On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:02:41 -0300, "Unknown User" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:36:13 -0300, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I think webmasters who practice SEO and don't cross the line are no
>numerous. Who has never put invisible keyworks in his page?

Well, most of us here for starters because we were never that dumb.
There's better ways of shoe-horning keywords in. Most of them look
stupid though.

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

Big Bill wrote:

> On 13 May 2005 00:05:53 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Unknown User wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:37:12 -0300, W?rm
>>> <nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do realize that google suggest to NOT use cloaking?
>>>
>>> I think Google doesn't detect it. It works fine, and along with
>>> backlinks I have good PRs so far.
>>
>>Some users might detect it and report it.
>
> So what? If it's simply serving up a decent on-topic site then who
> cares?

If there is content, no problem. If it's just a doorway page, I used to
report it. I haven't seen those for quite some time now :-)

--
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