1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

is Webmasterworld using black hat techniques?

Discussion in 'General Marketing' started by mikkom, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. Phynder

    Phynder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    145
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    178
    #21
    Exactly my point! Yes, ban NYT too.
     
    Phynder, Nov 14, 2006 IP
  2. andre75

    andre75 Peon

    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #22
    I give up. Where is that damn unsubscibe.
    Yes, lets ban New York Times, Webmasterworld, IEEE and every other credible source that needs a sign up and load the search engines with even more crap (MFA). That will surely make the Web more usable for all of us.
     
    andre75, Nov 14, 2006 IP
  3. Zedzero

    Zedzero Peon

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    - it is cloaking. it doesn't matter whether it shows keyword garbage or real content to the search engine.
    - it is cloaking. it doesn't matter whether some big guys are doing it or not. remember, even wordpress.org is banned for invisible content. what would happen if you had said "invisible content is ok, even wordpress uses it"? that's same.
    - it is cloaking. it doesn't matter if the membership is free or not. it isn't even related.
     
    Zedzero, Nov 14, 2006 IP
  4. Phynder

    Phynder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    145
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    178
    #24
    So, you want information in a search engine that you cannot access? Yes, I can access IEEE - but I spend a good amount of money for that. When I want an IEEE article, I search for it in the Digital Library. If I want a NYT article, I log in and search for it there. If I want a thread from WMW, then I log in (yes, I pay for that too - groan) and search for it there. I am sick and tired of searching for something in google, then having to log in to see if it is really relevant.

    The quality of the material has nothing to do with the technical method - cloaking in this case - of delivering to the search engine bots.
     
    Phynder, Nov 14, 2006 IP
  5. Monty

    Monty Peon

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    132
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #25
    I agree, technically, this is cloaking.

    The same with del.icio.us, cloaking on the User-Agent :
    Browsers see
    <meta name="robots" content="noarchive,nofollow,noindex"/>
    Code (markup):
    but Googlebot don't and pages get indexed.


    I don't say it's good or it's bad, but whatever the reasons, if cloaking definition is "Show differents results depending on who request them", then it is cloaking.
     
    Monty, Nov 14, 2006 IP
  6. windtalker

    windtalker Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    34
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #26
    When you give the SE spider one thing but show something different to a searcher it is cloaking, it doesn't matter how someone tries to explain it.

    If a small new site done the same as the NY times or webmasterworld, I'll bet google would waste no time to ban that site. Google is letting those sites "bend" the rules probably because Google consider them "authoritive" sites.
     
    windtalker, Nov 14, 2006 IP
    Phynder likes this.
  7. mikkom

    mikkom Active Member

    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #27
    Exactly! That's the point. Regulations should be the same for everyone. I don't care who spams the search engines with cloaking trash pages.
     
    mikkom, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  8. homebizdev

    homebizdev Peon

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #28
    I must admit - I've not found webmaster world particularly valuable. On the other hand, what's a free email account? Not a major issue either way.
     
    homebizdev, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  9. Phynder

    Phynder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    145
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    178
    #29
    Or from the consumer's perspective - Why they heck do you NEED a free account to login and see the content? Indeed - it is silly on both sides.
     
    Phynder, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  10. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    it is cloaking, yes.

    but cloaking isn't always blackhat, or is cloaking always grounds for being banned in google.

    there are plenty of legitimate reasons for cloaking.

    and I think a lot of people are confused: the far majority of webmasterworld threads do not require a paid subscription, they just require a free membership. only threads in the supporters forum require you to pay.
     
    disgust, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  11. Monty

    Monty Peon

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    132
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    Don't you think they could have a legitimate reason to require logging ? Like scraping issues or something ?
     
    Monty, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  12. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    that's definitely a likely factor. brett tabke's mentioned a number of times that scraping is the most significant problem webmasterworld faces. it's possible to scrape content even with something that requires an account + login, but it's more difficult and stops a lot of people.

    I don't think that's the only reason he's doing it though; I'm sure he's getting lots of subscriptions as a result of how he's structured things. I wouldn't call it blackhat, I'd call it pretty damn clever. :)
     
    disgust, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  13. Phynder

    Phynder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    145
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    178
    #33
    This is where I am ignorant - my understanding was that Google had a "no tolerance" attitude towards cloaking. But you are saying that Google does allow it?

    I have a PAID account, but it is still painful to have to log in (cause I clear my cookies every now and again) when I do a Google search and happen upon a WMW thread in the SERPs. People complain about SE spam? I see this as being no different.
     
    Phynder, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  14. Monty

    Monty Peon

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    132
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    There is what Google say and what Google do.
     
    Monty, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  15. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #35
    yes, they do.

    cloaking is not automatically unacceptable. there are plenty of legitimate ways to cloak. it's still a risky road to go down, but plenty of sites cloak in a legitimate matter (webmasterworld would be one of them) and see no negative effects as a result.
     
    disgust, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  16. Phynder

    Phynder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    145
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    178
    #36
    Thanks Monty - that is an excellent example of what I thought Google's stand was on cloaking! As usual, Google makes it clear as mud...
     
    Phynder, Nov 15, 2006 IP
    Monty likes this.
  17. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #37
    I don't think you can take what they say on the guidelines page without a grain of salt.

    they also say:

    "Make pages for users, not for search engines." -- every SEO is guilty here. we do take SE's into account when making a page. if we didn't, we wouldn't be doing search engine optimization.

    "Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank." -- don't participate in link building projects? again, every SEO is guilty here.

    "Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines." -- if any page created with SE's in mind is a "doorway page," again, almost every SEO is guilty here.

    the webmaster guidelines are not absolute. any of these things, when taken to an extreme, can obviously cause you major problems. on a minor scale google tolerates them, as can be seen from webmasterworld and NYTime's cloaking.
     
    disgust, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  18. Monty

    Monty Peon

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    132
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #38
    I agree with you, but this is not the webmaster guidelines, this is Matt Cutts making a clear distinction beetween IP delivery and cloaking, and he says :

     
    Monty, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  19. Marx

    Marx Peon

    Messages:
    841
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #39
    Im not sure if that is cloaking, there are methods to allow googlebot to index your content but not to allow other users to view it, such as paid member forums
     
    Marx, Nov 15, 2006 IP
  20. amnezia

    amnezia Peon

    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    can someone provide and example of one of these pages at webmaster world, i wanna try something
     
    amnezia, Nov 15, 2006 IP