<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Trulia Caught Cloaking Red Handed | Bramblog</title>
		<link>http://www.bramblog.com/trulia-caught-cloaking-red-handed/#comment-195</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Bramlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bramblog.com/?p=72#comment-195</guid>
		<description>Back to the subject, though.  I was under the impression that serving different pages to users &#038; bots was cut &#038; dry cloaking, and against Google TOS.  Even though the subject matter is similar, there's a much simpler way to keep the index clean.  Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see how "noindex, nofollow," or "noindex, follow" wouldn't scale, while a cloaked 301 would.  The only benefit I see to a cloaked 301 is that the juice passes through.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back to the subject, though.  I was under the impression that serving different pages to users &#038; bots was cut &#038; dry cloaking, and against Google TOS.  Even though the subject matter is similar, there&#8217;s a much simpler way to keep the index clean.  Unless I&#8217;m missing something, I just don&#8217;t see how &#8220;noindex, nofollow,&#8221; or &#8220;noindex, follow&#8221; wouldn&#8217;t scale, while a cloaked 301 would.  The only benefit I see to a cloaked 301 is that the juice passes through.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
