<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hiding Content from Spiders with jQuery</title>
	<atom:link href="http://indexedcontent.com/jquery/hiding-content-from-spiders-jquery/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://indexedcontent.com/jquery/hiding-content-from-spiders-jquery/</link>
	<description>SEO Services &#38; Link Building</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:22:19 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://indexedcontent.com/jquery/hiding-content-from-spiders-jquery/comment-page-1/#comment-378</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indexedcontent.com/?p=281#comment-378</guid>
		<description>Thanks. I think I understand and largely agree with you. I was actually watching an old Matt Cutts interview this morning on YouTube where he was talking about flash sites where the web master (with good intentions) was using a cloaked part of the code to present at least something to Google because the flash stuff could not be read. On the one hand Matt was saying &quot;these people didn&#039;t mean anything bad by this, it was fairly innocent and we [Google] are trying not to figure this out from the people using these techniques to manipulate us.&quot; (not a direct quote, but close)...  

Anyway - Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks. I think I understand and largely agree with you. I was actually watching an old Matt Cutts interview this morning on YouTube where he was talking about flash sites where the web master (with good intentions) was using a cloaked part of the code to present at least something to Google because the flash stuff could not be read. On the one hand Matt was saying &#8220;these people didn&#8217;t mean anything bad by this, it was fairly innocent and we [Google] are trying not to figure this out from the people using these techniques to manipulate us.&#8221; (not a direct quote, but close)&#8230;  </p>
<p>Anyway &#8211; Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://indexedcontent.com/jquery/hiding-content-from-spiders-jquery/comment-page-1/#comment-376</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indexedcontent.com/?p=281#comment-376</guid>
		<description>First off I wouldn&#039;t believe everything you hear from Google but yes, word is css &amp; html are now parsed to some degree.  The old days you are referring to though mainly dealt with hidden divs and negative margins.  It&#039;s easy to run a test though on javascript and see for yourself if hidden (on dom load) content is cached, and of course it isn&#039;t.  As for the algo checking, I think Google is much more concerned with cloaked content as opposed to actual visible content that is load-deferred but then that&#039;s just my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off I wouldn&#8217;t believe everything you hear from Google but yes, word is css &#038; html are now parsed to some degree.  The old days you are referring to though mainly dealt with hidden divs and negative margins.  It&#8217;s easy to run a test though on javascript and see for yourself if hidden (on dom load) content is cached, and of course it isn&#8217;t.  As for the algo checking, I think Google is much more concerned with cloaked content as opposed to actual visible content that is load-deferred but then that&#8217;s just my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://indexedcontent.com/jquery/hiding-content-from-spiders-jquery/comment-page-1/#comment-375</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:06:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indexedcontent.com/?p=281#comment-375</guid>
		<description>I was under the impression that Google looked at CSS now as &quot;part&quot; of the site and that the old days of hiding stuff under js were over? Furthermore, I thought that there is an actual analysis of js / divs in the Google algo to determine if anything deceptive is happening. If so, no more SERP....   No?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was under the impression that Google looked at CSS now as &#8220;part&#8221; of the site and that the old days of hiding stuff under js were over? Furthermore, I thought that there is an actual analysis of js / divs in the Google algo to determine if anything deceptive is happening. If so, no more SERP&#8230;.   No?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
