On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:24:26 -0300, Unknown User <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:06:01 -0300, mark | r <markrush@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> anyone want to comment on this?
>
> Mark, why don't you detect with PHP if the user-agent is one of the bots
> or a real browser, and accordingly send light and keyword-free pages to
> real visitors, and for bots, stuff the page with loads of keywords here
> and there? I've done that for a long time now, and it works pretty well.
> Here's a quick script that'll do just that:

otherwise it is known as "cloaking". Can get you banned from google.

i

><?
>
> $user_agent =
> array("Googlebot","msnbot","mediapartners-google","Overture","InnerpriseBot","IRLbot",
> "WorldLight", "Yahoo");
>
> for ($i=0,$bot=false;$i<sizeof($user_agent);$i++)
> {
> if (stristr($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],$user_agent[$i]))
> {
> $bot = true;
> break;
> }
> }
>
> ?>
>
>
><?
> if($bot) { echo "<div class=\"boost\">group of keywords here</div>"; }
> ?>
>
>
>


--

On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:37:12 +0300, "W?rm"
<nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Unknown User" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>newsp.sqnty0elr3xrds@cinza...
><snip>
>> Mark, why don't you detect with PHP if the user-agent is one of the bots
>> or a real browser, and accordingly send light and keyword-free pages to
>> real visitors, and for bots, stuff the page with loads of keywords here
>> and there? I've done that for a long time now, and it works pretty well.
>
>You do realize that google suggest to NOT use cloaking?
>
>http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html "Don't employ cloaking or
>sneaky redirects." (in quality guidelines)
>
>You might get penalty or have site dropped off from index totally because of
>that if your competitior finds out and sends abuse info to google, or if
>google finds out...

Also, pigs might fly. Do you never wonder how Fantomaster survives to
make a living? Can you find an index in Google that isn't riddled with
spam? Google would really like to ban spam sites but it can't while
spam sites are far and away the majority. Google's lack of action in
this regard is the prinsipal reason for the continued existence of
everything it complains about and sternly warns against. Google talks
a load of crap.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:37:12 +0300, "W?rm"
> <nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>"Unknown User" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>newsp.sqnty0elr3xrds@cinza...
>><snip>
>>
>>>Mark, why don't you detect with PHP if the user-agent is one of the bots
>>>or a real browser, and accordingly send light and keyword-free pages to
>>>real visitors, and for bots, stuff the page with loads of keywords here
>>>and there? I've done that for a long time now, and it works pretty well.
>>
>>You do realize that google suggest to NOT use cloaking?
>>
>>http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html "Don't employ cloaking or
>>sneaky redirects." (in quality guidelines)
>>
>>You might get penalty or have site dropped off from index totally because of
>>that if your competitior finds out and sends abuse info to google, or if
>>google finds out...
>
>
> Also, pigs might fly. Do you never wonder how Fantomaster survives to
> make a living? Can you find an index in Google that isn't riddled with
> spam? Google would really like to ban spam sites but it can't while
> spam sites are far and away the majority. Google's lack of action in
> this regard is the prinsipal reason for the continued existence of
> everything it complains about and sternly warns against. Google talks
> a load of crap.

Yeah right, until you get hit by a penalty or even a ban.


Tonnie

--
Glas geschiedenis http://vision2form.nl/glashistorie.html
Passie en talent http://vision2form.nl/young_talent.html
Webontwerp http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/index.html
SEO gaat zo http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html

"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j6q681l27e43jqtbs1ondk1mq75l01qi1s@4ax.com...

<snip>

> Also, pigs might fly. Do you never wonder how Fantomaster survives to
> make a living? Can you find an index in Google that isn't riddled with
> spam? Google would really like to ban spam sites but it can't while
> spam sites are far and away the majority. Google's lack of action in
> this regard is the prinsipal reason for the continued existence of
> everything it complains about and sternly warns against. Google talks
> a load of crap.

Ah, so you courage your clients to spam? Or cloak pages just for
searchengines?

