Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Black hat techniques and what confuses me


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 12:26 AM

On good SEO fora there are 3 main optimization techniques: content, content, content. If you have good content, written correct, it will earn you a better search engine result. Good content will get you links one day.

Introduce my new found friend. Let's call him Mark. Mark works for a large SEO company which works with large companies. "A" brand companies. Companies you and I know of the top of our head or would recognize once someone drops the name.

And what does Mark and this company do to rank these sites better for whatever project it is they work on? Mark uses regular PPC campaigns, some feeds, but also uses so-called "black hat" SEO.

This confuses me. I've read a lot and basically everywhere it is the same story: black hat SEO often is outdated and it will get you in problems - if not now then in 3 or 6 months from now. But what I saw doesn't support that theory.

Am I, are we, being goodie-two-shoes while the Big Boys rake in Big Bucks the black hat way?

Ruud

#2 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:10 AM

Am I, are we, being goodie-two-shoes while the Big Boys rake in Big Bucks the black hat way?

Good question Ruud.

Firstly I don't believe we at Cre8 feel as strongly about all this blackhat/whitehat stuff like on a few other forums. In fact there are many that would argue that all forms of SEO are going against the search engines TOS.

For many competitve areas these days focusing on content alone won't work and more hardcore techniques may be required. As long as clients are aware of all the risks involved personally I can't see a problem.

#3 Respree

Respree

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5901 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:25 AM

This is what I've heard other people say.

Are these statements accurate?

Blackhat:
Blog Spam
Cloaking
Tricky Re-directs
Black Hat SEO stops at "nothing" to get a high ranking.
People not following the google guidelines.

White Hat:
Content, Content, Content
Relevant backlinks
Site maps
White Hat SEO follows the Google quality guidelines (and the equivalent at other engines) to the letter.

99% of the SEO industry are wearing hats in various shades of grey.
Gray Hat = what Black Hat people call themselves.

#4 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:39 AM

That looks about correct to me.

Previously, before I met this person, I associated black hat stuff pretty much with the equivalent of Viagra email spam. But what I was shown is all very, very much on topic. Their clients would whack them over the head if they would deliver untargetted, unrelated traffic.

Ruud

#5 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 02:14 AM

I think it depends upon what this Mark actually does, and for whom. I am not sure I know many large, A list brands that do black hat SEO. The possible fallout in terms of negative publicity is simply too high. And besides, that is what a brand is for: to reduce the reliance upon selling a customer.

You also have to be careful when assumming big companies understand. Many just pay money to SEMs, don't really get it, but as long as you send them pretty reports that they can justify to their bosses, they are happy. Most big company workers are just butt coverers. As long as they have an SEM contracted, their butt is covered, ergo they have done their job.

There is another assumption that there is, or should be, a level playing field, with the same rules for everyone. That is never true, in any buisiness endeavour. There is a saying: if I owe you $100,000 you own me, but if I owe you $1,000,000,000, I own you. If you are big enough, others bend to your will.

The largest ISP and Telco in Australia, Telstra, pretty much dictated to bill paying services how they would deal with them, because a billing service that wont let you pay Tesltra bills is useless. They needed Telstra more than Telstra needed them.

Ditto an SE without Amazon is incomplete. That makes sites of that size pretty much immune to ever being banned, no matter what they do (disclaimer: I am not saying they "do" anything. Just an example). That may give them more rein to try dodgy things, but it also probably is accompanied by more rigorous screening. It cuts both ways.

However, my two bit site on hotels in Gosford wont ever be afforded the same luxury. This is probably where a lot of the content, content, content advice is aimed. This makes sense, as the only way to do well on that scale is to play within the rules, cause no one really cares if there is one less small player.

#6 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 02:17 AM

Here's the skinny (as they once used to say)...

Black Hat SEO techniques work fantasticly ...

... right up until one of your competitors notice and report you. That is far more likely and happens far more often that the SE filters detecting it for themselves.

It happened only today.

I was researching the competitors appearing for a moderately competitve search term regarding insurance. The #1 and #2 slots belonged to one company that got its position by interlinking dozens of their own domains.

