xoops forums

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts




Anonymous

Posted on: 2002/3/1 10:32
Anonymous
Anonymous (Show more)
Posts: 0
Since:
#292261

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Hmmmm effectively wierd...just tested a few online checkers and they all seemed to fail

AddWeb PRO extracts the proper keywords when i sik it on my site tho.....

I use XHTML 1.0 headers, and format in function of XHTML.

all tags lowercase, all propreties lowercase, tags with no closing tags terminated with />

<META NAME="Something" CONTENT="Whatever">
is invalid xhtml

<meta name="Something" content="Whatever" />
is valid xhtml


If someone finds the prob, lemme know!


linamix

Just popping in
Posted on: 2002/3/1 9:15
linamix
linamix (Show more)
Just popping in
Posts: 6
Since: 2002/1/8 8
#292262

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

I wonder if Search Engines can read this keywords.
I usually test my pages with "www.abondance.com".
With the "original" hack, it used to work. With the new ones it answers "no description, no keywords", even if I can see them in the source code...


Anonymous

Posted on: 2002/3/1 9:01
Anonymous
Anonymous (Show more)
Posts: 0
Since:
#292263

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

User agent discrimination will be in the next one, i'll also try to fix the latin character probs

I took a look at some spider codes here.

And a few other ideas i got is:
Keyword injection: words you always want
Keyword shuffling
and maybe keyword limitation (since usually engines want no more than 20-30 keywords.).

If anybody using this wants to help....PM me your list of common words


Rincewind

Just popping in
Posted on: 2002/3/1 2:49
Rincewind
Rincewind (Show more)
Just popping in
Posts: 16
Since: 2002/1/14
#292264

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Maybe didn't make myself clear. I'm not against cloaking. It is as I said very very useful. Just don't get caught thats all.

Also, I would still like to run the script in this hack even when users view the page as the changes to the title tag are the most important part of the hack. Let me explain; XOOPS normally displays the same title for every single page. However even if I get a page on a keyword into a good SE ranking, it could fail to deliver decent traffic because the search results from some SE use the title and description tags off your page as the results text. Currently these would describe the general theme of the site that you keyed in to admin/preferences. But if the keyword is more exact then you would want the title and discription to be more exact and so the hack become useful in changing the title. You would still want the same title to apear on the browser when the visitor arrived so maybe that part of the hack should remain.

If you really want to save on server load, you could miss out the keyword creation part completely. Only the smaller, or older SE's still use metakeywords in ranking. Instead they parse the real text of your page the same way that your script does and decide on there own keywords to use. So if you missed all the metakeywords out and just stuck with title and description few SE's would notice (and any that did would not be worth bothering about)


Anonymous

Posted on: 2002/2/28 22:02
Anonymous
Anonymous (Show more)
Posts: 0
Since:
#292265

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

The word Cloak comes from Star Trek where the Klingons were capable of "cloaking" their ships invisible

Hehehe
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=cloak

As for your two pages, they seem to encourage it.
Also XOOPS and many other sites already by default, forge the headers to report fake time of creation/modification times... so no 2 times you load the page will give identical results: Which means your current XOOPS site with or without this hack will fail the bitwise test anyways.

Not to mention pages with hit counters, javascript, external headlines..etc etc.

So no, i dont see where it would be bad. Keywords are meant for search engines not for users anyways. And if you can cut down the extractors cpu/mysql overhead by 99% by simply checking user agents...why not

Especially usefull for very active sites, since currently keywords are "always" exctracted, even if your normal user couldnt care less bout them.

Also the extracted words ARE relevant to the page being accessed, since they are directly compiled off the page's contents, so there's not even the factor of deception.


But thanks for your concern


Rincewind

Just popping in
Posted on: 2002/2/28 20:57
Rincewind
Rincewind (Show more)
Just popping in
Posts: 16
Since: 2002/1/14
#292266

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Wow there Half-dead. Sounds like your talking about cloaking. From Search Engine World:

Quote => Using some system to hide code or content from a user, and deliver custom content to a search engine spider. The word Cloak comes from Star Trek where the Klingons were capable of "cloaking" their ships invisible. There are three main types of cloaking: IP based, User Agent based, and the combination of those two. IP based cloaking custom delivers a page based on the users IP address (this can be used to deliver custom language based sites or target groups of users from particular ISP's such as AOL or @home users). User Agent cloaking sends a custom page based upon the users Agent (most often use to take advantage of a particular agents strengths or features). Finally, the combination of Agent and IP cloaking is use to target specific users <= end quote

There are two schools of thought when it comes to cloaking. The search engines say "don't do it. It's spamming and we don't like it." and the web masters say "The search sites use cloacking themselves (ever tried to get to altavista US and ended up in UK or where ever your from) so it must be OK. And also if you don't catch us, what you don't see don't hurt."

Your probably thinking, if the sites cloacked how could the SE's see you. Well the occasional human does actualy confirm a proportion of listings. They compare your real web page to the one in the spiders cache and if they don't match However if the only dif is the meta tags then a human will never notice, right, wrong. One of the first checks is a simple bit count. If the cached page has a different bit count form the real page then further investigation is taken.

Basicly what I'm saying is cloaking sections of your site can be very veryuseful but also fraught with danger. For more info check out these two articles Here and here.


Anonymous

Posted on: 2002/2/28 18:02
Anonymous
Anonymous (Show more)
Posts: 0
Since:
#292267

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Was just thinkin of this.... might be smart to check against user agents and if its (netscape, opera, or internet explorer)... well we skip the keyword extraction to keep the cpu usage down

Google and the others that are targeted by this report other user agents as far as i know, right?


JM2

Just popping in
Posted on: 2002/2/28 17:37
JM2
JM2 (Show more)
Just popping in
Posts: 2
Since: 2002/1/2 2
#292268

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Quote:

header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT");


It's browser cache file Expires time.
browser never cache.
xoops site shows update page always.


lykoszine

Module Developer
Posted on: 2002/2/28 17:18
lykoszine
lykoszine (Show more)
Module Developer
Posts: 244
Since: 2002/1/2 2
#292269

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Call me dumb, but why:

header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT");

line 43, header.php


lykoszine

Module Developer
Posted on: 2002/2/28 16:45
lykoszine
lykoszine (Show more)
Module Developer
Posts: 244
Since: 2002/1/2 2
#292270

Re: Hacked the REF Hack :o)

Hey Man!

I keep downloading these and you release a new one before I get round to intalling it!!!



Way to go