cloak from us". Which is what cloaking actually means. Cloaking content from end users makes no sense unless you're delivering it to somebody else - the search engine. Cloaking content from search engines makes a lot of sense because the content you deliver in its place is designed to rank more highly. This is what cloaking is.My first post also didn't start out with me trying to define what cloaking is according to the search engines. As I already said, Inktomi and Teoma have defined it in a similar fashion while AllTheWeb and AltaVista haven't done so AT ALL. Google has done so in depth, and that's what you started your article out with -- and implied that it was applicable to all the search engines. That's incorrect.No it isn't. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I maintain that all the search engines mean a consistent thing when they say "Don't cloak".Instead, my first post told you what I consider cloaking, in terms of search engine marketing. That is when you get content recorded in a search engine index that is different than what the end user sees. My definition attaches no right or wrong to this. It simply states this is an action that happens."Content" is what the user sees - or, at least, what the search engine thinks the user will see. :) XML feeds are meta data, directly analagous to the data in meta tags. All search engines index more than what the end user sees on-the-page.From that, I also said that there are times when some search engines allow cloaking and when they do not. Typically, this is most commonly done through XML programs. XML programs are a form of approved cloaking. Crucially, most people don't go into them because they think, "Hey, this is a great way to cloak." They go into them because they have a big, dynamic web site that the crawlers have been ignoring, so this is a great way to finally get represented. Cloaking, in most cases, is not the primary reason why XML feeds exist. Nonetheless, it is a form of cloaking as I define, one that is allowed.I think the issue is that if you go around saying cloaking is allowed (when at least two major search engines specifically state that it isn't) then you are allowing refuge to spammers. You may think that every time you say cloaking is allowed you qualify it with the word "sanctioned", but by the time it's been passed on a couple of times, that's gone. Before you know it cloaking is allowed as long as it's "relevant" (whatever *that* might mean) and we have failed as educators. Why not say XML feeds are allowed and cloaking isn't allowed. How can that ever be misunderstood?No one has to agree with my definition. I don't speak for the search engines. I speak to my readers and hope they understand what I'm saying and perhaps even agree with my thoughts.I understand what you're saying and I agree with your sentiments - I just don't agree with the way you are expressing yourself. As I said earlier, we are not talking about whether spam is a good thing or not, we are just talking about the breadth of meaning of the single word "cloaking". I defined it tightly and the definition was consistent with what ever search engine that expresses a preference says. You defined it less tightly and your definition doesn't sit too well with Google and Inktomi at least.My definition offers a very simple, binary test that anyone can understand. Do you have approval to hide the content you gave a search engine from users, yes or no? Yes or no, that's it. How much more do you want to break it down.No more, that's perfect. Yes, then you're not cloaking. No, then you are! A very simple binary test, as you said. :)
Finally, what about unapproved cloaking that happens accidentally, like if you have a system that automatically detects browsers. Are you doing something wrong? Technically, yes -- and I don't care what Inktomi says about "we don't consider that cloaking." Technically, it could cause you problems. It does cause people problems. Not most people, and if a search engine investigated it, they'd probably remove any penalities -- and suprise, that becomes a form of approval, as well.A big no. You aren't doing anything wrong, and these things aren't cloaking - they make sense in the absence of search engines, so how can they be cloaking? The reason search engines remove the penalty is that it is their mistake.

[robwatts]

If you give a platform to people to express a view, they will express it. In theory their arguments will either rise or fall on their merits.

Regardless of the venue, be it out there in a hall somewhere, a weekly blogspot or some php driven forum like this, the issue will ebb and flow as the various positions and counterpositions are expressed.

The people who drive the debate have a responsibility to give reasoned arguments for their respective positions based upon the *actual* postions of the SE's or other authoritative body. Its useless to keep going round in circles arguing about whether cloaking is ok or not, as this gets no one anywhere.

Those who own and operate the technologies have made their positions about as clear as a misty windscreen on the road to hell. No cloaking. Ok no cloaking, cheers, erm...no cloaking (whats cloaking exactly? )Which is the nub of the problem, they dont go much further than that. Without lead definitions we will continually be faced with counter arguments that get paled out ad nauseum.

Alans whitepaper is one particular attempt at defining the various forms of delivery and how some can be classed as cloaking and why some are not.

We live in a world where there is no Search engine universal law or position that says that a search engine or directory must do this that or the other.

