Are you still cloaking your affiliate links?

by nik0 Banned
30 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Now and then I have a client that mentions that my service didn't work out for him. The first thing I do then is check his back link profile, and after that I check out his website.

100 out of 100 times they either:

- have a real poor back link profile
- fairly new site with cloaked affiliate links

I haven't had a single client that complained without one of these 2 things in common so pretty much proves the fact that cloaking is wrong right? I mean why would all the other people not complain. I rank 100+ sites a month so I guess the data set is large enough to draw conclusions.

The argument I often hear is "My other sites are still ranking fine and there the links are cloaked as well", this are always older sites btw so maybe Google treats them differently?

Would love to hear your opinion on this matter!
#affiliate #cloaking #links
  • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
    I don't personally...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998363].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

      I don't personally...
      Thanks, funny enough I just bought an Amazon theme, and the ads that I put in the sidebar and header automatically get cloaked by the theme, I was really like WTF is this.

      Anyone suggestions how to get rid of that auto-cloaking behaviour as I'm very much against it
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998378].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        Thanks, funny enough I just bought an Amazon theme, and the ads that I put in the sidebar and header automatically get cloaked by the theme, I was really like WTF is this.

        Anyone suggestions how to get rid of that auto-cloaking behaviour as I'm very much against it
        I wouldn't like that either lol, love having full control! I wish I could help but I've moved onto custom designs/development these these days, too much stuff on my server to risk it even with paid themes. But was it for Wordpress? Might just be a plug-in you can disable.. At worst you can try digging into the code, but working with other people's code can sometimes be super frustrating..
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998397].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

          I wouldn't like that either lol, love having full control! I wish I could help but I've moved onto custom designs/development these these days, too much stuff on my server to risk it even with paid themes. But was it for Wordpress? Might just be a plug-in you can disable.. At worst you can try digging into the code, but working with other people's code can sometimes be super frustrating..
          Yeah I'm not that much of WP whizkid, it's not a plugin, it's the theme itself and the nasty thing with WP is that you have to dig through dozens of pages before being able to find where such thing would be defined lol, well at least for me.

          Maybe I'll just send out a mail to support, that should work.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    I never cloak affiliate links.

    What I do is create a single custom sales page on my site, then rank a lot of internal pages for relevant keywords, this way I only have a single page (custom sales page) that has the affiliate link.

    I point links from my ranked internal pages at the custom sales page (think Adsense text type Ads of my own).

    Link/traffic flow:
    SERPs > ranked page > custom sales page > checkout page
    Signature
    - Hi -
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998653].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I never cloak affiliate links.

      What I do is create a single custom sales page on my site, then rank a lot of internal pages for relevant keywords, this way I only have a single page (custom sales page) that has the affiliate link.

      I point links from my ranked internal pages at the custom sales page (think Adsense text type Ads of my own).

      Link/traffic flow:
      Smart way to do it for sure, Google hates affiliate sites!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998673].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dee Syed
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I never cloak affiliate links.

      What I do is create a single custom sales page on my site, then rank a lot of internal pages for relevant keywords, this way I only have a single page (custom sales page) that has the affiliate link.

      I point links from my ranked internal pages at the custom sales page (think Adsense text type Ads of my own).

      Link/traffic flow:
      WooCommerce for WordPress actually supports this method quite well with the ability to list external products as if they're in your own store. The prospect is taken to the product listing on your site where you can add further sales copy - one of the best features, I think.
      Signature
      There's only one thing we do and we do it well! Talk to us about your next WordPress project and let us make it happen. Our clients have been featured on the BBC and generate income running into six figures!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8275158].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    Lots of big websites do what yukon has described ^^. I don't cloak aff links either.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999100].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

      Lots of big websites do what yukon has described ^^. I don't cloak aff links either.
      Glad to hear you guys aren't doing it.

      People look at me like I'm crazy when I ask them to uncloak there links and what does it really matter, most people are really not going to look at the bottom of their screen to see where the link go's to and I bet most people don't even know there is an option to see it before clicking the link. While at the same time they have large signs at their site that they are an Amazon affiliate or huge banner advertisements.

      And if it's about fooling Google, welcome to 2012 then.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999161].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        Glad to hear you guys aren't doing it.

        People look at me like I'm crazy when I ask them to uncloak there links and what does it really matter, most people are really not going to look at the bottom of their screen to see where the link go's to and I bet most people don't even know there is an option to see it before clicking the link. While at the same time they have large signs at their site that they are an Amazon affiliate or huge banner advertisements.

