Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
secloaker
Joined: Sep 08, 2004
# Posts: 19
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-11 20:32
Most competitors don't go to that level of trouble. Most simply compare cache to see if they are cloaking.
Peter
|
 |
secloaker
Joined: Sep 08, 2004
# Posts: 19
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-14 20:56
I think it is outrageous that I have been "warned" because of posting signatures. Not only is it highly relevant to this conversation that I am the owner of [url removed] but it is particularly galling given that I was chatting with multiple "JimGuides"... presumably they could have told me earlier, rather than until waiting until the end of the thread and then retroactively editing all my threads to reduce the thrust of my argument. I spent considerable time formulating my arguments here, and it is important for people to know who I am, other than just the meaningless "secloaker". Give me a break.
[Per TOS, please keep URLs in your profile.]
[ Message was edited by: thejenn 09/14/2004 08:19 pm ]
|
|
secloaker
Joined: Sep 08, 2004
# Posts: 19
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-14 21:00
It is pretty funny, too... I guess you aren't allowed to post any URLs here, eh? Look at the original post where I introduce myself and indicate that I am the owner of [url removed] -- I think everyone would agree that inclusion of this URL and my relationship to it is highly relevant for this discussion. Yet the "powers that be" on this moribund site chose to edit the "www" and "com" out, so it just reads searchenginecloaker. How stupid and trite? And what's the point, other than to unravel my arguments in small and calculated ways?
[Per TOS, please keep your URL in profile]
[ Message was edited by: thejenn 09/14/2004 08:20 pm ]
|
|
unreviewed
Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-14 23:26
Calm down Peter. 
Actually I'm hoping this conversation isn't over, I'd still like to get into the ROI angle. We do have a TOS and yes it states no sig's, but that doesn't mean you can't link, for example, you linked to a graphic on your web site and that is relevant to the conversation, and it's still there, it wasn't removed.
JimGuide's, were not set up as moderators. Editing of posts to comply with the TOS for the last several months has been the responsibility of the admin's, not JimGuide's. Volunteers can be busy and sometimes can take awhile to get to a thread.
Now, ... you did have a couple of good things to say about this site a few posts back, so lets not sweat the small stuff and see if we can get this thread back on track?
|
|
thejenn
Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-15 04:25
Since:
a.) you had a post that clearly established your position as the head of SEO Cloaker
b.) we hold all of our posters to the same standard
c.) our TOS (which you must agree to when registering for the forums) clearly state that signature files and placing your own URL within your posts are not permitted
I edited your posts and sent you a note explaining why. I would have done it earlier, but you see I'm quite pregnant and trying to wrap up project deadlines before the baby comes, so I'm a tad bit slower than usual in getting these things addressed. My most sincere apologies for not having done it sooner. 
Now, you can pitch a fit about being held to the same standards as all of our other members, or you can continue to carry on the rational, intelligent conversation that you were having before the edits took place. The choice is yours.
[ Message was edited by: thejenn 09/14/2004 09:50 pm ]
|
|
secloaker
Joined: Sep 08, 2004
# Posts: 19
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-15 06:19
This forum is needlessly arbitary in its enforcement. I find URLs all over your forum, yet mine are deleted even though they are totally germaine to the conversation. I too was hoping to continue a substantive discussion of the issues of Cloaking, but what's the point when my posts are needlessly edited?
Anyway, "unreviewed", what other questions do you have?
Peter Bray
[the rest shall remain secret]
[ Message was edited by: secloaker 09/14/2004 10:46 pm ]
|
|
unreviewed
Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776
|
Posted: 2004-Sep-16 02:49
I'm trying to think of a way to avoid, the usual argument of "why cloak at all" ...
Ron brought up a good point in that no one can point to a top ranking topic and find someone sitting at the top who is cloaking. So ... how can we avoid the usual argument of whatever is on a cloaked page, can be put on a html page. I'll give you the argument of a complete flash web site ... the answer don't use flash is inadequate, and responsible cloaking for such a web site, IMO, should be allowed. That said, I don't own a search engine and they make the rules.
It also makes sense to me that it wouldn't be cost effective for engines to crawl the web looking for cloaking. I agree that regular keyword density filters should be adequate to find blatant spammers
A couple of pages back, you gave some good points, for Why To Cloak and I won't argue with any of that, I could, but that as you know just creates a round robin of posts, and the Internet is "lousy" with that same argument.
But bottom line, if what a web master wants is ROI, I just don't understand, except in perhaps extreme cases, as I mentioned flash, or even the point you made in that post I just linked to, keywords that have a double meaning, ... why do you think it is more economical to make 2 pages when one will do?
Could it be that engines don't bother to try to detect cloaking because the advantage it is said to provide is myth?
|
|
toptemp
Joined: Nov 07, 2004
# Posts: 4
|
Posted: 2004-Nov-08 02:40
Well, I know I for one am looking for some cloaking software or whatever it is because, I have a dynamic (html) website that the SEs can't get through too easily, so I want to send them to a different page that is very similar to the one the browsers would be getting but without all the crap such as javascript and such.
|
|
Luca Brasi
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
# Posts: 127
|
Posted: 2004-Dec-04 11:35
Ron C:
"Without that, you'll find yourself serving a cloaked page to a spider on one request, then the uncloaked page to the SAME spider on a different IP address two minutes later. "
Im not into cloaking so please explain to me why that is a problem. Why does it matter to a cloaker if the spider/SE indexes his "end-pages" (The ones he wants the visitor to see)?
In effect, my question is: Why does a cloaker need to block the spiders?
I thought the only ways a cloaker could get caught was by manual reporting or using code/scripts that are banned bt the SE's?
|
|
Luca Brasi
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
# Posts: 127
|
Posted: 2004-Dec-04 12:33
Never mind my question in the post above, I didn't read the thread properly...
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