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:06:19 +0300, "W?rm"
<nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:j6q681l27e43jqtbs1ondk1mq75l01qi1s@4ax.com.. .
>
><snip>
>
>> Also, pigs might fly. Do you never wonder how Fantomaster survives to
>> make a living? Can you find an index in Google that isn't riddled with
>> spam? Google would really like to ban spam sites but it can't while
>> spam sites are far and away the majority. Google's lack of action in
>> this regard is the prinsipal reason for the continued existence of
>> everything it complains about and sternly warns against. Google talks
>> a load of crap.
>
>Ah, so you courage your clients to spam? Or cloak pages just for
>searchengines?

No.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:43:56 +0200, Tonnie <t.prasing@chello.nl>
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:37:12 +0300, "W?rm"
>> <nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Unknown User" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>newsp.sqnty0elr3xrds@cinza...
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Mark, why don't you detect with PHP if the user-agent is one of the bots
>>>>or a real browser, and accordingly send light and keyword-free pages to
>>>>real visitors, and for bots, stuff the page with loads of keywords here
>>>>and there? I've done that for a long time now, and it works pretty well.
>>>
>>>You do realize that google suggest to NOT use cloaking?
>>>
>>>http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html "Don't employ cloaking or
>>>sneaky redirects." (in quality guidelines)
>>>
>>>You might get penalty or have site dropped off from index totally because of
>>>that if your competitior finds out and sends abuse info to google, or if
>>>google finds out...
>>
>>
>> Also, pigs might fly. Do you never wonder how Fantomaster survives to
>> make a living? Can you find an index in Google that isn't riddled with
>> spam? Google would really like to ban spam sites but it can't while
>> spam sites are far and away the majority. Google's lack of action in
>> this regard is the prinsipal reason for the continued existence of
>> everything it complains about and sternly warns against. Google talks
>> a load of crap.
>
>Yeah right, until you get hit by a penalty or even a ban.

Which is likely to be when? How many sites do you hear of actually
being banned? Or penalised? You hear a lot of talk about it happening
but not to whom.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

W?rm wrote:

> "Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j6q681l27e43jqtbs1ondk1mq75l01qi1s@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>>Also, pigs might fly. Do you never wonder how Fantomaster survives to
>>make a living? Can you find an index in Google that isn't riddled with
>>spam? Google would really like to ban spam sites but it can't while
>>spam sites are far and away the majority. Google's lack of action in
>>this regard is the prinsipal reason for the continued existence of
>>everything it complains about and sternly warns against. Google talks
>>a load of crap.


[1] They are big enough now to do whatever they want.


> Ah, so you courage your clients to spam? Or cloak pages just for
> searchengines?


When I go to google.com, it sniffs my IP and redirects my browser to
google.co.uk

That's cloaking based on my ip. (or geo targeting depending on your pov)
:0)


Either way you look at it, they redirect my request, to a page that
*I_didn't_ask_for*.


<quote> Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects. </quote>


Unless you are [1] above.

:~D

Big Bill wrote:

> Which is likely to be when? How many sites do you hear of actually
> being banned? Or penalised? You hear a lot of talk about it happening
> but not to whom.

When I actively reported cloaking / spam I managed to kick, I guess, 5 - 7
sites out of Google. It took sometimes over many weeks to see it happen.

That was some time ago, don't know how fast Google acts now.

I partially agree with you, Bill, that if Google kicks out too many sites
that walk a thin line ( hah! ), that Google get's a bit empty.

And somehow "we" think that the number of pages indexed = quality (not).

Same holds for all those cheap copiers (lyric sites, Usenet archives, Wiki
cloners, etc.). They slap adsense on every page. Advertizers happy, Google
happy.

Serious competition could kick Google in a better direction, but there is
none (or I don't see any). Google is the Microsoft of SE, and soon (2-3
years) the Microsoft of Internet.

I have the impression that MS is warming up for a SE war: MSN Messenger is
cluttered with MS Search buttons, and who knows what they have in mind for
IE 7.0...

We'll see.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

W?rm wrote:

> Ah, so you courage your clients to spam? Or cloak pages just for
> searchengines?

Funny how someone's idea about something in this group is always twisted in
action. (Uhm, well, not only this group).

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9654938757CF7castleamber@130.133.1.4...
<snip>

> Funny how someone's idea about something in this group is always twisted
in
> action. (Uhm, well, not only this group).

Heh, world is twisted place