Ajax or not ajax?

For SEO purposes is a bad idea to have 2 sites heavily interlinked. You could be penalized by Search Engines.
IMO you should have only one site with different URLs for both versions: AJAX and NOT-AJAX.
Probably, the Ajax page won't be high ranked because their poor on-page factors.

I was using that method for several years, and my non-ajax pages has been high ranked on Google.

 

hey this is cloaking, you're better careful with this.

 

what could SE do for this?

 

If a site using Ajax, the site will index by major SE?? If not, how to get index?

 

No, that's not cloaking.
Definition on cloaking on wikipedia:
"Cloaking is a black hat search engine optimization (SEO) technique in which the content presented to the search engine spider is different from that presented to the users' browser. This is done by delivering content based on the IP addresses or the User-Agent HTTP header of the user requesting the page...."

 

^ Is that not exactly what we are talking about here?

 

Yes, the izwanmad suggestion is cloaking.
I simply said that my suggestion (different URLs on same site for both versions) is not cloaking.

 

Ah. Sorry, I missed that! Thought you were still referring to the cloaking suggestion

 

2 all - thanks for info - seems like we have a great conversation here

 

besides, related question - what owner should do if his website was blacklisted with SE ?

 

Buy another domain and transfer content from old domain to new domain without black seo tricks.

 

= )

nice cuggestion for spammers and spoofers

 

Just use AJAX as candy to your site. Build the site using HTML and CSS and then add AJAX effects. If you use javascript you should always use the <noscript> code anyway - it's good for accessibility and search engines (SE's read noscipt coding)

 

seems to be the best solution, as we are returning to it through all the conversation.

 

yepp - the easiest way out - is using ajax as a nice and beautiful addition to something already existing