If inktomi wish to allow XML feeds then that is their business, its not for us to argue the toss over whether its cloaked content or not. Sure, we can take a view and give our opinions and say stuff like, it should be labeled as a trusted feed and that they should define what a trusted feed is, for public view and scrutiny, but at the end of the day, it really is none of our business.

Why do we expect the SEs to behave like they are publically owned and controlled commodities? Joe public couldnt care less, as long as he gets what he wants when he wants it then he will be happy. If the SE fails to deliver, then its only a click away from oblivion.

I cant see how any search engine in its right mind could or should sanction the use of cloaked content that doesnt fit into some tightly defined criteria, controlled and defined, either by itself or some other recognised body. Those who suggest that the term XML feed and cloaked content are very similar with regard to final content delivery are muddying the waters by contributing to the view that if its ok to "cloak" with approval then it should be ok to "cloak"without.

We really do need to get away from this confusing merry-go-round that spins round and round but never really gets anywhere.

IMO :)

[Advisor]

Good post, Rob!

I only disagree with this:We really do need to get away from this confusing merry-go-round that spins round and round but never really gets anywhere. Because it's debates such as this one that do actually get somewhere.

Although on the surface, it may seem as if we're simply going around in circles, it gives people something to think about. Even if we don't all agree today on the definitions, through time, we may get closer and closer to agreement.

I have found over the past few years that my thoughts on all this kind of stuff have shifted completely. But it doesn't shift over night. We all have very strong opinions and beliefs, which we're not going to just dump at the drop of a hat because someone else has another one.

But over time, the more you read on a subject, and the more you think about it when you're driving your kids to school (;) ), or whatever, your thoughts and beliefs often gradually shift. Funny thing is you never knew when it happened, and sometimes you don't even realize that it did happen.

The whole thing I mentioned after the original article how I originally had many problems with Alan's whitepaper and now I agree with it completely. How'd that happen? Beats me. It certainly didn't happen over night. It happened because I learned more about Alan's views over the past few years, and I understand more completely what he meant by the things he said in his paper. Perhaps before we had different definitions about stuff but we really agreed on the main point.

I think Alan, Danny, me, Doug and many others here, really do all agree for the most part. Maybe some day we'll even all agree on a definition and not realize that it happened!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Excellant Rob!
Those who suggest that the term XML feed and cloaked content are very similar with regard to final content delivery are muddying the waters by contributing to the view that if its ok to "cloak" with approval then it should be ok to "cloak"without.
Very nicely put.

I also agree with Jill; Debate about all of this is a good thing. It's the only way to eventually come together on our views.

[robwatts]

I only disagree with this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We really do need to get away from this confusing merry-go-round that spins round and round but never really gets anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course, through debate at best we eventually gain clarity, and at worst entrenched positions.

The point I was trying to make, and should of perhaps elaborated on, is that at this moment in time there appear to be three camps brought about by the industries inability to deal with the issue, and the continual recycling of cul-de-sac-going-no-where-very- fast-arguments.

Camp one - Seems to take the simplistic view that SE's cloak therefore its ok for us, how dare they tell us how to make our web pages, or we have a right to protect our code blah bal blah


Camp two- Cloaking is evil, lying dirty cheaters burn in hell the lot of you's


Camp three- Says to Camp one - Hey guys, listen lets be fair here, positons in the SERPs are important but you cant expect us to sit here idley while you lot subvert algos by spamming client URLs, simply because you are on PPI agreement. Besides, the SE's say they dont like it, so lets define it and move on, if you want to continue to cloak sites in them after we have agreed a position, then that is your choice.

Whereas it also says to Camp two- Hey guys listen, not all hidden content is bad, and there appears to be a little confusion over what is and what is not cloaking, so in an attempt to clear things up....

Perhaps people should consider coming out of the trenches and working out a truce.

[ihelpyou]

My problem and the same problem as others have is that we don't believe your Camp #1 is even in the same industry as Camp 2 and 3 are. They are in a world all their own.

Camp 2 and 3 can clearly come together at some point through understanding and a recognition that "cloaking" can only be one kind of application.

2 and 3 will never come together with Camp 1, nor do we want to.

[Advisor]

Yep, Rob, again I agree!

It makes for an interesting debate. So long as it doesn't get personal and we don't end up continually repeating ourselves, at least.

