Quote:
Originally Posted by activeco
Sure, even Google accept 'legitimate' cloaking(s). E.g. geo-cloaking is acceptable under condition that the page shows the same content to the bot coming from the targeted area.
|
Good example. The argument could me made though, that geo-cloaking is not really cloaking, but rather is simply "conditional content" - and the principle is whether the same conditional content is shown to all visitors, human or bot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by activeco
The thread was triggered with the problem Webnauts experienced when the links became visible to SE.
It presumably caused ranking drop for some keywords. See #13 of this thread.
|
So the purpose has nothing to do with benefitting users and is solely designed to achieve an advantageous result in the SERPs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by activeco
So, it's not only academic, but rather practical issue.
|
I understand that the issue has real-world practical import to many webmasters. But without a method to bring Google to the table to discuss it and possibly even issue a waiver or exception for certain unique circumstances, I'd respectfully suggest that it is still an academic issue.