DMOZ "Cloaking" category - picked up by Google

This is really a two-part question:

1. Why does DMOZ have a category for Top: Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development: Promotion: Cloaking (11):

2. Why has Google included this category in the Google Directory when it is clearly contrary to Google's Guidlines for Webmasters?

FWIW, I've just reported this to http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html .

(Thanks to Will for the find.)

 

There are legit reasons for cloaking.

 

And maybe some of those sites are about those legitimate reasons. I don't think these would be among them though:

 

I don't claim to be an expert in that area of the directory at all, so I am sure there is a more detailed answer. I suppose that the short answer to #1 would be because the sites exist and there is a necessity to some users to have access to that type of information. Whether or not one likes this tactic (and there are some legitimate reasons for using them) the sites are there and should be cataloged.

 

This isn't new...

Like Rob says, there *are* legit reasons for cloaking...

Regardless though - Why shouldn't there be a category for cloaking?

Edit:

Right...

Getting wound up or shocked about this is pretty pointless IMO - If someone wants to find the information, they'll do it whatever.

 

You don't find an inherent contradiction (1) in the fact that DMOZ includes these sites among the "best of the web", and (2) in the fact that Google includes the category and the listings in direct contradiction of their stated guidelines for webmasters?

I'm not wound up - just curious. And I am certainly not shocked about anything DMOZ does. But: People can find information on anything on the net. DMOZ claims to list only the best of the web. Where do you draw the line?

I wouldn't list crap like this, or on methods for suicide, or pro-anorexia sites, etc., etc., in my directory. I thought the whole point of human edited directories was an element of quality control...

 

Well fantomaster's software is most likely the best out there for cloaking - I'd say it deserves a spot in the 'best of the web' category for cloaking...

Don't forget - It's Google who make up those guilelines, not the editors of DMOZ...

As far as DMOZ are concerned, those sites are a good resource. Regardless as to what Google think of them.

 

Yes, Minstrel, there are many BIG companies cloaking, for several reasons.
Whether cloaking to give regional results, for protecting information, and others like: browser specific optimization, content visible to registered users while robots and unregistered visitors get a sign-up form, etc.
Even Google was caught cloaking:
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1774

I don't mind that someone use cloaking on their site, although I never used it. What I dislike is scraping, because that violates copyright, but that has nothing to do with cloaking. Cloaking can be used to serve good or bad content.

 

As DMOZ editors we don't judge a site on its subject (unless it violates some major laws and we are told not to list these kind of sites).
If a site offers unique content and doesn't violate the DMOZ guidelines it can be listed. By doing so we try to give people access to all kind of information. We don't need to like the information ourself.
We even list Search_Engine_Optimization_Firms and Affiliate_Programs

 

Wow, that's pretty lame of Google.

EDIT:
Nope, this is lamer:
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/6489/lamer5js.jpg

Wonder if that was by Sergey and Larry themselves?

Someone take pity on me and green rep me =)

 

I read the threadwatch report and followed the links provided and see no difference in the new cache file and the current page today.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if they corrected their "oversight" or if they simply moved it somewhere else?

 

There are other reasons Google should kick WMW out of the index