My site runs multivariate pitch testing on the home page for organic
traffic. To do so, I include a javascript snippet which writes
different content into the body of the page upon each request. I know
that search engines penalize implementations such as this. Anyone with
a similar implementation have any ideas on how to reduce the search
ranking penalties this introduces?

On 22 May 2007 20:22:49 -0700, jm44 <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

>My site runs multivariate pitch testing on the home page for organic
>traffic. To do so, I include a javascript snippet which writes
>different content into the body of the page upon each request. I know
>that search engines penalize implementations such as this.

You do? It's news to me and I suspect you may be misinterpreting what
you've heard. However, you raise an interesting point because MVT is
the obvious next step after, or maybe before even, SEO. So this does
need to be sorted. Can the engines distinguish between MVT and
cloaking? The Public Want, nay, The Public DEMAND To Know! I'd better
go ask a few people...

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On May 22, 8:22 pm, jm44 <jedme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My site runs multivariate pitch testing on the home page for organic
> traffic. To do so, I include a javascript snippet which writes
> different content into the body of the page upon each request. I know
> that search engines penalize implementations such as this. Anyone with
> a similar implementation have any ideas on how to reduce the search
> ranking penalties this introduces?

Penalties? Maybe in 1926 but not today, in general. But, your web
pages will not be rewarded if the search engines cannot find content.

I get the feeling that the content is useless to anyone other than the
Internet visitor that requests it. If that is the case, then carry on
with your life.

Fred
--

Search Engines Guidelines
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.b...ust-reads.html

"canadafred" <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote in message
news:EMAIL REMOVED ups.com...
> On May 22, 8:22 pm, jm44 <jedme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My site runs multivariate pitch testing on the home page for organic
>> traffic. To do so, I include a javascript snippet which writes
>> different content into the body of the page upon each request. I know
>> that search engines penalize implementations such as this. Anyone with
>> a similar implementation have any ideas on how to reduce the search
>> ranking penalties this introduces?
>
> Penalties? Maybe in 1926 but not today, in general. But, your web
> pages will not be rewarded if the search engines cannot find content.
>

I for one, don't know anyone who was penalized by Google in 1926. I
understand the Googleplex speakeasy kept everyone kinda distracted that
year.

cheers ~
Denise

On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:06:15 GMT, "Denise" <EMAIL REMOVED>
wrote:

>"canadafred" <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote in message
>news:EMAIL REMOVED oups.com...
>> On May 22, 8:22 pm, jm44 <jedme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My site runs multivariate pitch testing on the home page for organic
>>> traffic. To do so, I include a javascript snippet which writes
>>> different content into the body of the page upon each request. I know
>>> that search engines penalize implementations such as this. Anyone with
>>> a similar implementation have any ideas on how to reduce the search
>>> ranking penalties this introduces?
>>
>> Penalties? Maybe in 1926 but not today, in general. But, your web
>> pages will not be rewarded if the search engines cannot find content.
>>
>
>I for one, don't know anyone who was penalized by Google in 1926. I
>understand the Googleplex speakeasy kept everyone kinda distracted that
>year.
>
>cheers ~
>Denise

I suspect Fred was already distracted.

BB (I know, a low blow :-)
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/