        And if it's about fooling Google, welcome to 2012 then.
        Agreed, probably the only people that look at URLs are webmaster type people. If I'm selling shoes to an average person, I doubt they care about URLs (or even know what a URL is).
        Signature
        - Hi -
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999257].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author zecke
          Yuk - Are these 80 internal links pointing to Your sales page are the exact same anchor text links ? Or do You divide them ? 25% one anchor 25% second anchor etc ?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999482].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Originally Posted by zecke View Post

            Yuk - Are these 80 internal links pointing to Your sales page are the exact same anchor text links ? Or do You divide them ? 25% one anchor 25% second anchor etc ?
            Right now I do have a single anchor-text link in my sidebar (site-wide link), until I get the 80 pages uploaded to the site. IDK If I'll keep the sidebar link after the project is finished, I haven't decided yet.

            The 80 supporting pages will all have unique text & anchor-text but they'll all be very similar to the product I'm selling. Think of it like a music CD, it might have 8 songs from a single music artist, all the songs (pages in my case) are 100% relevant to the music CD.

            BTW, I'm not selling music, just an example of taking a single product & breaking that product down into small chunks of info. so I can squeeze 80 pages out of the product. This way I can target a lot more people that might be searching for a single piece of the complete product (hope that makes since).

            Example, lets say I'm selling a Metallica CD (Master of Puppets), I would break that CD down into 8 individual supporting pages + the actual sales page (9 pages total).

            List of 8 supporting pages:
            1. "Battery"
            2. "Master of Puppets"
            3. "The Thing That Should Not Be"
            4. "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)"
            5. "Disposable Heroes"
            6. "Leper Messiah"
            7. "Orion" (Instrumental)
            8. "Damage, Inc."

            So now instead of having a single product page & trying to rank that single page in the SERPs, I have 9 pages that can bring in potential buyers, people that are looking for any of the individual songs on the "Master of Puppets" album.

            Breaking the original product down into smaller chunks of info. gives me a lot of relevant pages all pointing to a master page for that product (the sales page).

            Google likes to see multiple themed pages on the same site, so I build pages around my Metallica CD page (example), doesn't have to be the same content on any of the pages, just needs to be relevant.

            It's also not a problem mentioning keywords on multiple themed pages, you just don't want the words in the exact order & don't want to have the exact same amount of text on multiple pages, that will get you duplicate pages & some of them will be dumped into Supplemental SERPs (not good, no traffic).

            On my links pointing from the 8 supporting pages to the sales page (affliate page) I might build anchor-text like this:

            Example supporting page plain text Ads:



            Battery - Metallica
            Get the Master of Puppets
            album Now!

            mydomain.com/master-of-puppets

            Master of Puppets
            Rock out with Metallica Now!
            mydomain.com/master-of-puppets

            Welcome Home Sanitarium
            Buy the complete Metallica CD Now!
            mydomain.com/master-of-puppets

            My sales page URL would be: hxxp://mydomain.com/master-of-puppets

            Again I don't run Adsense on sites that I'm selling Clickbank affiliate products, I don't need the headache with Google TOS, so I keep it simple. I do have other Adsense sites that also point traffic to my site that sells a Clickbank product, I just don't do anything that even remotely resembles an Adsense Ad on a site that's actually running Adsense (keep it simple).
            Signature
            - Hi -
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7002943].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              Right now I do have a single anchor-text link in my sidebar (site-wide link), until I get the 80 pages uploaded to the site. IDK If I'll keep the sidebar link after the project is finished, I haven't decided yet.
              Curious, how many words of content you have at each of those 80 pages, just an average?

              Also how many pages would you back link when taking such approach or do you upload it at an existing website of yours that already has plenty of juice and thus the internal linking does it work?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7003284].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                Curious, how many words of content you have at each of those 80 pages, just an average?

                Also how many pages would you back link when taking such approach or do you upload it at an existing website of yours that already has plenty of juice and thus the internal linking does it work?
                It's a downloadable product (not pdf) that has a bunch of small parts to the file, the supporting pages don't need much info. just a short description (maybe a sentence per supporting page) + an image like my own files, that's what I was saying above, this CB product fits in with my own content, same process, slightly different product.

                I do have a link on another larger blog, it's a blogroll link, but that's for direct traffic, for that link I don't care what Google thinks/wants since I already have the traffic (1,500 - 3,000 traffic per day).