The #3 position was far worse, consisting of an old-fashioned doorway page, with text hidden below the fold (and with scrolling turned off) and additionally using a javascript redirect to instantly move the visitor to more genuine content.

The site involved in the #3 position spam fiasco probably isn't aware of the repurcussions of what the SEO company has done to them. They are a very reputable publishing company - and big enough that this spam could make news sites if discovered/reported.

Naturally, I made a full report to my client, giving them the entire details, including all the contacts and forms to report the spam.

It took me just seconds to spot the spam, and only minutes to inform my clients, who naturally are competitors of the spamming sites and have a vested interest in reporting the stuff with a view to hurting the competitor.

Black Hat SEO is simply more dangerous, and more complex if you don't want to look like a chump as those competitors did. My advice is not to touch 'black hat' techniques until you have mastered the other stuff, and most especially, have learnt to place the customer first. Be that the eCommerce customer, or the SEO service customer.

#7 Irony

Irony

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 02:34 AM

Black Hat techniques might work.

White Hat techniques work, too.

The reasons I stick to white:

- Black Hats might never be filtered or reported, but they never can sleep well, being always worried that they MIGHT be caught.
- If I did something of that kind, I would be ashamed of myself.
- Our site has good rankings for very competitive search terms without black hat techniques - so why bother?

#8 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 02:36 AM

Gray Hat = what Black Hat people call themselves

Pah!

There are no hats.

There are three forms of SEO tactics:
1. Techniques currently rated as 'safe'.
2. Techniques rated as risky.
3. Risk balanced and risk managed techniques.

You see, there are companies who can happily make money from the blackest of arts simply by endlessly buying new domains, even before the old ones have been banned. A ban is nothing to hurt them because it has always been figured into the plan. They practically depend upon getting banned, because otherwise they wasted cash on the next round of domain registrations. :)

There are also risk managed solutions that are a lot less severe. Where the risks are minimised and managed, and where the penalties even in the event of the risk going bad are small or negligable.

Risk management is about knowing (not wild guessing) exactly how hard it will be to detect the technique by any known means. It is about knowing what action will follow even if the technique is detected. There are doorway pages that will survive the scrutiny of a search engineer because they still serve a genuine purpose to the user.

To my philosophy, the SEO who refuses to properly inform their clients of all available techniques and the costs risks and benefits is not ethical. Whether that is failure to tell them of risks, or failure to tell them of strengths. It is the clients role to make the choice, and a truly ethical SEO will enable the client to make a fully informed choice, not just one that meets what the search engines say is okay for all.

#9 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 06:41 AM

Ammon has nailed it pretty good.

Whitehat is the techniques that the search engine want you to use. Google have invested a lot of energy into getting close to SEO's and trying to steer them down this path.

If you are going to pour your heart and soul into a site, then whitehat is the only option.

If you want to make money and are prepared to practice 'crash and burn' then 'blackhat' works just fine.

The reason that we read so many positive comments about whitehat techniques and so few about blackhat is because the SEOs doing blackhat don't talk about what they are doing.

There are techniques that have been working for the last couple of years that Google haven't got close to filtering. Heck, they still struggle with simple hidden text - but when you mix in external style sheets and z-index stuff you can run rings around them and cloaking to a javascript redirect page is all over the top ten for the really useful 3 and 4 word phrases.

Somewhat more difficult to run rings around a hand inspection after being reported though.

Yep - its all about acceptable level of risk

#10 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:31 AM

I am not sure I know many large, A list brands that do black hat SEO.


I thought I didn't either. Believe me, we do though.

That makes sites of that size pretty much immune to ever being banned, no matter what they do ...


This sounds very likely. When I mentioned the possibility of getting a penalty, up to a ban, I was basically laughed away. Without some of these sites and their spin-offs you basically don't have a search engine, just like you have no phone book without, say, Microsoft in it. It was also pointed out to me that in many cases the spin offs, the projects, the portals, invest a lot of money in advertising. In several cases nobody would want to see them banned.

Black Hat SEO is simply more dangerous, and more complex if you don't want to look like a chump as those competitors did.


It certainly was more complex than I would have thought previously. A very extensive amount of knowledge of how the SE's work, what they do and how they do it seems to come into play.

