[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]

I highly recommend you proceed with extreme care before proceding with cloaking. Especially anything autogenerated.

If you do decide to try it use a disposable domain.

And, do as Dinkar suggested, have contact with previous customers, SEVERAL, to make sure you are not being BS'ed, and verify whatever they tell you.

You can learn more about cloaking, and even download some FREE stuff at http://www.spiderhunter.com/ . Even if you are not interested in trying it yourself it is good to be able to converse with others while investigating a firm to use.

Another reputable site to investigate would be http://fantomaster.com/ . I don't touch cloaking myself, but I know the reputation of both of these sites is a good one, and it is a long standing one, these are not fly by night.

[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]

i close this company's webpage window and a popup comes up that starts with "HEY! WAIT A SEC! Enter your email address to get 5 amazing tricks to get more traffic from search engines. PLUS get instant access to Search Engine Cloaker!
"

sounds desparate. from what i've heard so far ip-delivery (ip-delivery.com) is the stuff you want if you want to cloak successfully.

Cloaking is not a very difficult thing to do, to be honest. Any Perl programmer can write a cloaking script in about 10 minutes.

What is difficult, however, is providing a solution that is easy to install and manage for relatively novice Webmasters; which auto-updates both itself and its IP lists; and which provides a multitude of cloaking possibilities (stuffing, reverse stuffing, auto-generation, etc.)

As others have pointed out, auto-generation of pages is not for everyone, for instance. But page stuffing, a more subtle form of cloaking where existing pages are "stuffed" with keywords just for search engines might work for others.

[ad deleted]

Moderator: as this post is about our software, please would you keep my reply intact. When someone calls our software "crap", I need ample room to respond!

[promoting your site is not allowed here]

[Note: This message has been edited by Janet Berg]

My email:

Can you please confirm that your FAX is 650-966-1727? We wish to send you
the following:

Little Dipper Corporation
3169 NE Irving St
Portland, OR 97232

May 13, 2002

To Jim's World & Janet Berg:

We hereby notify you that you are hosting and fostering libelous content
on Search Engine Forums. Specifically, several posts in "Search Engine
Technology Issues > Cloaking Software, Good Guy, Bad Guy" reference our
software in a libelous manner:

Janet Berg indirectly refers to our product and company as "fly by night".

KiloEcho refers to our product as "crap".

Moreover, when we attempted to reply to said libel, our posting was
modified, reducing our response to out-of-context snippets.

As a result, we have suffered significant harm to our brand and
incalculable damages.

We hereby demand that you immediately remove the entire thread under
discussion. Failure to do so will result in legal action against both
Janet Berg and Jim's World for each day that said libel remains on-line.

Peter Bray
President
Little Dipper Corporation

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Janet Hannestad wrote:

> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bray [maimailto:Peter@searchenginecloaker.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:52 AM
> To: janet@searchengineforums.com
> Subject: search engine forums administration...
>
>
>
> Moderator: I think your deletes of my "self promotion" were inappropriate
> in the cloaking forum. That discussion was specifically about our
> software -- someone specifically asked about us. Surely, I can reply?
> Or do all of my posts have to be reduced down to an out-of-context
> soundbite? And several people there attacked our software (including you,
> indirectly). I should be allowed to reply without having my replies
> labeled "self-promotion" and deleted. I need to be able to respond. Be
> fair! Thanks, Peter
>
>

searchenginecloaker, I didn't say your site was crap because you had a popup. read my post a little bit better.

an addition to my previous post: From the reading I've done since I posted last I'm no longer have any plans to use cloaking myself. the reason? google came out about a month ago saying they'll soon begin enforcing their policy against cloaking. Ask around though and some have already felt this. Cloaking may be becoming a thing of the past.

Someone can't say that something is crap if that's the way they feel?????

Where'd my free speech go? I never went to an extreme in my comment and I put reason in as to why I feel that way. Whatever.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to make recommendations of sites and services.

I posted the communication, entirely, as the original question was "Are these guys, good guy or bad guy software?" I think people can draw a conclusion of good guy/bad guy from how this "company" has conducted themselves.

