I wanted to thank you for the appreciation, and for bringing the discussion to a wider audience, Garrett. The attention that particular discussion has recently gotten took me rather by surprise. I'm guessing it is because it is indeed the case that we usually have to preach only the safer practices (because there are too many warnings and provisos needed for the riskier techniques).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbp
we have to find out where the "line in the sand" between black hat and white hat SEO is
|
The problem only gets worse when we realise that unless there were only one engine, there can never be just one line either. :)
In the case of Google and AllTheWeb technicians, the line is still often a judgement call on specific cases too. Cloaking in particular falls into this scenario.
Using user-agent delivery to serve spiders a version of the page without sessionIDs is a commonly 'okay' practice that I've never yet seen to be in any way unacceptable to search engineers at the major search engines.
Using IP delivery for geo-targeting can present just one of several legitimate uses for IP delivery too. Recognizing the IP address of any spider and treating it as non-geographical (to avoid sending it only content related to where the IP is registered, and instead give it the full global content), is not only acceptable, but actually improves the ability of the search engine to serve its global audience.
Over-simplification of complex issues can often do far more harm than good. Trying to fit all SEO into just two extremes of 'pure good' and 'pure bad' is certainly such a gross over-simplification.
Not only is there not really any pre-defined line in the sand, there is not even any pre-defined sand to have drawn a line in. :)
Thanks again for the interest. It has been a fascinating discussion so far, and may yet bring out some further points for consideration perhaps.