There are doorway pages that will survive the scrutiny of a search engineer because they still serve a genuine purpose to the user.


Like what? Because I'm not in this business it is hard for me to think of a valid reason to have a doorway page. When I think of one it seems not a doorway page anymore: alternative content for a Flash-based site, for instance.

The reason that we read so many positive comments about whitehat techniques and so few about blackhat is because the SEOs doing blackhat don't talk about what they are doing.


Yup. From what I understand there are places where they do talk without the need to have discussions on how ethical something is or not. How much they share of their knowledge - I don't know.

All-in-all it is an eye opening experience for me. And where possible I do want to learn about these techniques. Black Knight points out some very valid reasons why one should.

Ruud

#11 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9011 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:38 AM

A ban is nothing to hurt them because it has always been figured into the plan. They practically depend upon getting banned, because otherwise they wasted cash on the next round of domain registrations.  

That's where I think the Black Hat SEO's may be missing the boat. If you're focused solely on high Search Engine rankings, then that and other spamming techniques are probably the way. If you get the traffic and the conversion rate is high enough then the ROI will be OK. That's even though you may be losing great slices of your potential market because some of the human visitors may get irked by your methods.

The problem is that ROI's of successful Internet Marketing should be enormously high. I believe that the same amount of money and energy put into effective White Hat SEO will deliver a higher ROI on a more stable basis. I think it also relates to the issue I raise in today's insight from IMC 2004, "A website is a website is a website".

#12 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:41 AM

Like what?


As an example, think of every search phrase that might be used and weave it into a FAQ section that has a separate page for each answer.

Another nice way is to make pop-up windows triggered by a click on a phrase in the main site. Each pop-up window has only a 'close' button when it is triggered from the page. If someone lands on it from a search engine a script writes a simple navigation system instead of the 'close' button. This works very well, and if done properly, actually enhances the user experience.

Be creative and the world is your oyster.

#13 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:45 AM

I believe that the same amount of money and energy put into effective White Hat SEO


Agreed - but most that I know do both. A clean site using good quality organic SEO and a whole bunch of blackhat stuff to feed it.

Of course, it depends on your product and market - big difference between viagra and the rest.

#14 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:51 AM

The problem is that ROI's of successful Internet Marketing should be enormously high. I believe that the same amount of money and energy put into effective White Hat SEO will deliver a higher ROI on a more stable basis.


Apparently some sites are impossible to enhance. If a large bank approaches you you cannot in all fairness tell them to add more content. To post some interesting tutorials or FAQ's in the hope people will land there via a search or that someone will link to it. Worse: some of these clients will not even let you touch the actual website. Then again, I'm not privy to any conversations they have had with customers. If they are aware that there are other methods - I don't know.

As an example, think of every search phrase that might be used and weave it into a FAQ section that has a separate page for each answer


I thought that was thought of as a possible landing page whereas a doorway page is more something that is delivered through IP cloaking. The only valid use of IP delivery I am aware of is a site like Google redirecting you to your local version of Google.

Ruud

#15 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:53 AM

Doorway pages don't really need cloaking - although many definitions abound.

We prefer to call them 'information pages' :wink:

#16 behindTheScenes

behindTheScenes

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 145 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 08:02 AM

I think that perhaps what has been overlooked is black hat techniques that can appear as white hat. For example a web application that can write out 'sharpened' pages of web content that is not rweally part of the main site, but because of sophisticated libraries, dictionaries and content stores can fool the average customer / user.
What then?

#17 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 08:09 AM

Doorway pages, gateway pages, hook pages, landing pages, informational pages, topical focus pages, or even zebra pages (that last from Jill Whalen).

All the same thing. A page optimised to rank for a specific search phrase or range of search terms that will thus serve as a doorway to your site from the SERPs.

Then there are hallway pages, which are out of fashion somewhat now except as site-maps. Instead, doorways are cross-linked to eliminate the need for hallway pages.

Cloaking is the very opposite of doorway pages really, since the page the visitor will enter through is not the optimised page that the search engine ranked.

#18 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 08:26 AM

Are there situations in which IP delivery of doorway pages seems relevant to you? I.e.: deliver a valid, well optimized, keyword rich content page specifically to spider X, Y or Z - and the regular content page to a human visitor. Provided here that the content is related, is on topic.

