13 replies to this topic

[A.N.Onym]

Earlier,glyn mentioned that mixing white hat SEO with some dark one can be helpful.

Personally, I think that as such, dark SEO do use some methods or software approaches that might be helpful to us, but I wouldn't call that dark SEO. It's like saying that a vegan, who uses the same knife that a non-vegan uses to cut meat, eats meat. Clearly, that's not the case (though it's a case for separate knives for both of them )

Automation comes from software, which is just a tool. Tools can be used for any work, really.

Thus, in the end, it's still white hat SEO, possibly more automated and comfortable to work with. That being said, I haven't really dived into the realm of darker SEO. My only experience is that of Runet, which until late has been full of automated SEO approaches for buying daily/monthly links. Right now, the same automation approach (with custom software and all) is used to manage PPC campaigns, the process of buying permanent links, etc. I have no doubt that now that Yandex had included usability into one of its factors, SEOs will find a way to automate that as well

Quite possibly, it's better to stick to improving your white hat strategies, rather than delve into the darker areas, since it might help you gaining competitive advantage anyway:

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.

What do you think about using some methods, strategies, software and/or automation from black hat SEO?

Edited by A.N.Onym, 04 January 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[iamlost]

I just finished reading Michael Martinez' I Learned Everything I Know About SEO From Spammers, SEO Theory, 02-January-2011, and you up and post an appropriate discussion thread

While I wouldn't go so far as to say 'everything' I have certainly learned a lot from spammers. And from developers in the online adult and gaming industries. Not just in SEO but also in marketing, innovation, trends, etc. Much that is considered mainstream today was either developed or made economical by one or both.

Those folk are constantly pushing the envelope and from their cutting edge discussions (the bleeding edge is held close and quiet ) much can be learned.
Note: I recommend judicious development and use based on understanding of concepts rather than importing some behaviour/code as is. Most of us have neither the resources nor inclination to play in their deep dark waters.

[DCrx]

Aside from minor tweaks, it's pretty much all black hat.

understanding of concepts rather than importing some behaviour/code

There are two types of SEO person. White hats in denial. And black hats.

Those folk are constantly pushing the envelope and from their cutting edge discussions (the bleeding edge is held close and quiet ) much can be learned.

Meaning? Stagnant, unimaginative, fossilized white hat technique. With the implications of white hat, the client has to improve. For instance, become more of an expert and write better articles about pushing the boundaries of their own field. Black hats can advance their own SEO field.

But the implications are, lazy, stagnant SEO'd within and inch of life clientele.

[glyn]

I'm with DCrx on this: it is pretty much all black hat.

In theory any attempt to make a search engine list your site more favourably than another, over and above implementing guidelines that the search engines say can be useful to help you site be indexed in a meaningful way, is Black hat. Because you are not letting the search engine technology impartially categorize and index all the sites the same way.

Therefore where does ones allegiance lie? To the search engine? I rather imagine to the clients that an SEO promotes and gets paid to promote.

Personally, I've always considered BLACK HAT as any illegal activity. An internet lawyer for your country of residence can help to frame whether a methodology you adopt, (that might be scorned on in certain SEO circles), actual has a legal basis for concern. And whether in fact, voices against the methodology you read are nothing more than attempts by organizations of companies to shift eyes away from innadequacies in their own ranking mechnism.

Sometimes when search engines talk, it's really an attempt to sway popular opinion, which in the SEO world, is about moving the masses of "white-hat" proponents to defend the cause (still don't get this whole WHITE HAT thing, because when I read a white hat article, it's just some kind of usability text, some kind of measurement text, or some kind of philosophical text about how bad it is doing black hat: For me frankly white hat is like your first degree in webmarketing, and Black hat should be your Masters).

Any SEO worth their salt is constantly testing and researching ranking methods in search engines - SEOers will be well aware of the difference between the corporate blog posts and corporate videos and the algorhythmic reality of what happens in the results. To be honest the way I optimize for Google's algo hasn't really changed in the past 10 years - all I've done is peg on a few bits for universal search.

I think anyone working in this field should be supporting their reading with a good dose of online security and hacking journals, not because it will teach you about how to hack results in Google (straighforward "white hat" analysis and a month can give you their algo), but because it will probably help improve your webserver security and make you think twice about putting stuff online.

Nothings perfect, so just keep reading.

Edited by glyn, 05 January 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[jonbey]

A few years ago I got frustrated at people not explaining what "black hat" was so I joined a forum to find out. I was shocked! For me, black hat is just automation on a larger scale. There are (or were) people registering thousands of websites at a time, auto-installing CMS's and article spinning content from feeds onto them, and plastering then with adverts (generally commission based ones). Their strategy relied on getting a week or two with good traffic and always expected Google to soon banish their sites. But the system they used means that they just keep pumping out new websites with newly auto spun content, winning a few keywords here and there. Of course, they also auto-comment spam blogs, forums and use various other automated tools to make profile links and what-have-you.

So, for me, black hat seo is using a strategy that you know Google hates and will eventually get each and every domain banned, but it is all about volume and quick turnaround.

Everything else is greyish.

Probably the only white hat SEO is building a great website and then hoping people link to it!

[Michael_Martinez]

I think a Web site is spam if it's something that neither the search engine nor the searchers want to see in search results. I don't believe you have to be "black hat" in order to create spam because some people do it unintentionally.

I'm still not sure what people mean by "black hat" and "white hat" even after all these years of seeing people use these terms. Do you include intentions and a willingness/unwillingness to cross certain lines in your definitions?

