Cloaked Web Redirection

If I have a domain www.domainname1.com set up with a cloaked redirect so
that content comes from www.domainname2.com/domain1/ yet the browser address
field stays as www.domainname1.com, what effect if any would this have on
search engine ranking?

thanks

Pete

Pete wrote in
<cfd4i8$lvt$1 (AT) titan (DOT) btinternet.com>

If I have a domain www.domainname1.com set up with a cloaked redirect
so that content comes from www.domainname2.com/domain1/ yet the
browser address field stays as www.domainname1.com, what effect if
any would this have on search engine ranking?

Hi, Peter

Can you specify what you mean by a cloaked redirect?

If you mean that the real site appears in a single frame frameset defined on
the apparent page, yes that causes all sorts of problems; if you mean
cloaking as in serving up one page to the SE spiders and another one to
ordinary visitors, it's supposed to be to the benefit of one's SERP but you
play with fire.


--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> wrote

Can you specify what you mean by a cloaked redirect?

If you mean that the real site appears in a single frame frameset defined
on
the apparent page, yes that causes all sorts of problems; if you mean
cloaking as in serving up one page to the SE spiders and another one to
ordinary visitors, it's supposed to be to the benefit of one's SERP but
you
play with fire.

the first one - domain1.com has just a frameset with one frame coming from
domain2.com
I remember hearing a a few years ago that search engines dont like this, but
I really dont see that I am doing anything wrong.
Eventually, I will buy proper hosting for the site, but are any of my sites
really going to be punished in the mean time?

Pete wrote in
<cffj8p$49k$1 (AT) sparta (DOT) btinternet.com>

"PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> wrote in message
news:411a2581$0$27246$ed2e19e4 (AT) ptn-nntp-reader04 (DOT) plus.net...

Can you specify what you mean by a cloaked redirect?

If you mean that the real site appears in a single frame frameset
defined on the apparent page, yes that causes all sorts of problems;
if you mean cloaking as in serving up one page to the SE spiders and
another one to ordinary visitors, it's supposed to be to the benefit
of one's SERP but you play with fire.


the first one - domain1.com has just a frameset with one frame coming
from domain2.com

It's only a terminology thing but that's not really "cloaking" - cloaking is
far more sophisticated and is a definite de-listing offence in which,
generally by recognising who is making the request for the page, the server
provides a normal page to visitors but substitutes a highly optimised page
that would be unattractive to ordinary visitors but is highly optimised for
the SEs.

I remember hearing a a few years ago that search engines dont like
this, but I really dont see that I am doing anything wrong.
Eventually, I will buy proper hosting for the site, but are any of my
sites really going to be punished in the mean time?

It's not that you're doing anything wrong and the SEs won't punish you as
such. It just makes it very difficult for them to index your site. Have a
look at your index page - the one that has the URL that you want to appear
in the address bar - look at the source code. Is there anything there that a
search engine can use to assess the content of your page or is it a frameset
definition with no content?

You can, and should, use the <noframes> tag to put content on the frameset
page - at least the SEs will have something to index.

Frames also make it difficult for the SEs and visitors in that it's
impossible to bookmark pages unless you use some sort of scripting to
restore the frameset when a single, unframed page is listed as a link.

And, there's more...

Help is at hand, however, with advice at:
http://searchenginewatch.com/webmast...le.php/2167901

I'd have to say that, IMHO, the most useful advice would be to get proper
hosting asap.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:11:23 +0000 (UTC), "Pete"
<noone (AT) i-see-a-little-silloutte-of-a-man (DOT) com> wrote:

"PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> wrote in message
news:411a2581$0$27246$ed2e19e4 (AT) ptn-nntp-reader04 (DOT) plus.net...

Can you specify what you mean by a cloaked redirect?

If you mean that the real site appears in a single frame frameset defined
on
the apparent page, yes that causes all sorts of problems; if you mean
cloaking as in serving up one page to the SE spiders and another one to
ordinary visitors, it's supposed to be to the benefit of one's SERP but
you
play with fire.


the first one - domain1.com has just a frameset with one frame coming from
domain2.com
I remember hearing a a few years ago that search engines dont like this, but
I really dont see that I am doing anything wrong.
Eventually, I will buy proper hosting for the site, but are any of my sites
really going to be punished in the mean time?

Possibly. That should be put in perspective though, you may not even
notice any penalty. The sensible thing though would be to not incur
any penalty by not including the other site's content. Link to it by
all means, or just re-write it and include it in its own right. That
would be the simple solution.

BB