White Hat Vs. Black Hat – Is this All Grey to You?

[mjtaylor]

Are Black Hat SEO tactics ever grey? If I take the most conservative stance, I could define Black Hat as doing anything that is purely for search engine ranking and does not benefit the human visitor in any way. But a webmaster could argue that a relevant site might better serve the human visitors if found ... so the end would justify the Black Hat means ...

These might be on a list of black hat techniques:

• Hidden text
• Hidden links
• Cloaking
• Reciprocal Linking without regard to relevance and quality and particularly to ‘bad neighborhoods’ …
• Duplicate content
• Keyword stuffing

Care to add any?


MJ

[Feydakin]

The problem with discussion white vs gray vs black hat techniques is that the rules change under foot every so often.. So what was once considered a white hat tactic can find itself being a gray or even black hat tactic over time..

An example could be reciprocal linking.. Several years ago it was suggested that exchanging links with similar was websites would be a good way of promoting your website.. Now just recently it has been suggested that link exchanges, in excess, may not be such a good idea after all.. The rules changed.. What was once a recommended white hat tactic has become a gray hat tactic if not done carefully.. And unless you are an avid follower of SEO there is no way you would know this or understand why your website with over 100 pages of exchanged links suddenly fell down the rankings..

I don't like the idea of black and white.. I view everything in terms of cost vs return and risk assessment.. Is the risk of doing things that Google may not approve of worth the potential profit that could be gained for doing it.. In cases of long term branding, usually not.. In cases of churn and burn domains, usually it is..

[mjtaylor]

Yes, your position is a good strong Grey one ...

I absolutely agree, that as the rules change, the color of the technique blurs ... that's why I like the idea of defining Black Hat as a tactic done only to manipulate a site's position in the SERPs with no redeeming value for the human visitor.

MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Are Black Hat SEO tactics ever grey? If I take the most conservative stance, I could define Black Hat as doing anything that is purely for search engine ranking and does not benefit the human visitor in any way. But a webmaster could argue that a relevant site might better serve the human visitors if found ... so the end would justify the Black Hat means ...

These might be on a list of black hat techniques:

• Hidden text
  
• Hidden links
• Cloaking
• Reciprocal Linking without regard to relevance and quality and particularly to ‘bad neighborhoods’ …
• Duplicate content
• Keyword stuffing

Care to add any?


MJ

Actually I hate hats, but if you question is posed that way, here are my points:

• Hidden text (It is not necessarily black or grey hat.)
  
• Hidden links (It is not necessarily black or grey hat.)
• Cloaking (This is black hat.)
  
• Reciprocal Linking without regard to relevance and quality and particularly to ‘bad neighborhoods’ … (This is not black or grey hat. This is stupidity.)
  
• Duplicate content (This is not black or grey hat.)
  
• Keyword stuffing (This is grey hat. Additionally it is stupidity.)

Just my ... you know what.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Actually I hate hats, but if you question is posed that way, here are my points:

• Hidden text (It is not necessarily black or grey hat.)
• Hidden links (It is not necessarily black or grey hat.)
• Cloaking (This is black hat.)
• Reciprocal Linking without regard to relevance and quality and particularly to ‘bad neighborhoods’ … (This is not black or grey hat. This is stupidity.)
• Duplicate content (This is not black or grey hat.)
• Keyword stuffing (This is grey hat. Additionally it is stupidity.)

Just my ... you know what.

Well, I would say cloaking is not necessarily black hat ... there are several situations in which cloaking is acceptable ... there *are* reasons to do it that have nothing to do with delivering different content to SEs than to humans, but to do with browsers and domains ...

So, when are hidden links and hidden text white?

MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, I would say cloaking is not necessarily black hat ... there are several situations in which cloaking is acceptable ... there *are* reasons to do it that have nothing to do with delivering different content to SEs than to humans, but to do with browsers and domains ...

So, when are hidden links and hidden text white?

MJ

- Hidden links: Image replacement?
- Hidden text on white: When the background is dark? i.e black?

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

So, when are hidden links and hidden text white?

I'm assuming that you meant to ask when such techniques could be considered "white hat".

The best reason I can see for hiding links (and associated text) from a search engine occurs for certain accessibility aspects. I include "skip links" at the top of my web pages for use by people with sight or mobility issues. These links do nothing for the search engines (or my rankings, or lack thereof) but push my content further from the top of the page. I see no reason not to "hide" them from the search engines, and I certainly don't consider it "black hat" as I'm not doing anything malicious.

Dan

[mac1234]

What do Blackhat SEO do – as mentioned they create lot of dummy pages with lot of links. Many Black Hat SEO companies use link cloaking to give their clients a competitive advantage when it comes to search engine rankings.

