I'm owner site and don't cloak it. But I would like to do. Why do I not do?

Because I intend it must to have a long life.

At this point there is an unbalance. It seems to me that many webmasters that get a lot of domains to sell something on a campaign, i e, will have sites of short life, cloak them without so many risks. When Google begins (it begins, indeed?) to detect the question, the campaign is at end. At the other side, who has a long life site has more chance to be punished.

Excuse me my poor English.

> Peter,
>
> Please restrict your "answers" to questions actually asked. Keep all
> marketing hype to your website, not ours.
>
> I re-reviewed what was deleted and none of it was related to the question
> being asked. A recommendattion for your site was asked for only. You
> recommended yourself, which was OK, but the rest of the marketing hype was
> not.
>
> ~Janet Berg

Linda's comment:
Very fair reply except for the bit that says,"not ours". 5th amendment Janet, 5th amendment, Oie veh!

How is Janet's comment a 5th ammendment deal? Janet or Jim does have a right to request that marketing hype not be posted here. I don't see the 5th having jurisdiction in this case.

(Copy Shortcut)

Janet, MJR, OAC and everyone else here are absolutely free and blameless to say whatever they want about this stuff, anytime they like, without any remote threat of "legal" action. It is total spam and completely dangerous, insidious garbage. It is in the same category as ***** enlargement pills, Haitian Voodoo hair replacement, snake oil treatments, Quija Board SE Indexing, etc.

It is particularly annoying when someone who plagiarizes a third-rate programming technique, really thinks they've done something spectacular and announces their ignorance to the world. Combine that with a perfectionist personality plus a huge ego and the result is this kind of ugly, childish vanity that rails everyone who dares venture criticism.

Sum: <echo>CRAP!</echo> There are no issues. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. I couldn't care less if someone's feelings get hurt because they are exposed for selling (as in taking money for) highly questionable, shady, unproven clap-trap rubbish that they claim to be pure genius.

I know a little bit about cloaking technologies (and those that work) and this isn't one of them! I would not recommend it to anybody looking to construct a long-term search engine marketing strategy - and I would not recommend using cloaking to anyone who really didn't understand the technology or the risks fully.

Straight Cloaking simply feeds a SEOed page instead of your main ad page to the variuos SE spiders to:
1) protect your SEOed page from other would be copiers and
2) to get a better listing without compromising your ad pages. No 404's , no endless loops or spider trapping and no SE spamming

Software that forcebly traps the engines WILL GET YOU BANNED period.

Just "MHO"
Hiding your Page source code WILL not (unless you over submit of course but that is another issue)

Some of you here are posting rather rudely/harshly. That's not necessary and actually not very professional. I can see why the searchenginecloaker has gotten upset.

Now, whether his software is unique or even good to use is another issue.

Spider trapping is likely something the engines hate and thus this software is not something I would want to use if it loops continuously. It would have been smarter to put a governor on it that limits the pages generated. The pages generated are of Zero quality and help no one except to generate possible ranking pages. The pages are just random choices of sentences—basically junk pages to the engines.

That makes the method a really lousy way to get ranks. It's interesting from one aspect only, but beyond that, basically junk bombing just like a spammer. This is spam software for the engines.

Unless you have a copy of all the material that was deleted from searchenginecloakers posts back in May( a significant amount) and considered this material when making your comment, I would respectfully suggest you don't have sufficient facts to make this call.

I have been looking and looking for a relatively inexpensive way to do the above. I have a client who wants his seo'd pages protected.

Suggestions on solutions anyone?

One note - I did purchase searchenginecloakers product, but when it became clear it was not designed to do what I needed, I asked for a refund. I got fast and courteous answers to all my questions, and a refund with no hassles whatsoever.

You may very well be correct in saying that. Yes, I do not have all the details in the SEcloaker's posts because his posts were modified. If he started the borderline flame, then I retract my statement. However, if others started being unnecessarily rough using words like crap to describe the product, then I stand with my comment.

I know how some people get in here. They say things that are unnecessarily hurtful—almost attacking the dignity of the specific person being critized. I don't know the SEcloaker personally, but I'd say that the visible comments made are overly rough and insight people to flame. Not all who visit here have hardened skin and may take offense at below the belt remarks.

Perhaps he imagined that his product was good or was proud of his accomplishment. He may be misguided but he is still a person behind the post. People figure they can be as crude as they want when critizing a specific person's products. Calling a product crap just encourages flaming. It is a negative demeaning word and should be avoided for the most part.

There are situations that warrant the use of that word, but this is not one of them. You can explain to him why his product is harmful and that is fine. Using demeaning terms adds nothing positive whatsoever and certainly is not helpful criticism to make his product better. Point out the flaws but avoid the offensive speak.

I know some people don't want to hear any criticism and well... there's not much we can do for them. They get mad at the least little thing.

If he said things that were not nice, did he say them in response to another demeaning comment or was he the first to make the flaming comment?

Would some of the posters here say these words to a stranger on the street who had a similar product? I think they would be a little bit more courteous don't you think? Then why be that way here? Rudeness is no excuse for criticism.

quote:

---

They say things that are unnecessarily hurtful—almost attacking the dignity of the specific person being critized.

---

Curt, there was not a single PERSON even discussed here. The discussion involves a product, an inanimate object, devoid of emotions. It is not possible to offend it.

While we do not allow flaming of people here, products and services are not included. Negative comments are just part of normal conversation. If you want to see some seriously negative comments visit the Looksmart forum, they get ripped apart farly regularly. Looksmart is a database, we are not worried about offending it.

There are a lot of nice, helpful people here, but requiring them to only say "nice" things about every product and service on the internet is not a reasonable requirement, and in itself would hurt the community by omiting valuable information.

So how does calling a product crap help anything? It's NOT quality feedback no matter how you look at it.

Now saying that it spams the engines, now that's helping to describe the problem and perhaps the person can rethink the design of their program. Using the word crap just insights flaming. You can't get around that no matter how you put it.

It's not necessary to use such words. Take my comment about his product. It is honest and yet I do not use derogatory words to describe it. He'll learn something from my input (hopefully). This brutal/harseness is not the right way!

You are slick

My word “junk” has been taken out of context

You guys go ahead and carve each other to pieces if you wish. What goes around comes around. If someone says something nasty to you, you should grin and bear it. Flame on guys and gals.