As to the other question asked by the original poster, "Who has good guy SE cloaking software?" I still recommend that you research the topic yourself, so you know what is going on even if you use a cloaking service at http://www.spiderhunter.com . And, if you are going to use a service, do not use anything fly by night, but stick to long lasting companies, with lots of referances and a good reputation. One where other people recommend them, not the owner saying "Ya, I am a good company".

While I personally do not cloak anything, IF I were to decide to do so I would most likely deal with http://fantomaster.com/ , the reason being that they have been doing this for a long time, they are active, and I hear lots of "stuff" about companies, NEVER any negative things about this one, and I am talking about a period of several years.

I don't think so. You brought it up Kenny boy.

More from my email: (amazing that no one is jumping in here to say how wonderful this product is except for this oh-so-professional site owner)

quote:

---

You deleted our account, preventing us from replying to your libel.

We are not a fly-by-night company, as you imply. We offer sound software,
excellent support, and innovative solutions (we have 3 different types of
cloaking in our product).

We do plan to pursue legal action against you and related parties
vigorously. Our lawfirm is Brownstein, Rask, et al. We plan to bring
action against you in Federal courts. We will halt these actions if you
remove the entire thread immediately; post a retractment; and reactivate
our account.

For more information about how "opinions" are not immune from liability,
please read:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/print.html

---

He even recently released a book, that has lots of content that friges on libel.

The companies he slams on a daily basis are multi-million-dollar companies. How can it be that he is allowed to go on?

Because it is his and our right as laid out in the US Constitution to Freedom of Speech.

As far as using cloaking technology, here is one good reason not to: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

Janet:
"If you do decide to try it use a disposable domain"

Linda's comment: If Cloaking is considered within the industry as a method of unlawfully manipulating search engine results then it should not be suggested that testing it on a throw away domain or ISP be tried. It is either a good method or a bad one, and weather using a pay or free ISP does not enter the picture.

Taking this to an extreme, If Janet tried it on a throw away and as a result got 10 Thousand visitors a day with a sales campaign converting at 20 to 1 at say $50 a time, and did not get cut off, would She continue to use it, or would Janet voluntarily stop using it following Excell's principle's of ethical business practise?

"And, do as Dinkar suggested, have contact with previous customers, SEVERAL, to make sure you are not being BS'ed, and verify whatever they tell you.
these are not fly by night"

Linda's comment: This is in theory sound advice however how do you find previous customers? from the vendors site perhaps?

KiloEcho:
"but i've got to say this stuff looks like crap.
i close this company's webpage window and a popup comes up that starts with "HEY! WAIT A SEC! Enter your email address to get 5 amazing tricks to get more traffic from search engines. PLUS get instant access to Search Engine Cloaker! "

Linda's comment::

The word,"Crap" is a term of art and not a technical term. It is used in popular informal banter and conversation,( Although the Rebbe would not be too happy if addressed in such a way !),although it can have a derogotary suggestion,I do not think using it in the way it was used is enough to establish a good cause of action

Searchengineclocker:

"as this post is about our software, please would you keep my reply intact. When someone calls our software "crap", I need ample room to respond!"

Linda's comment::

The above is fair comment, however Searchengineclocker at the same time when making replies must not continue to attempt to get free advertising on the Forums. It would appear from the Moderators edits, Searchengineclocker continued to advertise after being asked to stop

Janet Berg:
Linda's preamble: I think this is an email to our Janet and not from Janet which is the way I understood her post

"Little Dipper Corporation
3169 NE Irving St
Portland, OR 97232
May 13, 2002
To Jim's World & Janet Berg:
We hereby notify you that you are hosting and fostering libelous content
on Search Engine Forums. Specifically, several posts in "Search Engine
Technology Issues > Cloaking Software, Good Guy, Bad Guy" reference our
software in a libelous manner:
Janet Berg indirectly refers to our product and company as "fly by night".
KiloEcho refers to our product as "crap".
Moreover, when we attempted to reply to said libel, our posting was
modified, reducing our response to out-of-context snippets.
As a result, we have suffered significant harm to our brand and
incalculable damages.
We hereby demand that you immediately remove the entire thread under
discussion. Failure to do so will result in legal action against both
Janet Berg and Jim's World for each day that said libel remains on-line.
Peter Bray
President
Little Dipper Corporation"

Linda's comment:

The above email was not written by a Lawyer. The most important part however is,"As a result, we have suffered significant harm to our brand and
incalculable damages".