Ruud

#19 Ron Carnell

Ron Carnell

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 2063 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 09:31 AM

There was a line on a television show, ER, a week or two ago that really struck a nerve with me. One of the student doctors had been admonished to be more aggressive and, in following that advice, she gave a patient an inappropriate pain killer that resulted in his death. "You're not a good doctor," someone later said, "Until you've killed someone."

That observation struck home, I think, because it contains a very real element of truth.

Practicing SEO today, I suspect, is a bit like practicing medicine several hundred years ago, before there was a formalized education and training regimen. We ask advice from others, we observe movement in the SERPs, but mostly we learn by doing. Working in uncompetitive fields is a bit like treating warts or even sewing up six-inch knife lacerations. Playing it safe works well and we rarely have to worry about losing the patient. When someone comes to you with an appendix ready to burst, your decisions get a little more complex. If you turn them away, they still have appendicitis and you've learned nothing about treating it. But unless you have a mentor staring over your shoulder every step of the way, or are extraordinarily lucky, your first few surgeries are probably not going to end real well.

When you "get aggressive" in SEO, just as in television dramas, you can expect there will be a price paid. You should anticipate it and, if you want to sleep at night, you should be honest with those most involved. Learning doesn't come cheaply, especially when your only teacher is trail and error. And the learning never stops.

Interestingly, I think this analogy either breaks down or perhaps reveals a hidden truth when we ask ourselves how many fledgling doctors, in their enthusiasm to learn, try to perform surgery on themselves. :D

#20 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 10:31 AM

Generally, when I think of the things I would or wouldn't do, it isn't based on whether people see them as whitehat/blackhat, theres too much of a grey area in between that most of us fall into for that.

I instead consider what I would think of it as a visitor to the site. Is the link I have clicked on from the SERP taken me to what I wanted/expected?

If, as a visitor, I'd be happy with what the website is doing, I don't have a problem with it. If the site starts decieving me and trying to mess me about, then I start considering it more in the spammy areas.

As has been mentioned by various people at various times. No particular technique is necessarily spam, how it's implimented defines that.

#21 seobook

seobook

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 03:50 PM

I just think it is a risk / reward thing. In all reality most sites do not need to accept too much risk if they have a decent amount of cash to spend on promoting their sites.

The hat stuff is garbage, I think it is similar to a best practice or ethical label...just a bunch of bogus marketing speak to say "I am better than you."

Where the problem real comes into play is when customers hire SEO's without knowing what they are doing at all. The buyer beware thing is real, and if a person is unwilling to explain what they are doing then they are probably not worth buying services from. Much of the fault rests within the greed motive of people coupled with the laziness to not ask questions and not find out the facts.

I think the idea of knowing most of the low risk seo options really should help in determining when / if "Black Hat SEO" is required. I did make a directory of companies (Black Hat SEO.com) I thought work in bad faith or mislead people, as that is where the problem truely rests. I don't think it is important that my directory is all inclusive, just so that it has the patterns and hopefully gets people to ask questions at forums. The goal of that label should be to lead people to the answers to their quesions, and for a few people a day I hope my evil little site does...

#22 Guest_rustybrick_*

Guest_rustybrick_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 April 2004 - 04:43 PM

Black Hat SEO directory. lol :D

#23 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 06:19 PM

Excellent post Ron!

#24 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 08:34 PM

To my philosophy, the SEO who refuses to properly inform their clients of all available techniques and the costs risks and benefits is not ethical...It is the clients role to make the choice,

Hmmm. I agree for the most part, but with a lot of caveats. :)

The suggestions that an SEO gives must meet a clients needs, not just be possible options. For example, a client that wants long term to have their current domain indexed in search engines is better off avoiding anything that is known to have risk. A large brand, with a hostile anti group (say Microsoft) has considerations that preclude the offerring of certain advice as well, especially anyhting that may increase the hostility.

The role of any professional is to understand a clients needs and offer them recomendations that fit those needs, not to necessarily offer them every perceivable option.

