Presenting different content to search engines and users with intent to manipulate rankings or mislead users.
Cloaking presents different content to search engines and people with an intent to manipulate rankings or mislead users. The difference need not involve replacing every word on the page. A search engine being shown a materially different offer from the one visitors encounter can create the problem.
Not every technical difference is deceptive. Different rendering methods can deliver equivalent main content, and a responsive layout can adapt presentation to the device. Google’s dynamic-rendering guidance distinguishes equivalent content from cloaking, although it recommends more durable rendering approaches instead of using that workaround as a long-term solution.
When diagnosing a discrepancy, compare the meaningful information and functionality available through each path. A missing script, blocked resource or login state may explain a mismatch without proving intent. Still, a technical accident can interfere with discovery and should be fixed. Investigate the cause rather than automatically labeling all rendering differences a spam violation.
Takeaway: Keep the substantive page promise consistent for search engines and the visitors who follow the result.
Example
A page shown to a crawler describes a free instruction manual, while ordinary visitors receive an unrelated sales pitch with no manual. That misleading difference is unlike a mobile layout that simply moves the same instructions into a single column.
What to check
Compare rendered content and user journeys when testing changes. Record which differences are expected and correct mismatches that conceal or replace the promised content.
For more detail, see Google spam policies.