__/ [M@y] on Monday 24 October 2005 08:34 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> * http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32672
>> * http://forums.seochat.com/showthread.php?t=53424
>> * http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/more-info-on-updates/
>> So it seems as though reciprocal links in one way or another being
>> This has many unfortunate implications. It also appears as though it's
>> to stay.
> We noticed some of the biggest falls were as a result of CSS abuse, you
> know the stuff; huge text masked by css so it looks normal again.
> We examined the winners and the losers for various phrases and noticed
> almost without fail the cached text proved the theory.
So you're essentially talking about cloaking, right? WordPress got banned
altogether for using cloaking to disguise 150,000 pages with junk content
and AdSense on top it.
I am not too sure about the use of the term "cloaking" though. It is com-
monly mentioned when different content is delivered to different agents,
e.g. fool engines by serving them with pages containing senseless content
with targetted keyword at high density.