Clickz Article

[ihelpyou]

http://www.clickz.com/search/opt/article.php/1581511

Snippet;
"Next week, how cloaking does not equal spam."

That sentence is at the bottom, and which I Tee-Totally disagree with. Of course, I disagree with pretty much his whole darn article. He disagrees with Alan's view on things as well.

[Alan Perkins]

That's the same article as Danny's SearchEngineWatch report. You can read the whole thing here:

http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/03/02-cloaking.html

Next week, how cloaking does not equal spam.How Danny defines cloaking, it doesn't equal spam. He defines two types of cloaking: approved cloaking and unapproved cloaking. Unapproved cloaking equals spam.

I define cloaking similarly to Google and (currently at least) Inktomi. The way these search engines define it there is only one type of cloaking and it is spam. [By definition, actually, since they both specifically state "Don't cloak" on their Webmaster FAQs.] That which Danny calls "unapproved cloaking", I call "cloaking"
That which Danny calls "approved cloaking", I call "Content Delivery"

[Kal]

I think Danny assumes you guys are making him out to be "assisting" spammers by clouding the cloaking issue, whereas from his perspective he is just disagreeing with Alan's proposed definition :) (which I know was just a clarification of the existing SE definitions).

On the lighter side - I was chatting to Mike Grehan this morning by email and he said he is working on "Alan Perkin's latest White Paper: Self-Flagellation - How I earned My Stripes in SEO" :green:. He cracks me up.

[ihelpyou]

Danny does not want to do that at all. But indirectly, that's exactly what he is doing by taking the stand that all forms of content delivery are cloaking of some kind.

That's confusing to anyone who tries to understand it.

Ask both Inktomi and Google. They say there is only ONE form of cloaking. That cloaking is spam.