At 16:54 02-02-00 , Robert Clendaniel wrote:
> We have a client that is very anxious to have 
> optimal search engine placements, as well as 
> a visually striking design.

As part of a thought-out publicity campaign, this is wise for some folks,
and a silly obsession for many. [I'm amazed, for example, how many
companies play this game, yet are clueless if I call or visit their office
and try to find out their Web address.... look at the big picture.]

>The best approach seems to be "page cloaking", so called 
>by Danny Sullivan of http://www.searchenginewatch.com/ - 
>server-parsed pages which detect specific agents and, if 
>a match is made with a known robot, feed it a text-only 
>page instead.

Let me answer with an analogy. Some restaurant reviewers appreciate a chef
who gives them a selected assortment of what the place offers, perhaps
cooking up a sample of the weekend specials. Others might object, wanting
the same treatment as their regular guests.

You're doing much like selected assortment example... some might appreciate
and others object.

>He says this will NOT be considered spamming by 
>the search sites.

A clarification of jargon... a SPAM is a major abuse of network resources.
SPAM is a very serious issue... a case can be made that the cost burden of
just SPAM net.abuse more than doubles the cost of using the Internet, and
is getting worse. SPAM is a form of net.abuse, and a drastic form, and not
all net.abuse is SPAM.

Some words convey very extreme situations and concepts... not all forms of
relationship-abuse are RAPE, not all forms of government misconduct result
in a HOLOCAUST, and not all forms of network abuse are SPAM.

>I consider Mr Sullivan the foremost expert on SEs 
>but would like a second opinion - would anyone care 
>to offer one?  TIA!

Look first at the information being provided. Is it reasonably accurate and
honest... perhaps with but a tad of ~puffary~? Then it might at worst
offend some sensitivities (as illustrated previously), but is hardly
deception and similar abuse. On the other hand, if it is deceptive or
misleading, 'nuf said.

Safe computing,  /Harold
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll                 mailto:Harold(at)Driscoll.Chi.IL.US
#include <std/disclaimer>                 http://Driscoll.Chi.IL.US

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA