Comments on: Call for Papers: AIRWeb 2007 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/ neat fun stuff Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:35:07 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Protrox http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-97134 Protrox Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:42:09 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-97134 Thank you for submitting this sorted data, it did create a fuss of more then a 100 comments lol. A very interesting read indeed. Thank you for submitting this sorted data, it did create a fuss of more then a 100 comments lol. A very interesting read indeed.

]]> By: tony stagg http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-93303 tony stagg Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:48:19 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-93303 Hi Matt Since Dr Edel Garcia is included in Program Committee could you give us a comment on his SEO methodology, particularly EF ratios and c-index. Tank you in advance. Hi Matt
Since Dr Edel Garcia is included in Program Committee could you give us a comment on his SEO methodology, particularly EF ratios and c-index.

Tank you in advance.

]]> By: Doug Heil http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92214 Doug Heil Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:21:57 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92214 Hi Michael, You are not getting the point. Cloaking is a specific form of content delivery that deceives the "search engines". Where is Google being deceived? It's the search engine user being deceived, right? Cloaking is "always" search engine spam. I don't know how else to explain this. Maybe others can explain this more clearly? Both Google and NYT are deceiving the search engine users. If Google is not being deceived, it cannot be cloaking. Hi Michael, You are not getting the point. Cloaking is a specific form of content delivery that deceives the “search engines”. Where is Google being deceived?

It’s the search engine user being deceived, right?

Cloaking is “always” search engine spam.

I don’t know how else to explain this. Maybe others can explain this more clearly?

Both Google and NYT are deceiving the search engine users. If Google is not being deceived, it cannot be cloaking.

]]> By: Michael Martinez http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92207 Michael Martinez Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:02:38 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92207 When Google starts showing people what they'll see when going to the New York Times, ACM, Project Muse, et. al. then I'l agree they are not cloaking. In the mean time, I don't get my information (certainly not my definitions) from Phil. The request for Google to stop showing deceptive results from those sites stands. Personally, I don't care what anyone calls them. They are misleading, they give the unsuspecting user a bad experience, and they are just plain annoying to those of us who don't want to have to skim over them in the SERPs. Google should make showing closed content optional, not a requirement. When Google starts showing people what they’ll see when going to the New York Times, ACM, Project Muse, et. al. then I’l agree they are not cloaking.

In the mean time, I don’t get my information (certainly not my definitions) from Phil.

The request for Google to stop showing deceptive results from those sites stands. Personally, I don’t care what anyone calls them. They are misleading, they give the unsuspecting user a bad experience, and they are just plain annoying to those of us who don’t want to have to skim over them in the SERPs.

Google should make showing closed content optional, not a requirement.

]]> By: Doug Heil http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92150 Doug Heil Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:50:35 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92150 Yes; very good. And since the NYT is not treating Google any more special than a user who is subscribed, it's fine, and not cloaking. I call those type of pages in the SERPS as being "search engine user spam" as they deceive the search engine user. When you deceive the googlebot, it's called "search engine spam". Google is not being deceived by the NYT. The NYT is deceiving search engine users. Yes; very good. And since the NYT is not treating Google any more special than a user who is subscribed, it’s fine, and not cloaking.

I call those type of pages in the SERPS as being “search engine user spam” as they deceive the search engine user. When you deceive the googlebot, it’s called “search engine spam”. Google is not being deceived by the NYT. The NYT is deceiving search engine users.

]]> By: Harith http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92138 Harith Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:30:55 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92138 In fact Matt did mention someting about IP delivery and Cloaking ;) <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/boston-pubcon-2006-day-1/#comment-22227" rel="nofollow">Her is what Matt wrote</a> ! -------------- Here’s the short answer from Google’s perspective: IP delivery: delivering results to users based on IP address. Cloaking: showing different pages to users than to search engines. IP delivery includes things like “users from Britain get sent to the co.uk, users from France get sent to the .fr”. This is fine–even Google does this. It’s when you do something *special* or out-of-the-ordinary for Googlebot that you start to get in trouble, because that’s cloaking. In the example above, cloaking would be “if a user is from Googlelandia, they get sent to our Google-only optimized text pages.” So IP delivery is fine, but don’t do anything special for Googlebot. Just treat it like a typical user visiting the site. --------------------------------- In fact Matt did mention someting about IP delivery and Cloaking ;)

Her is what Matt wrote !

————–
Here’s the short answer from Google’s perspective:

IP delivery: delivering results to users based on IP address.
Cloaking: showing different pages to users than to search engines.

IP delivery includes things like “users from Britain get sent to the co.uk, users from France get sent to the .fr”. This is fine–even Google does this.

It’s when you do something *special* or out-of-the-ordinary for Googlebot that you start to get in trouble, because that’s cloaking. In the example above, cloaking would be “if a user is from Googlelandia, they get sent to our Google-only optimized text pages.”

