__/ [John Bokma] on Monday 24 October 2005 09:11 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> One could generalize it to presenting data different to the visitor
> compared to the bot. And of course there is a thin line, like "skip content
> " links that are moved -5000 pixels, but do have a function in screen
> readers for example.
That possibly falls under the same category though. If I recall correctly,
Matt Mullenweg used a very significant horizontal offset (6000?) rather than
use the visibility attribute. I guess the real test must be: is the crawler,
which is intended to index information for humans, getting a perception that
is identical to that of a human? Humans are clients and referrals define the
quality of the 'product'.
I suppose one could defend your example. You could always argue that your
visitors are hardware-savvy and have a high-resolution quadruple-headed
(4-across) display each...
http://www.9xmedia.com/Pages-Downloads/2000-Backgrounds.html
I have never gone beyond two although I've used that setting since I was 19.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Previous signature has been conceded
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
9:15am up 59 days 19:24, 4 users, load average: 0.83, 0.39, 0.19
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
