blog
“How can you squander even one more day not taking advantage of the greatest shifts of our generation? How dare you settle for less when the world has made it so easy for you to be remarkable?” Seth Godin

Cloaking Not Cloaking

Discussion thread at SEW about whether NY Times is cloaking or not. Naturally, IHY has one as well.

I think the answer is pretty clear. The NY Times is cloaking content – i.e. a technique in which the content presented to the search engine spider is different from that presented to the users. The fact that some users can see the same content is a red-herring. For example, if I changed my agent to GoogleBot, and accessed a site that used agent cloaking, then that site wouldn’t be cloaking on the basis that some users (i.e. all those with agent = Googlebot) can see it? In any case, cloaking is mostly about the practical effect, which is that a SERP does not show me the same page that was indexed by the spider.

It is a good example of how cloaking can be beneficial to search engines, although, in this case, I find it annoying as a user. I’d prefer Google informed me that the content is only available via subscription, in which case I wouldn’t click on it.

2 Comments


  1. Inetzeal Network
    Jun 20, 2006

    There is one example of BMW. google removed few weeks ago.. but soon it was included again. i don’t think same happen with NYTimes.com.. they have PR10 Yet


  2. Peter Da Vanzo
    Jun 20, 2006

    I think that Google is fine with the NY Times approach. It may be a different story if you or I tried it, however ;)

Leave a Reply

Sponsors