#25 tosheroon

tosheroon

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 237 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:06 AM

Ammon gave an example earlier of a couple of insurance related sites that used hidden text and interlinked domains, I'd be extremely interested in an update to tell us when those sites are removed from the index or dropped down a hundred places, because what I'm seeing is that a wide variety of questionable tactics are so widely used now that a search engine can't remove them all without seriously hindering their push to have the largest index. The time it takes for human review often prohibits the removal or demotion of sites directly, though presumably the information goes towards the building of the next algo.

Redirection and cloaking are just the most obvious, I'm sure we all see sites above us in the rankings that use some of the following techniques:

sites that use php or similar to create several thousand pages from material that would fill only a hundred regular html pages - tripadvisor for instance

sites where the 500 words at the bottom of the page are they're purely for seo purposes and only what's above the fold is aimed at the visitor, the text may be hidden using css or old fashioned tables and background images, or it may be simply laid out in a boring style so that the visitor quickly clicks away to the relevant attractive usable links in the top half.

sites with loads of popups for definitions of words, or product descriptions where you close the pop up after use but there is a small link at the bottom of the popup pushing fractions of page rank back to the home page.

information sites on medical problems or travel destinations that despite being hosted on different servers ultimately feed links back to the same commercial pages, or sites that buy thousands of plain text advertising links on every page of huge academic or professional directories.

I don't have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of using them, in fact I think its silly to use moral terms to describe seo techniques in a world with so many real moral issues.

These techniques are very hard for webmasters to learn and test when they're starting out because they don't have access to hundreds of disposable domains to experiment on.

But don't just turn a blind eye to them and feel safe in the world of search engine friendly pages that adhere to other peoples guidelines, don't use your dislike of the tactics as an excuse for laziness. Whether or not you intend to use the techniques you would be well advised to learn them!

#26 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 09:13 AM

They cannot, for all practical purposes, drop them - but they could rank them lower. Problem would start once you hit the larger corporate sites. Can you rank them lower than the other engines do? It would take a concerted effort from all SE players to really force them to change their behaviour.

Ruud

#27 ferret77

ferret77

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 12:18 PM

The hat stuff is garbage, I think it is similar to a best practice or ethical label...just a bunch of bogus marketing speak to say "I am better than you."  


That is so true, the whole thing is just a marketing scheme

its a computer algo there is nothing ethical about it

I mean how much of that hat stuff really does anything anyway

#28 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 08:36 PM

That is so true, the whole thing is just a marketing scheme  
its a computer algo there is nothing ethical about it

So much of business is ethics. Examples: Cigarette advertising, right or wrong? Shell's suppossed involvment in less than savouring dealings on the West Coast of Africa. B&T allegedly supporting the smuggling of Tabaco into SE Asian countries. Heck, right back to the war that started between China and England over the Opium trade (The English were the original drug lords).

These were all business decisions, but are they ethical? Where does one draw the line? I am sure some company execs believe it is ethical to do almost everything to increase profit for the company. I am sure the English thought running Opium into a country in which 8/10 people were adicted and whose supply the emporer and leaders where trying deperately to curb was fine. Not sure that I agree.

I am not promoting answers here, just questions. If you don't have ethics in business then you wont last long. By ethics I mean the true definition, "A set of principles of right conduct", (http://dictionary.re...h?q=ethics&r=67), not something absolute that a third party decides.

The question is how does ethics interplay with SEO? Are techniques unethical, is it there implementation or is ethics all about the client? Ammon defined ethical behaviour as supplying all available information to clients. As we in Australia have come to know this through our Intelligence agencies failures, a "Frank and fearless" informing about all options. Others see Ethical behaviour as shepparding clients towards approved Search Engine approved SEO methodologies. Each opinion is valid as has merit. Each is a a defining ethical outlook.

These are all questions that we have to answer for ourselves, there is no right or wrong. Ethics are all around us, every day in every situation you are redefining and reapplying your ethical beliefs and views. Business and SEO are no different.

Even though "...just a marketing scheme", the breadth of responsibility that every endeavour naturally embues is equally relevant to Internet marketting, and even more so in regards to how you run your business.

#29 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 10:02 PM

I realize that "ethics", "black hat", "grey hat" confuse the discussion a bit. They are up to a point very subjective indeed.

