www.stillunemployedafterschoolbecausemysitewasbanned.com Cloaking is so 1990's. It's all good dude, I doubt anyone will help you here with your quest. It's for your own good really.
If cloaking is dead, why is the New York Times doing it? I posted useful info here: http://www.seoegghead.com/blog/seo/simple-cloak-php-library-p34.html http://www.seoegghead.com/blog/seo/the-google-cloaking-hypocrisy-p32.html Someone please quote me and make those links active as I'm still under the threshhold for live links. I do agree, however, that cloaking should not be your first choice for solving and problem. But cliche statements like "cloaking is so 1990s" are not appropriate at all. --J
I'm actually enhancing the script and releasing a new version later this week -- but if you choose to use it, don't worry, the interface will be the same -- it just fixes some (minor) kinks.
Dude. Go to any SE. Type anything with the word "cloaking" or "cloaker" in it. Ignore the Harry Potter and Star Trek sites. The rest will be about cloaking web pages. And a word of caution. Don't go crazy with it. Stay under the radar, don't be greedy, and try to stick to 100% relevant cloaking. Once you cloak the gloves are off. So if you get caught, and banned, suck it up and move on.
well many ppl have different ideas... some says its GOOD, some says its BAD... its better to keep it away bcz if u get caught.. understand plz
Is the script at http://www.seoegghead.com/blog/seo/simple-cloak-php-library-p34.html the new one with the minor fixes done? can we get it just from the page or is there another update ? cheers Gracecore
there are plenty of legitimate reasons to cloak. cloaking won't get you banned, cloaking and trying to decieve the search engines will; there's a bit of a difference.