There may not be much more to say at the moment. You guys may want to check out the WMW thread going on regarding cloaking. Whole different perspective...

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Of course they do as many over there are in Camp 1 of which I don't want to be a part of at all.

[Kal]

Originally posted by dannysullivan
They do review their feeds. They would be shocked to hear you think they don't. Do they really? Or perhaps they do random previews and call them *reviews*? After all, aren't webmasters paying extra to have their content fed automatically into the index to save the engine's spider strength?

If they really review, why aren't the quality control measures publicly available? Do engines continue to review the feed every update or assume it's ok after the initial acceptance? Even if they did review the initial feed, what's stopping webmasters doing the old "bait and switch" after the first feed update? Are Trusted Feed clients spared the wrath of the spam filters contained within the regular search algorithm? Sometimes it sure seems that way.

On their Trusted Feed promotion page, AltaVista doesn't mention reviews. But they do say: "Detailed online reporting helps partners optimize their feeds, helping them maximize traffic. Customized page information gives partners control of their pages' appearance on AltaVista search result pages". Inktomi don't mention them either. They say "Generate higher conversion rates by delivering prospects directly to specific, truly relevant product pages. Monitor the performance of your indexed pages and optimize as desired." I'm beginning to think that trusted feed is just another form of pay per click advertising without the hassle of disclosure :rolleyes:

Originally posted by dannysullivan
Having said this, if you don't like the content you are seeing, be assured that for whatever reason, the search engine does. Precisely my point. Poor quality content (what *we* call spam) appears to be acceptable if it is paid for.

Originally posted by SEO Guy
I have never heard of the SE's monitoring the feeds as closely as Danny said. Me either. Originally posted by SEO Guy
In fact, I run under the assumption that my feed is never reviewed. Like I said, I know of other companies that are using it to spam, and I have warned them. Up to now, they are still laughing about my warnings. Exactly. Sorry to detour this thread from the cloaking issue, but the whole Trusted Feed / Spam issue is of great concern to me.

Originally posted by Advisor
We can have a feeling that the results are spam-like or spammy. And probably some trusted feed and other paid stuff feels very spammy. But since it's not our search engine, and it's allowed by the search engine's it's not spam, and it's not cloaking. It stinks, and it's something we should all be concerned with, but again, it's a whole different issue.

The search engines that allow that stuff and in fact solicit it will only find themselves having worse and worse results and fewer and fewer users. Agreed. FWIW, I completely agree that Trusted Feed should not be considered cloaking. :cheers:

[ihelpyou]

I'm beginning to think that trusted feed is just another form of pay per click advertising without the hassle of disclosure
Exactly Kal.

Wait until Mr. Nader gets a whiff of this trusted feed shet.

[JustTrying]

What a powerful and interesting interchange on the SE boards today.

To my mind this is a pivotal matter that will not be resolved by any of us or our attempts at defining what is good vs. bad, right vs. wrong.

The ultimate and lasting decisions will be made by legislative or commercial entities far removed from our group based on the "real realities" of the situation, and unfortunately not by the opinions or "spin" that either we as the "white hats" or they as the "spammers" would like to say about this topic.

The realities as I see them that will lead to eventual decisions are:

1. Search Engines have no legal obligation to present "dependable" information to their "consumers;" and, therefore all SERPs are "buyer beware" --

SAMPLE SEARCH ENGINE DISCLAIMER: The search engine algo used to rank and categorize this information in our SERPs can not be held responsible for the integrity or honesty of that information. You must read for yourself the web pages that are delivered to you, and if they make sense to you, you are free to act upon them. The pages that the search engine computer (robot, spider) evaluates has absolutely no legal obligation to look like the page that you as a consumer are able to read in your browser (hence, trusted feeds and cloaking are all the rage today as "tools" of those that want to rank highly in the search engines -- we can not legally do anything about these people).

Eventually I think that the FTC will get involved in the situation (whether that be for the better or for the worse I'm not sure). OR, Google will continue to get even better at identifying cloaking (such as by having constantly and randomly changing IP's).

2. There is currently REALLY BIG money involved in knowing how to use the complete search engine system to rank pages highly in SERPs (particularly if those pages need to be ranked in a short period of time). For large corporations, the morality of the situation is summed up with, "will this pass our legal department? If so, then do it!."