You get readymade software which provide or generate link cloaking pages with relevant keywords. These keywords are usually in the real web site, but what the link cloaking software does is improve the keyword density by generating hundreds of pages with different keyword combinations and put the keywords in the title tags of those pages.

read more

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mac1234

What do Blackhat SEO do – as mentioned they create lot of dummy pages with lot of links. Many Black Hat SEO companies use link cloaking to give their clients a competitive advantage when it comes to search engine rankings.

You get readymade software which provide or generate link cloaking pages with relevant keywords. These keywords are usually in the real web site, but what the link cloaking software does is improve the keyword density by generating hundreds of pages with different keyword combinations and put the keywords in the title tags of those pages.

read more

If I want to do black hat, I do not need to do all that cheap low class stuff, and I can achieve faster results and with less work, and no search engine would be able to find out what I did. Forget it. I do not consider that black hat. I consider that a hat that dummies have to wear when they are punished and have to sit in a corner.

[craigmn3]

The difference between a black hat and a dunce cap is the intellegence of the person wearing the hat

Since all "Black Hat" Techniques listed are easily spotted by the search engines the real black hat artists don't use them anymore, only the dim witted ones

Real black hat stuff, is stuff that isn't on the radar, or due to the limitations of of the search bots can't be stopped. Duplicate content that doesn't appear duplicate. The hidden and reciprocal links that don't appear to the search engines as what they are. This is where the black hats are riding today.
That's why the big bad internet sherrif (Google) is asking us to report spam or abuse via the webmaster tools...cause they can't see what's going on just by sniffing at the code.

Wanted Dead or Alive
The Schmoe who outsmarted Google.

next they'll offer g-bucks as rewards ;o)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by craigmn3

The difference between a black hat and a dunce cap is the intellegence of the person wearing the hat.

And by the way: Cool post buddy!

[incrediblehelp]

Google algorithmically dumps websites that think they are wearing white hats all of the time and ranks websites that are clearer wearing black hats all of the time. Sooooo I guess I feel it is a moot point what we think when Google cant even decide (or care to) themselves.

[Ezhel]

white hat and black hat are definitely consider as grey hat...

[deepsand]

Color, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.

[Orion]

White hat.. creating a website that is for the visitor and forget about the search engines... That is what the SE's want you to do. A site will great value to the visitor ranks well (this is becoming more and more the case as time goes on)...

Create your site properly taking into account valid code, so the pages load quickly and cleanly in all browsers, accessible so everyone can view and interact with the site, useability so that interaction and the locating of information is easy for the visitor.

Do those things, and again for the user add a proper title and description to the pages and your site will rank pretty good...

provide great content and others will link to the site giving you better rankings...

market the site on and offline and you'll get traffic and success...

I consider anything done for the sole purpose of increasing ranking on the search engines grey/black hat.

Links gotten for purpose of marketing are great.. get links either from people simply saying wow this is an awesome site, or get links with the purpose of hey visitors on this site are my customers too and people will click on my ad on this site and visit me... those are good links.. exchanging links to rank better.. bad...

unique content that which you or your client writes or you hire someone to write for you, good. content taken from other sites bad, content referenced from another site linked and acknowledged with permission, added to your site to provide valuable information for your site visitors, good.

I guess what I'm saying is what some may call grey is really white or black when perceived from the intent.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Google algorithmically dumps websites that think they are wearing white hats all of the time and ranks websites that are clearer wearing black hats all of the time. Sooooo I guess I feel it is a moot point what we think when Google cant even decide (or care to) themselves.

I would not pose it that way brother. They are doing their best to avoid such issues: Webmaster Help Center - Why is my page's location in the search results lower than before?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I would not pose it that way brother. They are doing their best to avoid such issues: Webmaster Help Center - Why is my page's location in the search results lower than before?

IMO, the point being made was that that which which mortals decide is of no import to the gods.

[sanver]

Sorry to interrupt this highly useful discussion......I am not a SEO guy...I spend time on this forum to learn some SEO tips for my sites who are not performing to my expectation....

Marketing Commiunication Startegy should be based on the customer and his / her purchase behaiviour.

My sites used to perform better when I was focussing on right communication package for the customer (via search engines and other channels) than now when I know SEO better (thanks to WebProWorld).

I again feel the focus should be mainly on content while being aware of SEO issues (like keyword density, backlinks, white / grey hats etc.).

Just wanted to share what I feel....

Sanjay Verma
Sanver HOSTING | Sanver TRAVELS

[Orion]

Originally Posted by sanver

My sites used to perform better when I was focusing on right communication package for the customer (via search engines and other channels) than now when I know SEO better (thanks to WebProWorld).

