nice answer. big thanks :)
On Sep 10, 2:29 pm, Ian Bambury <ianbamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/10 Alexander Cherednichenko <lex...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > That's true; I was also thinking of redirect.
>
> > Also, this is good for non-js browsers. Links users would see it OK,
> > which is really valuable for me.
>
> > Although, does not google ban for <body onload='javascript:
> > widnow.location=http://newsite?aaa'/> ?
>
> Maybe - I don't use that. It would seem a bit harsh if they do. But Google
> is following IBM's FUD route on things like that.
>
>
>
> > This sounds pretty much like a doorway page.
> > I'm really interested in how searchers treat this.
>
> > In official release what's they say about cloacking:
> > "
> > So what's an honest web designer to do? The only hard and fast rule
> > is to show Googlebot the exact same thing as your users. If you
> > don't, your site risks appearing suspicious to our search algorithms.
> > This simple rule covers a lot of cases including cloaking, JavaScript
> > redirects, hidden text, and doorway pages.
>
> My site does show the non-JS Googlebot exactly what a non-JS user would see.
> If Google decide to develop a JS-enabled Googlebot, it will see what a
> JS-enabled user will see. It's not my fault if they are not technically
> savvy enough to do it. Not only that, JS-users get *exactly* the same
> content as non-JS-users (albeit with menus and demos and stuff)
>
> If they *don't* allow me to do this, then effectively they are banning
> anyone who wants to be listed from using JavaScript, and how many sites does
> that leave them?
>
> > And our engineers have
> > gathered a few more practical suggestions:
> > "
> > (taken fromhttp://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/07/best-
> > uses-of-flash.html,
> > though it's old)
>
> > Unclear moment for me is that what do they mean saying 'exact same
> > thing as your users. '. If it is same content (like compared by user)
> > - your method would work, as you load the SAME page as the one shown
> > to bot.
>
> Cloaking is giving a different to a bot from the page you give to a user.
> They cannot expect their non-enabled bot to get the same as an enabled user
> or, for example, using Flash and Java applets and images of text and video
> and audio would earn you a ban as well.
>
>
>
> > But textually - the contents are different.
>
> No they are not
>
> > Bot may think that you're
> > blindly redirecting the user to strange page with the only 1
> > javascript file inclusion and no content at all.
>
> But I don't. My index page is used to pick up the home page text.
>
>
>
> > Maybe, something new has happened which allows more SEO methodics and
> > i missed this?
>
> > Thanks for the point with redirect,
> > Alex.
>
> From a purely practical point of view, if I can't do this and they do ban me
> and my site isn't listed, then how much worse off am I than if my site is
> not being listed because I don't have any content that the bots can see?
>
> Less than 5% of my traffic comes from search engines anyway - about 15% is
> from referring sites, and over 80% is direct. It wouldn't be a great loss if
> I did get banned. In fact, the amount of free advertising and links I'd get
> from the news articles I could generate and the resulting knock-on news
> coverage, social network and blog activity and links ('Google Bans Site For
> Using Google Web Toolkit' - that would get picked up) it would probably make
> it a positive blessing if all I wanted was traffic.
>
> My site has been doing this for nearly 3 years and I described the whole
> setup here on this forum over 2 years ago. No-one official said it *wasn't*
> OK.
>
> Because Google use IBM's FUD approach, you won't see anyone from Google say
> that this is OK to do (AFAIK they still haven't publicly said that
> underscores are used as work delimiters in file names, and how uncontentious
> and long-running is that?) but if you are doing something that is
> unequivocally wrong, they usually tell you.
>
> Watch this space.
>
> Ian
>
> http://examples.roughian.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