So IP delivery is fine, but don’t do anything special for Googlebot. Just treat it like a typical user visiting the site.
———————————

]]> By: Doug Heil http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92127 Doug Heil Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:31:27 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92127 I certainly agree. And why I say that's a whole other issue. The fact is, it's still not "cloaking". It is deceptive however and NO search engine user I know of wants to see a login page when expecting to see free content in the free organic results. I'm not disagreeing with that at all, and Google should do something about it. It's not a cloaking issue however. It's a bait and switch and deception issue. Myself and PhilC agree on this issue of what cloaking is and is not. It's not often over the last ten years him and I actually agree on something, so you know we are not full of it..... this time. :) Some members in this thread are "elders" in this industry, so I think it's high time we actually agree on the real definition of cloaking. There are many tiypes of content delivery. Cloaking happens to be a very specific type. That type is always search engine spam. When Google detects the region of a user agent, Google ain't cloaking. When other sites do the same thing, it's not cloaking. When my site detects whether or not a user agent has flash installed and directs them to the html site or the flash site, that's not cloaking either. All are forms of content delivery. The only form that is spam "all the time" is cloaking. The other forms "could" be spam if the intent is there, but they all have their best practices place as a type of content delivery. What the NYT times is doing,... what the WMW forums does,... and even what I could be doing in my own forums if I wanted to do so, is "not" cloaking. Deceptive to search engine users? Oh yes. I certainly agree. And why I say that’s a whole other issue. The fact is, it’s still not “cloaking”. It is deceptive however and NO search engine user I know of wants to see a login page when expecting to see free content in the free organic results. I’m not disagreeing with that at all, and Google should do something about it. It’s not a cloaking issue however. It’s a bait and switch and deception issue.

Myself and PhilC agree on this issue of what cloaking is and is not. It’s not often over the last ten years him and I actually agree on something, so you know we are not full of it….. this time. :) Some members in this thread are “elders” in this industry, so I think it’s high time we actually agree on the real definition of cloaking. There are many tiypes of content delivery. Cloaking happens to be a very specific type. That type is always search engine spam. When Google detects the region of a user agent, Google ain’t cloaking. When other sites do the same thing, it’s not cloaking. When my site detects whether or not a user agent has flash installed and directs them to the html site or the flash site, that’s not cloaking either. All are forms of content delivery. The only form that is spam “all the time” is cloaking. The other forms “could” be spam if the intent is there, but they all have their best practices place as a type of content delivery. What the NYT times is doing,… what the WMW forums does,… and even what I could be doing in my own forums if I wanted to do so, is “not” cloaking. Deceptive to search engine users? Oh yes.

]]> By: Michael Martinez http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92090 Michael Martinez Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:53:42 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92090 Cloaking (which some sites do -- they use IP detection to let the spiders in -- no subscriptions involevd) or baiting and switching, call it what you will. The point is that the search engines are serving irrelevant results that adversely affect the user experience. Since I cannot get into those sites I don't want to see them in my search results. I should not have to click past them to get to meaningful, useful content. Cloaking (which some sites do — they use IP detection to let the spiders in — no subscriptions involevd) or baiting and switching, call it what you will. The point is that the search engines are serving irrelevant results that adversely affect the user experience. Since I cannot get into those sites I don’t want to see them in my search results. I should not have to click past them to get to meaningful, useful content.

]]> By: graywolf http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92084 graywolf Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:12:33 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92084 C'mon you don't expect me to buy that malarky do you? Showing the SE's one thing so you rank and showing me the user crap is nothing more than a bait and switch scheme to pry money out of my wallet. If I really wanted the info I could log into my library which has has free online databases for anyone with a library card, so it's the point of the matter not the actual data. The reason they get away with it is because they are the new york times period C’mon you don’t expect me to buy that malarky do you? Showing the SE’s one thing so you rank and showing me the user crap is nothing more than a bait and switch scheme to pry money out of my wallet. If I really wanted the info I could log into my library which has has free online databases for anyone with a library card, so it’s the point of the matter not the actual data.

The reason they get away with it is because they are the new york times period

]]> By: Doug Heil http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92077 Doug Heil Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:57:35 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/call-for-papers-airweb-2007/#comment-92077 But Michael, What you describe is not cloaking. It's showing user agents who are already subscribed, the content therein. Those not subscribed get the "subscribe" page. It's not cloaking at all. Those sites are simply allowing se's to be already subscribed. User agents who are also subscribed get the same content. Not cloaking. Not spam. Of course none of us want to see those type pages in the SERPS. That is an entirely different subject though. The main point as it relates to this thread is that showing user agents who are not subscribed a page that asks them to subscribe is NOT cloaking. But Michael, What you describe is not cloaking. It’s showing user agents who are already subscribed, the content therein. Those not subscribed get the “subscribe” page. It’s not cloaking at all. Those sites are simply allowing se’s to be already subscribed. User agents who are also subscribed get the same content. Not cloaking. Not spam.

Of course none of us want to see those type pages in the SERPS. That is an entirely different subject though.

The main point as it relates to this thread is that showing user agents who are not subscribed a page that asks them to subscribe is NOT cloaking.

]]>