Check out this screenshot of a search I did yesterday:

The search string: bookmarklets seoblackhat.
1st Result in Google for seoblackhat bookmarklets:
seoblackhat.com/2006/03/06/how-to-add-sexy-bookmarklet-buttons-to-your-blog/feed
The size of the web page is 5340 bytes.
No Title or meta tags.
But uses XML title: Comments on: How to Add Sexy Bookmarklet Buttons to Your Blog
bookmarklet – 18 – 2.50%
seoblackhat – 11 – 1.53%
Google sitemap priority: 0.5
Total links to URL: 0 via
In Google Supplemental Results: Yes
vs.
2nd result in Google for seoblackhat bookmarklets:
seoblackhat.com/2006/03/06/how-to-add-sexy-bookmarklet-buttons-to-your-blog/
Title: How to Add Sexy Bookmarklet Buttons to Your Blog SEO Black Hat: SEO Blog
Description: SEO Black Hat : A Great Tutorial on How to Add Sexy Bookmarklet Buttons to your Wordpress Blog
Keywords: SEO Black Hat , Black Hat, Black Hat SEO, Search Engine Optimization,
Robots: All,Index,Follow
The size of the web page is 20111 bytes.
Keywords found on page:
bookmarklets – 6 – 0.90%
seoblackhat – 3 – 0.45%
Keywords found in the Anchor tags:
bookmarklet – 17
seoblackat – 2
Keywords found in the IMG Alt tags:
bookmarklet – 17
seoblackhat – 0
Google sitemap priority: 0.5
Total Links to URL: 87 via
In Google Supplemental Results: No
There are several surprising things about these results.
1. A supplemental page can rank above non supplemental results.
2. An RSS 2.0 page can outrank a similar page in html.
3. A page on a topic that has 0 links can outrank a page that has 87 links on the same domain.
Conclusions: Google obliviously cares about links. However, Google seems to be giving the link trust to the domain rather than to the individual page. Then, on a given domain, Google determines relevance of a page based on keyword density even if another page on that topic has more inbound links. Keyword density matters. Domain trust is so important that supplemental results can outrank non supplemental results of a less trusted domain.
This actually isn’t such a bad idea. However, one of the biggest flaws with the current implementation is that an RSS 2.0 page can rank above an html page. Google should change this. Unless a user specifically says they are searching for RSS / XML (or PDF for that matter) formatted pages, html pages should be given much more weight. The last thing anyone wants, (Searcher, Webmaster or Google) is for a user to query and land on a page that is not formatted for their viewing pleasure.
If keyword density is so important to getting the user to the right page on my domain, shouldn’t I be cloaking? As long as I’m not misleading the user – shouldn’t Google change their upsurd public stance against cloaking so webmasters can help with indexing? I’m a target so I really can’t cloak this domain. However, if your domain is more like nytimes.com than seoblackhat.com – you really should be cloaking.
Free Cloaking Script
You’re broke as a joke but want to cloak: So what can you do? How about a free cloaking script?
Let’s say you’ve used widgetbaiting or the markov chain to create 30,000 pages of unique content about bacon polenta recipes. Of course, no human surfer wants to read those pages but they are great spider food.
Well if you don’t want to use IP delivery like you’re supposed to, you can use this code to send your surfers to a sell page with text written for human consumption.
Now, this is not some unsneaky java redirect that will get you banned in the Search Engines. * If you use this code, you may get banned in some search engines.* Rather, it’s a error loophole designed for you to exploit:
<img src=nofilehere.gif onerror=window.open(’http://seoblackhat.com’,'_top’)>
Just make a page with any kind of spider food / keyword spam that you want on it and then add that line to the page.
When surfers visit the page, they will be sent to “seoblackhat.com” because the requested image file does not exist (therefore there will be an error). The spiders and search engines, on the other hand, will all see the original page.
This free cloaking script is inferior to premium cloaking software for many reasons. If you are scraping content, this method does nothing to help you get past duplicate content filters. This free cloaking code does not protect your code from surfers or your competition. Surfers will briefly see these spider food pages load. They may, in turn, report you to the search engines who could decide that using this code in the manner described is abusive. So, I would not recommended it for sites that you cannot afford to have banned.
Many high profile sites and fortune 500 companies use Cloaking to send different content to different IP addresses. But they don’t use code like this or cheesy redirect scripts – they use sophisticated cloaking software – IP delivery is the safer and preferred way to cloak. Honestly, I’ve never even heard of someone actually getting banned just for IP cloaking. I know that people do get banned for using crappy JavaScript redirects but in my opinion, getting banned for IP Cloaking is one of the great Black Hat SEO myths; it just doesn’t happen.