Let me be honest, when I think of "black hat" (or any other label one can put on it) I think of precisely those things no-one here is seen to readily advice to someone. I haven't come across a lot of posts that promote cloaking as an efficient way to push Flash based pages into the rankings.

What I did read between the lines in this thread is that there might be valid reasons to use a technique such as cloaking. That it depends on how you use it and for what. I also saw mentioned that you have to weigh the risk. This I previously thought to be higher than I do now.

Ruud

#30 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 11:55 PM

What I did read between the lines in this thread is that there might be valid reasons to use a technique such as cloaking.

Not sure that is teh right "between the lines" reading. A more accurate summary would be:
The use of a technique is neither good, bad, right or wrong. understand the risks, but realise there are risks. sometimes the risk is less traffic, other times a potential ban.

That it depends on how you use it and for what. I also saw mentioned that you have to weigh the risk. This I previously thought to be higher than I do now.

The important thing to understand is that risk is a constant in business. My country was foundered with people that stole loaves of bread because they were hungry. Stealing may be wrong, but dying is a whole lot worse. understand the risk, weigh up your interest level and care factor, and go from there.

#31 ferret77

ferret77

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 09:56 AM

I don't think there any ethical or unethical techniques

there are just techniques,

I think the only unethical seo is someone who misleads a client

or makes promises he/she cannot deliever

it seems some "ethical" seos spend more time calling people names then anything else

#32 rcjordan

rcjordan

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 10:24 AM

From what I understand there are places where they do talk without the need to have discussions on how ethical something is or not. How much they share of their knowledge - I don't know.


Yes, but they are now often private, invitation-only forums or IM exchanges. Personally, I like the meetings/events like the one coming up in Vegas.

#33 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:18 AM

[quote]I don't think there any ethical or unethical techniques

there are just techniques.[/quote]


What do you think about misleading SEO techniques such as Porn sites, optimizing as to draw traffic from searches on U.S. Governenment, the Whitehouse, Disney, or other non-porn related topics? Valid technique or unethical behavoir?

This goes for any site really, just porn is a very polarizing topic so I figured I'd use the extreme case as an illustration.

Frank Vollono[/quote]

#34 ferret77

ferret77

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:31 AM

I would say misrepersenting the a website

or basically lying about its subject matter would be unethical advertising

regardless if its on the web or in print or tv

Me personally , if some said they wanted to do something like that

I would mosty likely say its dumb idea, it probablably won't make any moeny, you are going to p*** people off , there will be hate mail, possibly lawyer letters etc

it a terrible marketing idea

if they insited on thats what they want do ....

then i would take the money and do it... just like I would design a site for any paying customer except kiddie porn

I don't care if the site is naked woman selling H****r cigerettes but hey thats just me

#35 Mike521

Mike521

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 341 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:34 AM

well for something like porn, I think they would make money. sure most people looking for disney aren't looking for porn, but if a naked chick pops up, there's lots and lots of people who are gonna click on that picture and want to see more

#36 ferret77

ferret77

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:36 AM

there has to be negative backlash that would make it unprofitable

thats unethical advertising it not really about the seo

seo just makes the site rank,

if some made an ad that was a lie , is the graphic designer unethical

#37 Mike521

Mike521

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 341 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:52 AM

well.. whitehouse.com is still up and running

I'm no expert on this stuff though, just taking guesses really. I agree that there are definitely a lot of people who would hate it

#38 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:53 AM

Ah, if you really want to debate ethics in SEO, why not try one of the classic threads (each among the top-ten all-time Cre8asite discussions in terms of replies and page views):

Does SEO=SPAM? - 168 posts, 7091 views
Google being unscrupulous? - 162 posts, 9857 views
Search engine stances on SEO, plus Google, and SearchKing - 279 posts, 5628 views
SearchKing vs. Google - latest - 222 posts, 7914 views

:D

#39 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 01:35 PM

I don't care if the site is naked woman selling H****r cigerettes but hey thats just me.


LOL - Great visual, thanks ferret77 for the smile.


Frank Vollono

#40 Guest_rustybrick_*

Guest_rustybrick_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 April 2004 - 04:19 PM

I am shaking from reading Does SEO = SPAM.

So much history in only 1.5 years.



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users