Eventually I think that Google will get a good enough algo to preclude most cloaking activities. The other engines will remain good targets for generating "residual to substantial traffic" (in relation to the amount of traffic that Google brings) for the foreseeable future. Because of the cost of cloaking and trusted feeds I doubt that it will ever be a large enough problem (in terms of SPAMMY pages) for them to put any clamp down on cloaking or XML feeds.

3. Considering that there are extremely different types of clients, and therefore extremely different requirements for SEO, there inevitably arises differences in opinion. These opinions are often directly tied to a particular individuals' personal clientele and aspirations. I am no different. My views are colored by the type of client that I want to work with, and the kind of work that client will require from me.

For instance, my clients don't want dozens of "throw-away" domains, or extreme fees for SEO tactics that will only work for a short period of time before it is time to "start over under a different name." My clients want to build a long-term brand associated with a static web address, and they want to gain a following to their site based on quality and content (SEO content that helps bring in traffic). This type of client suits my personality.

There will continue to be all kinds of clients that seek all kinds of level and quality of service. For that reason alone I don't think that cloaking will be universally defined anytime in the near future.

4. Normal people don't care if a page is cloaked or XML fed so long as the page that they can see is what they anticipated seeing when they clicked on the link from the SERP. People are truly smart enough to evaluate the content of a page.

For this reason, I doubt that engines such as FAST or Inktomi will even bother to think about this whole issue. They most likely figure that #1. their algo's are good enough to get 98% good content despite cloaking and other forms of SEO Spamming, and, #2. Cloaking is so seldom an occurrence in comparison to the billions of other web pages out there that it doesn't make a lot of sense to dedicate much time to the issue.

The only things that I could see changing this is if their was some FTC ruling forcing them to address the issue, or if there was some large expose run on cloaking by a mass media outlet that produced negative feelings towards engines that participated in this dark technology. Of course, the week after the pubic outcry there would be a new "trusted feed" program.

[ihelpyou]

I am totally amazed we have people in this industry saying that there are "approved" and "unapproved" forms of cloaking. They go further by saying that first there is 'cloaking' and then break down EVERY other form of content delivery and call it cloaking!

Let's explore exactly what the search engines say about that:

Inktomi says this RIGHT on their damn web site:
Q: Is cloaking permitted?
A: No.

Q: What if I present one page to Internet Explorer users, and a different page to Netscape users?
A: That's fine. If the purpose is to serve alternate pages to different human users, based on locality, browser, machine type etc., we do not consider that cloaking.
Google says the same damn thing.

Do these people believe that both Inktomi and Google are lying? If so, why?

How much more clearer can it be than the above?

"Is cloaking permitted? No."

I don't see any "if this than that or maybe or sometimes or 'if not approved". Nope. Nothing like that.... but just a simple.... NO. Period.

Cloaking is spam. It can Never be anything else. Period.

If it IS something else like ANY other form of content delivery, then it ain't cloaking, And it could be spam but not necessarily spam, BUT it ain't cloaking. Cloaking is always spam.

My, oh my.

[Advisor]

Welp...both GoogleGuy and Danny agree on this definition:I think of cloaking as showing different content to a search engine than you would show to a typical user. Which, from where I'm sitting, would include Trusted Feed.

I've come to the conclusion from reading many different opinions on this over the past week, that trying to narrowly define cloaking as we were, was not going to work.

The word cloaking basically means hiding.

To restrict it to saying that it's only hiding something from the search engine, but not the user doesn't actually make sense.

Hiding is hiding. Cloaking is hiding. It can be hiding from the search engine and it can be hiding from the user, or a combination of both.

And it doesn't muddy the waters either when you look at GoogleGuy's definition:...showing different content to a search engine than you would show to a typical user.
As Danny said earlier in this thread, with XML feeds you're showing the search engine one thing and the user something else. The search engine is allowing it, of course, so it's not spam.

The problem we're running into is that people are attempting to equate cloaking with spam. Which would definitely make things easy for us, but sorry, it's not going to work.

I've also learned from other things I've read this week, is that for the most part, people aren't using spam cloaking all that much any more. I don't know if that's true, but that seems to be the consensus. With trusted feed, there's no need, and with Google, it's apparently too risky.