Awesome! Search engines for at least the last 10 years have always said that they want designers and developers to build sites for the visitors. They want to rank sites based on what will give the visitor the most relevant information they are looking for (content)..

For years they didn't have the technology to find this, and many 'quick' tricks were discovered that fooled the search engines into ranking undeserving websites higher than they should.

The technology is getting better on the SE's end, and will continue to do so as we proceed into the future..

SEO should be nothing more than overseeing the design and development of a website to ensure that it uses valid, useable and accessible coding practices...

Search Marketing SEM should be a small part of the Marketing of a website. Focused on creating the right tags (titles and descriptions) and submitting sites to directories (verticle and not). The rest should be just basic marketing techniques, it's the same stuff I learned when I studied marketing at college in 1987! lol...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Orion

SEO should be nothing more than overseeing the design and development of a website to ensure that it uses valid, useable and accessible coding practices...

Ron, how could you dare to say something like that man?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Ezhel

white hat and black hat are definitely consider as grey hat...

Exactly! 50% black + 50% white = 100% grey.

[Orion]

lol.. by definition that's what optimizing a website is... optimizing the site... most of what gets put under the SEO title is actually SEM or marketing.

Been doing websites for over 10 years now. Over the years it's been all separate stuff, then many lines blurred between job descriptions now more and more they are starting to clarify again.

Basically a high priced web designer will build a fully optimized website. Then marketing will take it over and often now marketing departments have a qualified SEM who looks after the marketing of the site in the search engines. Content is written by copywriters in the marketing department (there jobs have now evolved to include knowledge of limits in keyword densities etc).

Without a high priced web designer you need an SEO... get a young kid to create the site then hire an SEO to come in and optimize the site, for both Search engines AND visitors, add in content from marketing and tags and other items as required by SEM.

That's mostly what I've been doing the last 5 years... just optimizing the sites. Granted many smaller businesses don't always have the separate pieces, but that doesn't stop me from consulting with them on their budgets and if the fund are available bring in copywriters, when the budget isn't there I fill in... site still gets in top 10, but there's a big difference between paying copywriters $250 per page on a site and what I can do.. the difference is a few points in ranking and a much better conversion rate on the site.

[Webnauts]

We are on the same boat Ron! I honestly enjoyed you last two posts buddy!
Let me give you some reputation now.

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Are Black Hat SEO tactics ever grey? If I take the most conservative stance, I could define Black Hat as doing anything that is purely for search engine ranking and does not benefit the human visitor in any way. But a webmaster could argue that a relevant site might better serve the human visitors if found ... so the end would justify the Black Hat means ...

These might be on a list of black hat techniques:

• Hidden text
• Hidden links
• Cloaking
• Reciprocal Linking without regard to relevance and quality and particularly to ‘bad neighborhoods’ …
• Duplicate content
• Keyword stuffing

Care to add any?

MJ

On the basis that the SEs, and Google in particular would say that doing ANYTHING that even acknowledges their existence (let alone domination of the internet) is wrong, then by definition anything an SEO does is not White Hat . so if everything is Grey Hat or worse, then its all a question of degree...

At what point does any form of SEO cross the line? As SEOs do we follow an ethical code, or merely balance risk and return as suggested by Feydakin?

Think of it like driving down a motorway on your way to a meeting with a client. The road is reasonably clear, but time is a bit tight and you don't want to be late. So what speed do you do? 70? Safe, legal and morally sound. 70-80? OK, its over the speed limit, but you're pretty sure its safe, and you'd be unlucky to get pulled over for it. 80-90? Well, a bit more risky, but not too obvious - you might get spotted and you might get done. 90-100? Much higher risk of an accident; pushing your luck and if you get spotted, you will be done. 100+? Asking for trouble....

In SEO terms, just what do you consider a safe speed?

[wige]

My favorite quote on this was somewhere in Google Help. I wish I could find the page again, but it basically said the following:

A lot of people read the Google Help as saying that they should code purely for the user and ignore search engines and bots. In reality, that is only partially true. If that is what really helped, robots.txt, nofollow and meta tags would have never been created, and search engines spiders would not be able to do their job. A more accurate statement might be: Write your code for the search engines, and your content for the visitors.

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by Orion

Basically a high priced web designer will build a fully optimized website. Then marketing will take it over and often now marketing departments have a qualified SEM who looks after the marketing of the site in the search engines. Content is written by copywriters in the marketing department (there jobs have now evolved to include knowledge of limits in keyword densities etc).

As an SEO dealing often with the output of high priced web designers, I can't say I agree that they all build fully optimized websites! Many claim to do so, and others produce semi-optimized sites, but I've never come across one fully optimized.

