PDA

View Full Version : 2 Cloaking Methods


Sam
02-15-2007, 11:19 PM
Cloaking your affiliate links is usefull for a few things. The most important being that people can't type the URL into their browser and second some people just refuse clicking affiliate links. Here are 2 ways to cloak your affiliate links.

Method One

This is a redirection script which can hold an unlimited amount of URLs, and it allows you to keep them all into one PHP-file. Okay, here we go.

1. Create a .php file, call it redirect.php

2. Open the file and insert the following code :



$links = array(
"samsys" => "http://www.samsys.com",
);
header("Location:".$links[$_GET['site']]);
exit;
?>



Offcourse you need to replace the description and URL with whatever you want, also note that you can add as many URLs below this one as you want.

3.Call the link using this string :

http://www.yoursite.com/redirect.php?site=samsys

You're done!



Method Two

This method can be used to redirect single affiliate links, the advantage with this method is that if you have enough links to the affiliate link you could get it to rank in MSN, so those are potential earnings from organic searches.


So, you want to have a file to redirect to one of your sites? Easy!

1. Create a file called mysite.php

2. Open the file and insert the following code :



header( 'Location: http://www.mysite.com' ) ;
?>



3.To call the link simply use:

http://www.yoursite.com/mysite.php

This method makes the link look much more like a static page, so the visitor is more likely to click your link.


Well, we're done!

boron
02-19-2007, 01:25 AM
Cloaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking) is a black hat seo otherwise. This apply to misleading urls only though, I guess. Google can find out cloacking and your site can be banned.

I'm not sure if this applies to above case though.

Mystic
02-19-2007, 01:33 AM
If I need to cloak something (promoting affiliate url etc), I just use services like www.snipurl.com and www.tinyurl.com
Quick and fast :D

The disadvantage is that I wont get url like www.mysite/cloak .

rjp
02-19-2007, 07:56 AM
boron, cloaking URLs and cloaking web page content are two totally different things.

Cloaking URLs so that they're smaller and/or don't show a long affiliate URL are great for e-mailing people or posting on web sites.

Cloaking web page content so that a keyword filled page is presented to search engine spiders is a black hat SEO technique that shouldn't be used by anyone trying to keep a search engine ranking.

Submerge
02-19-2007, 05:57 PM
Cloaking a URL is handy if you're trying to spam the link. Otherwise, it shouldn't have to much influence, IMO.

boron
02-20-2007, 02:04 AM
Cloaking a URL is handy if you're trying to spam the link. Otherwise, it shouldn't have to much influence, IMO.

Well, it's about aestethic :p .

To rjp: cloack means to cover something, to mask. It is such a "bad" word so I think shrinking URL or simply shortening URL should be used for this - to prevent some suspects.

Submerge
02-20-2007, 02:16 PM
But why do you need to deceive your visitors? Do expect most users to check the URL before clicking the link, if they are, I doubt they will but something if they are pushed to an affiliate link as they are already suspicious.

masm50
02-20-2007, 05:51 PM
Instead of using TinyURL or whatever, you could just install a tinyurl type script on your server making the links
www.yourdomain.com/out/YRHGFD

That way your affiliate links are cloaked and they look decent as they are coming from your domain. I am planning on using this technique on my next project which involves quite a few affiliate programs...

-Tim

rjp
02-21-2007, 07:53 AM
I have a post for creating HTML, JavaScript, PHP, and Perl redirects:

http://www.ryanjparker.net/shortening-affiliate-links-for-prettier-linking/

boron
02-21-2007, 08:02 AM
The next one is not quite appropriate question for this thread but: If I have dynamic URLs of pages on a blog (pointing to sub-blogs on a same domain), then I develop content (and get PR and position in SERPs) and then decide to have static links - will this compromise my PR or SERPs?

rjp
02-21-2007, 08:03 AM
When you say dynamic vs static are you talking about how the links / content is generated?

Basically you'll maintain your PR and SERPs as long as the URLs are the same. If the URLs change you'll need appropriate 301 redirects.

boron
02-21-2007, 09:06 AM
When you say dynamic vs static are you talking about how the links / content is generated?
Basically you'll maintain your PR and SERPs as long as the URLs are the same. If the URLs change you'll need appropriate 301 redirects.

It is an option within b2evolution blog (PHP script) where you can use
dynamic: stub?title=post_title&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&more=1 or
static: stub/2003/05/20/post_title

Copy-paste from admin panel:

Link options:
Use extra-path info: Recommended if your webserver supports it. Links will look like 'stub/2003/05/20/post_title' instead of 'stub?title=post_title&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&more=1'.


Will checking this extra-path info change something from spiders' viewpoint? Static links are supposed to be easier to crowled - this is why I'm considering to check it.

Current links look:
http://amazingindiaexperience.info/index.php?blog=3