Ah ha , this is the nub of the email:
"suffered significant harm" Has it?

What about loss and or damage? An essential part of any claim in a tort action is to plead and to prove that the plaintiff suffered loss and or damage as a direct result of the Defendants legal wrongs, and the proving has to be to a high standard of particularity, including of course I.R.S, records covering perhaps the last three years trading accounts

"incalculable damages" If the prospective plaintiff has no way of calculating them how do they expect a Court to do it for them?

Further:
"Failure to do so will result in legal action against both Janet Berg and Jim's World for each day that said libel remains on-line"

I think they mean they will be seeking damages for each of the days the alleged defamatory material is live on the Internet

May I also bring up the principle of going to court with, "Clean hands", and the principle of,"Tainted with illegality"

For those that do not know what all that, "crap", means, it means one cannot go to a court seeking a remedy when the core subject matter has a bad taste to it in the first place

I am sure anybody being sued where the subject of cloaking was the core subject could show a Court that it was used to intentionally influence the algorithm of a search engine to produce results in a way inconsistant with the search engines terms of use and in those circumstances the product is deemed unlawful, and that the action before the court is tainted with illegality, and the action will be kicked out quicker than Clintons Zip would appear to operate, and out you go with nuffing but financial loss

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Janet Hannestad wrote:
> 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!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bray [maimailto:Peter@searchenginecloaker.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:52 AM
> To: janet@searchengineforums.com
> Subject: search engine forums administration...
>
>
>
> Moderator: I think your deletes of my "self promotion" were inappropriate
> in the cloaking forum. That discussion was specifically about our
> software -- someone specifically asked about us. Surely, I can reply?
> Or do all of my posts have to be reduced down to an out-of-context
> soundbite? And several people there attacked our software (including you,
> indirectly). I should be allowed to reply without having my replies
> labeled "self-promotion" and deleted. I need to be able to respond. Be
> fair! Thanks, Peter

Kilo Echo:
wow. I'm guilty of liable?

Linda:Libel Kilo Echo, Libel

Linda's summary:

I cannot speak for American Law, however in this thread some things have been said about a company and a product that were decribed in a way that was not very nice quite apart from the fact that the purpose of the product may be for an unlawful purpose in the legal sense.

A more professional language style might have been more usefull
I think the company concerned made the situation worse by not following the forums Terms of use after being requested to do so by the Boss-ette

Members posting in threads where it is their own product or service under discussion should remember that in the, "Rough and tumble", of Internet Forums and the many different types of members participating, it is quite possible that comments will be made in a way which would not be accepted in a more formal arena.

Forget suing for such matters, make Love not War Little Dipper , for the most part it is just not worth the hassle, and only makes the Lawyers rich whichever way the matter goes.

Linda's final word:

May I respectfully venture to suggest that members avoid legal mumbo jumbo, and threats of legal action unless they actually know something about the subject at a professional level. That is one area where, "Weekend participants", should say well clear of

quote:

---

Hello:

This message is to confirm the listing of your URL to the
Searchit Search Engine. We received the following info:
URL: http://searchengineforums.com/Forum17/HTML/001072.html

If your url contains only "http", this is an error from your autosubmitter. You can resubmit your Url here: http://www.SearchIt.com/
If your url is incorrect you must submit it again.
Your URL will be added to our database soon.

Remember, to find what you are looking for, Always use SearchIt.com http://searchit.com/

Thanks For Using SearchIt.com

The Searchit Staff

---

If this thread is so damaging, why did they submit it to the search engine?

Page Rank/Link Pop of course.