Can I get an opinion on whether you would call the following technique cloaking and face the possible wrath of Google. This may be an old and well known SEO technique but it’s the first time I’ve come across it. Basically the main page just looks like a flash animation with very little textual content. But looking at the source, the page is actually coded as 2 frames with one being invisible. <frameset rows="0,*" frameborder="0" border="0"> <frame name="blank" height="0px" src="/blank.htm" scrolling="no"> <frame name="content" src="/home/home.html"> <noframes> <body> The part I think may be seen as cloaking is that in the <noframes> part is a very keyword rich portion of text and to me it seems pretty obvious that this site has no need for frames in the traditional sense. Thanks in advance
Yeah, it's like using an i-frame to hide the content I think... PM me the URL and I can have a proper look, but by the sounds of things it could be spammy. It doesn't sound like cloaking though (One page to search engines and another to users).
Its not really cloaking. I asked a few SEOs and have seen it happen a few times here in The Netherlands. It often bothers me, and if they HEAVILY use this, then it could be cloaking, but if it is just a noframe page, with some keywords... then they could as well use that as framed page, nothing wrong with making noframe versions. Its just linking to a noframe page right? Ssomehow some people tend to see a page with a bit more keywords in it, not as cloaking. .......Or is it an entire sitemap with optimized pages?
Blast from the past a bit, I'd forgotten I'd ever asked this question . My opinion now is that it isn't cloaking but is something I wouldn't want any where near any of my long term sites. The site in question contains about 5 links and a 1,000 words in the no frame section, it's the home page of my current soon to be ex employers so I don't really care what happens to them anymore.