I have said many times that often the only difference between legitimate content and Web spam is excess. Do something once, and it's fine. Do it twice and it may be okay. Keep doing it and it eventually becomes spam.

As long as more people turn to using infographics for link bait, the probability that infographics will be classified as spam or low quality content increases. When you litter the SERPs with stuff that is there for the benefit of the Webmasters and NOT the searchers, the search engines have a problem.

That said, I think there are risky SEO techniques that many people would not consider to be "black hat". They entail risk because of the scalability they inherently possess, not because they are violating search engine guidelines out of the bag.

Intentionally violating search engines' guidelines is, in my book, entirely different from accidentally violating them. You may end up just as penalized or banned either way, but there are some things that you're not likely to do by accident and some things that get out of control naturally in an unpredictable way.

[iamlost]

I generally don't pay attention to hat colours because - to me - they simply indicate level of adherence to a (usually meaning G) SE's ToS which is an indexing-ranking over time revenue impact risk assessment not a legal requirement. They are useful for speaking with the general webdev population: white == believed ToS safe behaviours, gray == uncertain ToS compliance due to deliberately vague wording, black == known to be against ToS. However, what is missing from such simplistic colours are the probabilities of discovery, of an imposed penalty, and the cost of recovery/replacement. Just because it's labelled black doesn't make it a hazard: much is vertical/niche dependant; also how prevalent, how public, how easily filtered the practice might be. Makes for a good boogieman under the bed story SE FUD though.

There are two types of SEO person. White hats in denial. And black hats.

I'd word it as There are two types of SEO person. Those who colour by numbers and those who don't.

A lot of the problem is that to aid discussion we tend to segment work while in real life such segments overlap to varying degree and is more a freeform flow than an assemblyline process. The true optimisation flow for a site encompasses far more than SEO. Even than - whisper - Google. What is particularly amusing is the attempt by some SEOs to extend SEO to encompass conversion optimisation, to social media, even to marketing generally. Yes, these and many others are part of the webdev mix but SEO they are not.

Meaning? Stagnant, unimaginative, fossilized white hat technique. ... Black hats can advance their own SEO field.

There are at least as many stagnant, unimaginative, fossilized black hat techniques as white. And white hats can also advance their SEO field. It is as much a matter of imagination, understanding, testing et al. Most sites - and webdevs - are neither wholely blinding white nor entirely deepest dark but some mixture of methods that works for them to their comfort level to meet their business objectives. Labels are for bureaucrats and busybodies. And others' ToS are theirs to enforce.

We tend to be rather free and loose in our definitions, especially on the web where things can grow so fast. I sometimes think that authors need to attach a glossary. As an example I see black hats as working contrary to a SE's ToS which is not an illegal act; glyn sees black hat as illegal activity. A difference of kind not degree - a difference that could make sensible discussion on the subject at immediate cross purpose.

People can build crap or value and so can automated systems. A real difference is that human systems build off writers while automation builds off editors to meet some defined standard.

I think anyone working in this field should be supporting their reading with a good dose of online security and hacking journals... Nothings perfect, so just keep reading.

Yes.
In our business one should be reading about everything that impacts it. Plus keeping current on whatever impacts your subject/product niches. Who needs sleep?

[jonbey]

Maybe an easier definition of white and black hat seo - if Google told you Spock was on his way to mindmeld with you to get a complete report of all your marketing and link building since your site was created, would you be totally calm, break a slight sweat or crap your pants.

[A.N.Onym]

Black hat, in my opinion, is intentional going against search engine guidelines, mostly, in massive scale. Just one cloaked page is black, but can't be remotely serious, IMHO (though it might also be black hat by a general definition).

[jonbey]

But then, is buying links black hat? One bought link can land you a big penalty. OK, they bought more, but there was only one remaining when Google Spam team investigated.

[glyn]

Don't buy links unless you are buying them from Google.

Jon, I love this quote on the page

"Does working at Google bare resemblance to the separation of Church and State?"

I've learnt a lot of Black Hat from Google's own practices.

[nuts]

It's been over 15 years since webcrawler, excite, infoseek, hotbot, etc. were viable pre-google engines, and it used to be that getting links on FFA pages (Matt Wright's free for all links perl script) brought you up in rankings -- and windows-based spiders were developed to do that for you. It used to be that putting keywords in html tags gave good value. It used to be that landing pages with keywords ranked well. In 1999 I did a study, read ebooks and successfully used techniques. They weren't black hat. They just worked.

Then google came along and defined value in terms of popularity with other popular sites, kind of like high school. Is popular really valuable? H****r was popular in his time and place. Is Justin Bieber better than JS Bach?

Now when somebody figures out something that gets ranking on google, all of a sudden it becomes black hat. Matt Cutts can sneer imperceptibly in his videos when he utters the word "spam", and says "you know who you are". But really!

We are all seeking the same goals. All biology is opportunistic. If it can, it will. Weeds will grow, disease will transmit, the fittest (or at least those organisms which are not unfit or unlucky) will survive and procreate. We are all seeking the holy grail of traffic, and really, what makes one method black and the other white? Is Thou Shalt Not Spam really carved in stone? Or is it an ever-changing flux of conflicting wills, and a descent of "don't be evil" into corporate profit worship?

Sorry to wax too philosophic for a tech audience, but I thought it needed to be said...

Cheers
Mike

[bwelford]

Your thoughts should be set to music as a rallying cry, Mike. Perhaps this should be the next target for that Occupy movement.

[jonbey]

Is Justin Bieber better than JS Bach?

Hmmm, a tricky one to call. Is Justin Bieber better than JS Bach?

Bach doesn't have a Facebook Page .... he must be less popular and therefore not as good!