Danny gave the following definition, when asked what I was supposed to tell my readers regarding the definition of cloaking at WebmasterWorld http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum24/411-6-15.htm :"Cloaking is getting a search engine to record content for a URL that is different than what a searcher will ultimately see, often intentionally. It can be done in many technical ways. Several search engines have explicit bans against unapproved cloaking, of which Google is the most notable one. Some people cloak without approval and never have problems. Some even may cloak accidentally. However, if you cloak intentionally without approval -- and if you deliver content to a search engine that is substantially different from what a search engine records -- then you stand a much larger chance of being penalized by search engines with penalties against unapproved cloaking. If in doubt, as a search engine if they have a problem with what you intend to do." Generally, most people should be able to live with that (unless they're stubborn!). It does make sense and it makes no bones about unapproved cloaking being something to avoid.

That's all we were really after anyway, right?

Jill

[ihelpyou]

No, no, and no. :)

That allows people to put the heading of:

Cloaking

as the main heading, and then call ALL other forms of content delivery a form of cloaking. All it serves to do is confuse and tell everyone that there are many different kinds of cloaking.

In reality, there is only one kind of cloaking, and that kind is spam everytime. Period.

That paragraph you quoted would be tee-totally confusing to the average webmaster as they still have no guideline as to what the heck is spam/cloaking.

Alan's article attempted to rid all of us that confusion.

As much as I respect and admire Danny, that simply does Not cut it and never will. Especially when Inktomi and Google clearly spell out what cloaking is and what it is Not.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by Advisor
Welp...both GoogleGuy and Danny agree on this definition:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I think of cloaking as showing different content to a search engine than you would show to a typical user. '
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which, from where I'm sitting, would include Trusted Feed.Please define "content". :) I'm serious. Trusted feeds aren't "content". "Content" is what people see.

I've come to the conclusion from reading many different opinions on this over the past week, that trying to narrowly define cloaking as we were, was not going to work.Dictionaries are full of words with narrowly defined meanings. What's the problem?
The word cloaking basically means hiding.True.To restrict it to saying that it's only hiding something from the search engine, but not the user doesn't actually make sense.Of course it does, in the context of Inktomi and Google saying "Don't cloak".Hiding is hiding. Cloaking is hiding. It can be hiding from the search engine and it can be hiding from the user, or a combination of both. What is the point of hiding content from the user? The point of a Web site is to SHOW content to a user. Next you'll be telling me that if I password protect a few Web pages, I'm cloaking [which I'm not, by the way :)]. The point is, Jill, that the word "cloaking" means something more than just hiding. It only makes sense in the context of search engines. And it doesn't muddy the waters either when you look at GoogleGuy's definition:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...showing different content to a search engine than you would show to a typical user.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well GoogleGuy has it easy, because Google doesn't have XML feeds. But Froogle does... so what are we saying now, Froogle is cloaking?
As Danny said earlier in this thread, with XML feeds you're showing the search engine one thing and the user something else. The search engine is allowing it, of course, so it's not spam.

The problem we're running into is that people are attempting to equate cloaking with spam. Which would definitely make things easy for us, but sorry, it's not going to work. I'm really trying to keep spam out of this. But, if you insist, Google and Inktomi both say "Don't cloak". So, cloaking is spam. I've also learned from other things I've read this week, is that for the most part, people aren't using spam cloaking all that much any more. I don't know if that's true, but that seems to be the consensus. With trusted feed, there's no need, and with Google, it's apparently too risky.With XML feeds you have to pay per click. That's a big incentive to cloak engines that have XML feeds. And cloaking always was risky. I don't have any evidence to say that cloaking is or is not large scale now. Who does?

[Advisor]

I'm not saying that I buy into what all the others are saying, however, what I am buying into is that we've got a lost cause on our hands. I'm disappointed, because I was naive enough to think that everyone would be happy for a nice definition that would make it easy to know if what they were doing was right or wrong.

Unfortunately, some engines, including Google penalize some sites for doing some things that other people call cloaking, that we wouldn't call cloaking, making them dangerous to use.

So if we tell people that they're not cloaking (which they're not) and they get banned because an engine *thought* they were cloaking, then how much at fault are we? I certainly don't want that on my shoulders.

If and only if the search engines will buy into the exact definition you give Alan, AND not penalize for the other versions (where no spam is present), that's when your defintion can take hold. I don't see it as happening any time soon, unfortunately. :(

J

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by Advisor
Unfortunately, some engines, including Google penalize some sites for doing some things that other people call cloaking, that we wouldn't call cloaking, making them dangerous to use.Innocent sites can get caught up in spam filters.