                People claim blogroll links are bad, but I've never seen proof, this smaller blog usually trails behind my main blog in the SERPs for multiple keywords. Both sites are focused on the same niche/traffic.
                Signature
                - Hi -
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7005451].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author F1SEO
          A couple of years ago one of my sites got slammed, from 200 uniques a day to 20. It was listed in Google but did not rank.

          I had installed an affiliate link shortener on my Wordpress site. 2 weeks after that Google sunk it.

          Not one to give up, I uninstalled it and wrote many a nice explanations to Google via Re-inclusion request. 5 months later the rankings came back to their full glory.

          5 months of earning potential gone. I thought it had gone forever.

          So, it doesn't pay to hide affiliate links .. if get caught it's brown bread.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999487].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

      Smart way to do it for sure, Google hates affiliate sites!
      Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

      Lots of big websites do what yukon has described ^^. I don't cloak aff links either.
      Originally I started creating my own sales pages because I got pissed off at Clickbank vendors. There was a product I really believed in & would personally buy, very similar products are sold in off-line stores.

      Anyways, the vendor squeeze page had a bunch of links leading away from their sales page & also had an email optin form, no way am I giving away my traffic for free. So I decided to build my own sales page (very simple page with no distractions) & send my buyer traffic directly to the checkout page.

      This way I don't have to try & rank a single page for a lot of keywords, I create a bunch of relevant internal pages that are all focused around a single product. My goal is to create a lot of niche relevancy, not just targeting the main keyword.

      Right now I'm working on a Clickbank affiliate project that will have 80 internal pages built around a single product, I got 100% of the content from the vendor but I'm using the content in a different way than everyone else. It started out as 4 pieces of content (not articles) & I'm breaking that content down into 80 pages. This CB product fits in nicely with my own existing pages, I've already made 1 sale yesterday just from the sales page, I haven't even began promoting the sales page, still getting the 80 pages ready offline.

      Creating a bunch of relevant pages gives me some leverage when I see new keywords bringing in good amounts of traffic, I can tweak existing pages to get double/triple SERP listings to milk more traffic from the same keywords. Saves me time later on so I don't have to build new pages, just make small keyword edits/tweaks to a few pages.

      My self made text Ads on the 80 internal pages will be plain text so that will help with keyword relevancy, all Google will see is regular text/links (not aff. links) on 80 pages with links pointing to a single page (sales page with aff. link).

      Also, when I run affiliate products like from CB, I don't run Adsense anyplace on the site, I keep it simple, that way I don't have to worry about Adsense TOS.
      Signature
      - Hi -
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999218].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dimitris Skiadas
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        Originally I started creating my own sales pages because I got pissed off at Clickbank vendors. There was a product I really believed in & would personally buy, very similar products are sold in off-line stores.

        Anyways, the vendor squeeze page had a bunch of links leading away from their sales page & also had an email optin form, no way am I giving away my traffic for free. So I decided to build my own sales page (very simple page with no distractions) & send my buyer traffic directly to the checkout page.

        This way I don't have to try & rank a single page for a lot of keywords, I create a bunch of relevant internal pages that are all focused around a single product. My goal is to create a lot of niche relevancy, not just targeting the main keyword.

        Right now I'm working on a Clickbank affiliate project that will have 80 internal pages built around a single product, I got 100% of the content from the vendor but I'm using the content in a different way than everyone else. It started out as 4 pieces of content (not articles) & I'm breaking that content down into 80 pages. This CB product fits in nicely with my own existing pages, I've already made 1 sale yesterday just from the sales page, I haven't even began promoting the sales page, still getting the 80 pages ready offline.

        Creating a bunch of relevant pages gives me some leverage when I see new keywords bringing in good amounts of traffic, I can tweak existing pages to get double/triple SERP listings to milk more traffic from the same keywords. Saves me time later on so I don't have to build new pages, just make small keyword edits/tweaks to a few pages.

        My self made text Ads on the 80 internal pages will be plain text so that will help with keyword relevancy, all Google will see is regular text/links (not aff. links) on 80 pages with links pointing to a single page (sales page with aff. link).

        Also, when I run affiliate products like from CB, I don't run Adsense anyplace on the site, I keep it simple, that way I don't have to worry about Adsense TOS.
        Honestly, one of the best posts i have ever read in the Warrior forum.Nobody takes the time to create from the beginning a new sales page for a CB product.

