@Carlo 131372 wrote:
weren’t you talking about serving pages based on content?
No. my interpretation was that he wants two sites – the exact same except a few keywords. so 2 seperate domains.
What I was suggesting was an economical way to maintain and serve content to both separate domains. (In fact upon rereading, a 301 was just what he needed- however for the purposes of our discussion / disagreement, assume he wanted two different sites..)
@Carlo 131372 wrote:
I am not exactly a n00b, I have a master degree in software engineering and I was a web and applications developer at a few companies as I eased into online marketing of gaming products…
Well you sound like one. Taling about degrees? wtf! Degrees matter not – I am half way thru a phd – big deal. that’s neither here not there.
@Carlo 131372 wrote:
What are your credentials that make you know more than me? Why don’t you go re-write the wiki! So defensive, it is cloaking, go ask Matt Cutts. By the way, I hope you don’t get the impression that when I say it is cloaking that that’s a bad thing?
My credentials?- I am a SEO Consulatant (god :tongue:), Java Coder & Webmaster. As for your “so defensive” comment – I am certainly not going to say black is white to placate you, when clearly it is not.
p.s Screw wikipedia and rewriting their wiki.
p.p.s It’s STILL not cloaking.Cloaking happens on 1 domain where content is served depending on visitor/geo/other factors – as I illustrated above what we are discussing does not.