Originally posted by Advisor
So if we tell people that they're not cloaking (which they're not) and they get banned because an engine *thought* they were cloaking, then how much at fault are we? I certainly don't want that on my shoulders.No, nor do I.If and only if the search engines will buy into the exact definition you give Alan, AND not penalize for the other versions (where no spam is present), that's when your defintion can take hold.Sites are demoted in ranking, or not indexed, for more reasons than just spam penalties. Sometimes it's a mistake on the part of the search engine. Sometimes they don't want to index it. Sometimes the search engine just can't reach or crawl the site. It doesn't mean it is a penalty. You have to detach the cause and effect.

These are separate but related issues:

whether a page will be indexed or not
whether a page will be penalised or not
whether a page contains search engine spam or not

[ihelpyou]

I was informed that Jill made a great post in another forum that says it all perfectly.

I hope Jill will repost it in here as I cannot read over there.

Of course, her post was to those people who lump together all forms of content delivery and call all forms 'cloaking'. Her post was "right on"!!@@

[Advisor]

Well, you really have to read my post in context, as it was rebutting what others posted at WMW:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum24/411-8-15.htm


It sounds like now you guys are mixing together the definition of cloaking with search engine "spam."
In your broad definition of cloaking, i.e., saying that all content delivery is cloaking, or saying that trusted feed is cloaking, those things do not automatically equal spam.

It seems that you're saying that anything that might get you penalized, must be cloaking, however. And that's just not true, of course.

Cloaking (using Alan's definition) equals spam.

Spam, however, doesn't always equal cloaking. Yes, you can use those other technologies to spam, but that doesn't mean you're cloaking.

You can spam with trusted feed, still, it doesn't mean it's cloaking. You can spam with UA delivery, but it doesn't mean that it's always cloaking.

Alan was not trying to define spam (this time around...he does have another paper on that, if anyone wants to go some more rounds!). He was simply trying to define cloaking.

With his definition, cloaking always is a bad idea (as the title of the article said). But other types of what some of you call "cloaking" aren't always a bad idea, and they're not necessarily spam either (although they can be used to spam).

BUT...it's correct that if the search engines are penalizing for things they shouldn't be penalizing for, such as UA delivery, then we definitely need to warn people about that too. Still doesn't mean that we *need* to say that it's cloaking. Just that the engines may be confused and *think* that you're cloaking...so use your own best judgement if you use those technologies.

Hopefully, the engines will catch up soon, and know real cloaking when it sees it. If they would agree to Alan's definition, it would make things a lot easier for everyone!


Jill

[ihelpyou]

GREAT post Jill !!@@!!@@!!@@
Spam, however, doesn't always equal cloaking. Yes, you can use those other technologies to spam, but that doesn't mean you're cloaking.
In your broad definition of cloaking, i.e., saying that all content delivery is cloaking,
Exactly. That is truly what they say and is also what is said on Brett's page. To lump all forms of delivery under the guise of "cloaking" is just not right.

Now I'm wondering what they could say in subsequent posts? sheesh, do I have to break down and signup again over there? Sure do wish bellsouth viewers could view.

In my mind, there is nothing to say. That post sums it up real well and even I can understand it. :)

[MJR]

Safe to assume that you all read this? (Out today)
http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/03/02-cloaking.html

[MJR]

Sure do wish bellsouth viewers could view Well you tight wad you're going to just have to break down and get you one of those $9.95 a month dial-up accounts for these special treks on the Net. :D At least this way you would be disguising who you are, WAIT! I think that would be IP cloaking! Never mind ;)

[ihelpyou]

Thanks for the link Mike.

Too broad. Danny is making an attempt to satisfy both sides of this issue of defining the word "cloaking". It's a fine attempt but falls way too short in delivering.

This broad definition gives the spammers of the world the justification they need when saying "everyone cloaks". "Google cloaks".

Yes, I read the whole article. I fail to see what the problem is with Alan's article on the definition?

All Danny is saying is that when you talk about "content delivery", you are putting the word of "Cloaking" right at the top of the heap, and then putting ALL the forms of content delivery under the general word of "Cloaking". Then further saying, that cloaking might or might not be spam. To me, that's not