        Congrats on thinking and implementing this idea.

        Great stuff shared here.

        Dimitris
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999602].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author atwellpub
    I don't believe in masked links being a problem at all. Ethically it's an ok practice and Google would be wrong to target it.

    I believe that all the hype and suspicion is misguided. Masking links is OK. Shortening links is ok.

    I've masked on my sites and still will mask sometimes and I do not have problems. So why are yall acting crazy?

    Here's how it really works. If you have a website with the majority of OBL(outbound links) pointing to a well known affiliate program like ClickBank or Amazon then this will cause your website to be flagged as a potential thin affiliate website. If you mask, spiders will still determine the end location. It does not matter about the aesthetic nature of the link url and google does not take the stance that if you do not display a full affiliate link you are being deceptive and that is wrong... That's some stuff that people made up on here. (but there is an American law that says that if link points to a place that earns you money the full link must be disclosed, but it's a dumb law and noone honors it, not even Google. I ran a search on google to try and find it for you guys but could not)

    What google does not like is to see that most of the OBL of a website are all pointing to amazon or clickbank.

    It's because of this people start cloaking... not masking... cloaking is where you determine if the visitor is a spider or human and send the spider to a non-afffiliate site and the human onto the affiliate site.

    There we see the difference between link masking and link cloaking (which is short for destination cloaking) make itself clear, but 90% of the conversion on the forums do not recognize this distinction properly.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7001660].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    ^^ a lot of people use those two terms interchangeably, though you're right - they're not the same thing. It doesn't really matter though as far as this thread goes.

    Originally Posted by atwellpub View Post

    If you mask, spiders will still determine the end location. It does not matter about the aesthetic nature of the link url and google does not take the stance that if you do not display a full affiliate link you are being deceptive and that is wrong...
    Actually, it's the fake gurus who came up with the concept that regular visitors somehow care about unmasked affiliate links and would rather click on a masked link. It's one of the easiest products/ideas to build/sell.

    Now just out of pure curiosity, what evidence do you have to show that Google doesn't care about masked links (vs. full-disclosure-links)? This stuff is very easy to determine programmatically... your argument is that they don't care, because it's "stupid"?

    ....cause a masked aff link is a pretty strong signal (== this affiliate is hiding stuff) in my books... no?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7001839].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Officially cloaking means sending the spider elsewhere then where the visitor go's yes, so yes we might use the term wrong but the idea remains the same.

      In the leaked guidelines document it very clearly says (don't know the exact words) that if you give the visitor the idea that he stays on your site while in fact he is being send to a different site that that will be seen as a malpractice and the reviewers have to flag that cause no matter how you call it, you are misleading your visitor.

      Then later on Matt also mentioned that from the 100.000's of Webmaster messages that were send out that only a small % of those messages were unnatural link warnings and that most had to do with malpractices like "link cloaking".

      So that makes two times that they mention it very clearly. In those manual review guidelines they also used the term cloaking in the same sentence with misleading your visitor so we know what they mean.

      Then there is the proof for me, of people who complain who always have the same thing in common, cloaked/masked links and/or excessive use of affiliate links and/or poor over optimized link profile, so yeah for me it's pretty clear.

      You ain't fooling the Google spiders, they will end up on a different site while it thought it would stay on the same site, easy flag!

      Besides that there is nothing ethically okay about it, sure I don't have a problem with it personally, but the fact remains that you're fooling your visitors (although most aren't aware of it anyway), and seriously, don't you think your visitors already know they will end up on a different site cause of the huge advertisement/banner? If yes, and Google will also know it, then I really see no reason why someone would do it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7001955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    My point is who cares about opinions... when it's all quite simple really. lol

    And good call Nik0 - I had completely forgotten about that doc. They just published a new one, it's got a bit more infos in it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7002065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author atwellpub
    great responses!

    My evidence comes from my own test sites. I've never received a complaint and there is no site I own that will not / does not rank.

    I currently only have two EMD amazon sites that used masked links when promoting the targeted products and both sites are hooked up to webmaster tools and analytics. I've never had any messages or incidents.

    My vocal point is the uniforming out bound links is a practice that people should expect to see these days. When they see a /go/ type link in context of some sort of promotional statement they should understand that it will most likely take them offsite and is used for traffic measurement purposes. Twitter uniforms all their outbound links through a redirect script and so does pinterest and so does facebook.

    Link masking helps provide a gateway for link tracking and Google understands this and that's why they are not aggressive against it.

    It's a shortsighted view to think that people mask links solely to hide a destination. And the evidence provided by my own experience and the lack of complaints from my customer base's suggests that it's a non issue and usually deindexing and/or never being indexed is related to the OBL issue I suggested in the other post(which has landed my sites in the sandbox) or a number of other factors.

    How I combat the sandbox is to tie a blog to my money site that contains posts linking out to related websites to dilute the OBL potency of links pointing to Amazon. The EMD helps a lot too. But without an exposure plan a thin affiliate site may never ever rank well or rank shortly just to become deindexed.

    So the take away from my experience as someone on the forefront of the industry is that the link masking worry is an over hyped one. Experience (or lack of negative experience) shows me it's an accepted and tolerated practice and theory tells me that that is so because there is no conclusive evil thing about it and Google is forced to be lenient on it.

    It can be used to measure traffic, shorten links, and yes, hide protect the destination or protect dissecting of the destination url. The short list of pros and cons are pretty balanced. The ability to use masked links to track traffic is very valuable.

    I even speculate that having masked links would not even get the site flagged for a manual review because number of flags would become too incredible for their workforce to address.

    But if your site can't pass a manual review should it be there? The point of an affiliate marketer is to seize opportunity to convert traffic into sales in a way that is not being done yet. Google will respect a good looking affiliate site if they believe it will help make the internet economy more money.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7002820].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mego818
      Originally Posted by atwellpub View Post

      great responses!

      My evidence comes from my own test sites. I've never received a complaint and there is no site I own that will not / does not rank.

      I currently only have two EMD amazon sites that used masked links when promoting the targeted products and both sites are hooked up to webmaster tools and analytics. I've never had any messages or incidents.

      My vocal point is the uniforming out bound links is a practice that people should expect to see these days. When they see a /go/ type link in context of some sort of promotional statement they should understand that it will most likely take them offsite and is used for traffic measurement purposes. Twitter uniforms all their outbound links through a redirect script and so does pinterest and so does facebook.

      Link masking helps provide a gateway for link tracking and Google understands this and that's why they are not aggressive against it.

      It's a shortsighted view to think that people mask links solely to hide a destination. And the evidence provided by my own experience and the lack of complaints from my customer base's suggests that it's a non issue and usually deindexing and/or never being indexed is related to the OBL issue I suggested in the other post(which has landed my sites in the sandbox) or a number of other factors.

      How I combat the sandbox is to tie a blog to my money site that contains posts linking out to related websites to dilute the OBL potency of links pointing to Amazon. The EMD helps a lot too. But without an exposure plan a thin affiliate site may never ever rank well or rank shortly just to become deindexed.

      So the take away from my experience as someone on the forefront of the industry is that the link masking worry is an over hyped one. Experience (or lack of negative experience) shows me it's an accepted and tolerated practice and theory tells me that that is so because there is no conclusive evil thing about it and Google is forced to be lenient on it.

      It can be used to measure traffic, shorten links, and yes, hide protect the destination or protect dissecting of the destination url. The short list of pros and cons are pretty balanced. The ability to use masked links to track traffic is very valuable.

      I even speculate that having masked links would not even get the site flagged for a manual review because number of flags would become too incredible for their workforce to address.

      But if your site can't pass a manual review should it be there? The point of an affiliate marketer is to seize opportunity to convert traffic into sales in a way that is not being done yet. Google will respect a good looking affiliate site if they believe it will help make the internet economy more money.
      Great post. I never thought of diluting affiliate links like that.

      I have found that if you keep the # of aff. links under 4 then google is ok. But i am cloaking anyway now.
      Signature
      Need High Quality Content?
      BOSScontent
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7002989].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by atwellpub View Post

      Link masking helps provide a gateway for link tracking and Google understands this and that's why they are not aggressive against it.
      I think Google is smart enough to know if it's with the purpose of link tracking or with the purpose to hide the affiliate link.

      Originally Posted by atwellpub View Post

      It's a shortsighted view to think that people mask links solely to hide a destination. And the evidence provided by my own experience and the lack of complaints from my customer base's suggests that it's a non issue and usually deindexing and/or never being indexed is related to the OBL issue I suggested in the other post(which has landed my sites in the sandbox) or a number of other factors.
      You can say that but I see the exact opposite and I serve about 150 clients/month (mostly different clients cause I sell a lot of packages) so that is data of 1000+ clients in the last 6 months.