And interested to see your crossover to SEO... Because we've done much the same, but in the opposite direction! As marketers and SEOs we found that we were getting SEO enquiries from the SME sector where the sites were virtually un-optimizable and the most cost effective solution was to start again, so recently started designing fully optimized sites...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

but I've never come across one fully optimized.

Then I guess you have not crossed ours yet.

[mjtaylor]

I also see a lot of high priced designs that are not SEO friendly ... it's where a good portion of my clients come from ...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I also see a lot of high priced designs that are not SEO friendly ... it's where a good portion of my clients come from ...

MJ I hope not from me!

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

MJ I hope not from me!

No, John, I haven't had any of your clients come to me for help. I am sure I never will.

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

No, John, I haven't had any of your clients come to me for help. I am sure I never will.

ditto!

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

As an SEO dealing often with the output of high priced web designers, I can't say I agree that they all build fully optimized websites! Many claim to do so, and others produce semi-optimized sites, but I've never come across one fully optimized.

And interested to see your crossover to SEO... Because we've done much the same, but in the opposite direction! As marketers and SEOs we found that we were getting SEO enquiries from the SME sector where the sites were virtually un-optimizable and the most cost effective solution was to start again, so recently started designing fully optimized sites...

Not sure if I speak for the majority.. but I know on my end the reason there are many websites that are not fully optimized is budget. If the client doesn't want to pay for you do to the job correctly then, hopefully, we'll go way beyond what they are paying for, but there's going to be a few corners cut. =o)

I have a Marketing Background 15+years before getting into web design and optimization which I've been doing now for just over 10 years. have over 1000 sites, and of those about 6-700 wanted some degree of SEO attention to them, all have been top 10 and depending if they stayed up with the recommendations (or paid me to manage their site) are still in the top 20.. Rare anything ever falls out of that.. I only have 1 or 2 clients that regularly do PPC or Paid inclusion, but then they do 6 to 7 figures via their websites annually.

It's become in the last year really difficult for me to sell SEO as how can I rightly design a website that is not optimized? All I can do is upsell tags, link development etc. small add ons not what used to be SEO...

Any you are bang on it's a LOT less work to redo the sites from the ground up... the only thing to ask the client is ok what do you want to change on the site? lol

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by Orion

Not sure if I speak for the majority.. but I know on my end the reason there are many websites that are not fully optimized is budget. If the client doesn't want to pay for you do to the job correctly then, hopefully, we'll go way beyond what they are paying for, but there's going to be a few corners cut. =o)

That sounds very familiar!

Originally Posted by Orion

I have a Marketing Background 15+years before getting into web design and optimization which I've been doing now for just over 10 years. have over 1000 sites, and of those about 6-700 wanted some degree of SEO attention to them, all have been top 10 and depending if they stayed up with the recommendations (or paid me to manage their site) are still in the top 20.. Rare anything ever falls out of that.. I only have 1 or 2 clients that regularly do PPC or Paid inclusion, but then they do 6 to 7 figures via their websites annually.

We always try and get clients to let us look after their sites - and by and large will keep those ranking well. do a reasonable bit of PPC as well - a lot of SMEs won't have sites big enough to cover all the terms they want to cover organically, so PPC can work well - I think in B2B in the UK its still cost effective in many sectors.

Originally Posted by Orion

It's become in the last year really difficult for me to sell SEO as how can I rightly design a website that is not optimized? All I can do is upsell tags, link development etc. small add ons not what used to be SEO...

That I definitely agree with - perhaps I also have a bit of a moral issue as well - if we've done the optimisation correctly in the first place, then it shouldn't need too much more work on an ongoing basis (unless there's lots of new content etc). We try and bundle it into a webmaster service which gives us the budget to do all those little add on bits.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

That I definitely agree with - perhaps I also have a bit of a moral issue as well - if we've done the optimisation correctly in the first place, then it shouldn't need too much more work on an ongoing basis (unless there's lots of new content etc). We try and bundle it into a webmaster service which gives us the budget to do all those little add on bits.

Exactly!
The ongoing bit is generally consistent growth of the site, updating code when needed (every 2 or 3 years as new standards are adopted, I have a few clients that have been with me for almost 10 years now), consistent addition of links (when a new directory comes along etc.), and just touching up what the client does to the site lol.. Those regular clients I have get all the little extras like when something new comes along which is a better way to accomplish something, I'll add it in for them.. (great example, had some clients with pop ups for FAQ's (from another design company) or with Q's at top A's at bottom.. spry gave us some awesome tools to use for those).

This past year I've started talking more and more about site management, and starting to market it to more and more clients for that reason...

[TrafficProducer]

Black Hat SEO

OK, not really SEO... But "Bad Hat"

Submit to FFA, Free For All sites.

Spamming Search Engines, Blogs, etc..