Do you/Would you report cloaked sites?

Yes, I would report cloaking.  For those that say they would not, here is scenario for you..

Your site is #3 for your main term and the #2 site is cloaking and using other black hat SEO practices.  Would you report it then? 

If my site was #3 I'm not sure I would care much at that point! This particular client was on page 4, now is on page 2, and seems to have plateaued at  #14. So knocking out these two competitors who are cloaking wouldn't be enough to break into the top 10. But we have put a lot of work into this site to have it seemingly stalled by cloakers.  

Al what if your site ranked 6th.The top 5 sites were buying a few links here and there on topic relevant sites. Would you report those through the paid link report?

I think it depends on the situation...and the sites.

If I believed that Google would punish the site (which is a long shot...I've always believed they don't read 99% of the emails they get) and I thought it would give me a competitive advantage, sure. If there was nothing to gain by it over say one of my existing sites, no. All is fair in love and war but I wouldn't make a habit of it :-)

99% is probably too low...

No I wouldn't for a number of reasons:

1. It is "dobbing", something that the Australian culture doesn't do.

2. I am opposed to the reporting system because I see it to open to abuse - a competitor is above you, so report them instead of putting the hard work in to make your site rank better

3. Are you 100% sure that your site is 100% squeaky clean?  No paid inks that aren't declared, no duplicate content or the like?

Just my thoughts on it.

Sure why not. Cloaking is bad.

Two years ago?? You bet.. Today, not at all.. Google has gone out of it's way to turn webmasters in to their living, unpaid, algo update.. It has gotten to the point where anything that they don't like (paid link?) and that they can not account for using the algorithm, is declared black hat and a report evil website button is created.. Instantly you have thousands of webmasters looking to get a little boost reporting their competitors while at the same time hoping no one reports them..

Which brings me back to the unpaid Google employee that they are making us.. Why should we do the work that they claim to be so good at?? And why should we do it for free??

ha h ha haha... Feyd ya'll don't hatin' now man!! How is it any different than social sites and others that make $$$$ from user generated content? Hey, I am with ya bro... it's just that your angle pretty much covers most sites/companies...

For the record, I find Spam in working a clients ranks, you bet I will tank them if I feel they are cheating on purpose (as oposed to geo-targeting IPs for legit reasons).

..but you know me man... kickin asses and takin names... he he

The difference between social sites and Google is really pretty simple, at some point you choose have your content included on that site (Forums, Blogs), or at the very least they link to your site, (Digg, Stumble, etc), Google just takes from you unless you specifically say not to.. And they change the rules on you..

Remember back when they actually told you to go out and exchange links with other webmasters as a way to promote your website?? Now those links are looked on differently.. Then this noFollow attribute was co-opted and perverted to be something it was never meant to be.. It was originally meant for blog spam to allow comments but not count the spam comment links.. Then it was to be used for any links that you don't trust.. And now it's to be used for paid links.. Even if they are "trusted"..

And now, not only are paid links to be noFollowed, but if you don't do it they will penalize your site.. Making selling advertising on your own website, in a manner other than that allowed by Google, will be treated exactly the same spam, cloaking, hidden text, or any of a hundred other black hat methods.. Simply because they aren't able to create an algorithm smart enough, or good enough, to create a utopian ideal that is unatainable.. It's easier to turn webmasters against each other and let them do the work for them..

reporting Cloaked sites does not equal reporting paid links, first off in my mind. You wont ever catch me reporting a paid link.

I completely agree with you feyddakin, what google has decided to do as of late is over the top, and like you said it is a vein attempt to fix its broken algo. Expecting the normal joe webmaster to utilize nofollow if they are selling advertising on their site is ridiculous. For more than 1 reason, in which you stated above.

 

This is an important clarification Brian...Cloaked sites represent a totally different issue to paid links - unless your matt cutts

Cloaking is a far more blatant abuse of the Google Algorithm (flawed or otherwise)...with no legitimate purpose other than to manipulate rankings (happy to be corrected if i've overlooked a genuine use)...

paid links on the other hand aren't that black and white (for all the reasons that have been raised in this Q&A and other discussions)

Good point, Feydakin. Thanks for sharing.

agreed.