      Originally Posted by atwellpub View Post

      How I combat the sandbox is to tie a blog to my money site that contains posts linking out to related websites to dilute the OBL potency of links pointing to Amazon. The EMD helps a lot too. But without an exposure plan a thin affiliate site may never ever rank well or rank shortly just to become deindexed.
      Okay, never thought Google would look at it from a total site picture, I guess it's pretty smart to link out to other sites on other pages if that's the case, same like Yukon only links to the affiliate site on his main page. Good to know so that I can provide people some more advice instead of just saying: "Quit cloaking your affiliate links", in case it doesn't work out well for them. Thanks!

      About the rest of your long post, if Google thought link cloaking is okay then Mr. Matt wouldn't have worded it as a malpractice at his blog and they wouldn't have put in their guidelines for manual reviewers. 1+1 = 2 right
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7003319].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author atwellpub
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        I think Google is smart enough to know if it's with the purpose of link tracking or with the purpose to hide the affiliate link.
        They aren't. How could they tell intent?

        Like JamesColin said, people use masked links to keep track of their own affiliate links and non affiliate links a like. The only way they can tell is if the end destination is a large well known affiliate channel like amazon, ebay, clickbank,etc, and then they will know. That's why some people cloak their destinations by using a spider filtering system.


        You can say that but I see the exact opposite and I serve about 150 clients/month (mostly different clients cause I sell a lot of packages) so that is data of 1000+ clients in the last 6 months.
        I guess we are stuck on comparing data, but my position does not change . It's usually other factors besides masking links that cause deindexing or never being indexed. For affiliate sites targeting well knonw affiliate programs it's usually the affiliate links themselves, masked or unmasked that cause indexing issues. It just depends on how thin the site is or how saturated it is with affiliate links. And even then there are so many unknowns that have to be considered on a per case basis.

        About the rest of your long post, if Google thought link cloaking is okay then Mr. Matt wouldn't have worded it as a malpractice at his blog and they wouldn't have put in their guidelines for manual reviewers. 1+1 = 2 right
        That's because cloaking and masking are different things. Matt and Google are very passionate about being anti cloaking, but I hear very little about link masking.

        The two are very different. But even cloaking can be used to protect yourself from Google's algorythim when trying to make a certain type of site. But if you get caught it does result in deindexing. Most people who use cloaking techniques cloak because the sites they build are unlikely to become indexed in the first place because they are thick affiliate sites and google doesn't honor sites that are like mini-amazon or mini-ebay stores. .
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7007683].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author F1SEO
          Couldn't we put rel="nofollow" on affiliate links to make them more Google friendly?

          It doesn't matter if pass link juice or not to the affiliate - they just want a buying visitor.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7008724].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author zlee
      Originally Posted by atwellpub View Post

      ...Google will respect a good looking affiliate site if they believe it will help make the internet economy more money.
      I agree as well, except I would replace "make the internet economy more money" with "satisfy users or solve user problems".

      Google could care less if anyone else makes money on the internet. They do care very much about users feeling satisfied when searching with google.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8275031].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesColin
    Banned
    I also use masked links for the affiliates programs I promote, it is doing a simple redirection, but it is important for me because I don't have to find the affiliate link everytime I want to use it, I just have to remember the name and write it after my site's url..
    When you say google this google that, well that is just speculation, nobody knows what google is doing and honestly why should we care, it is its job to adapt to us and not us having to know what it likes or not.
    It's like the nofollow/dofollow, this was really bad, I never liked it, comes a search engine telling webmaster what they should add to their link? No way!

    If you don't respect yourself, then google will crush you, you give them a finger they'll take your arm!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7003399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by JamesColin View Post

      I also use masked links for the affiliates programs I promote, it is doing a simple redirection, but it is important for me because I don't have to find the affiliate link everytime I want to use it, I just have to remember the name and write it after my site's url..
      When you say google this google that, well that is just speculation, nobody knows what google is doing and honestly why should we care, it is its job to adapt to us and not us having to know what it likes or not.
      It's like the nofollow/dofollow, this was really bad, I never liked it, comes a search engine telling webmaster what they should add to their link? No way!

      If you don't respect yourself, then google will crush you, you give them a finger they'll take your arm!
      LOL I give up on you guys!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7003427].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zlee
    Great info sharing there Yukon. Thanks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8274939].message }}

Trending Topics