SEO Guerilla Tactics

[flood6]

The single most rewarding thing about google? They make it so easy to bust your competition in the chops for using "shady" tactics. Everyone wants higher google rankings, some among us stoop to horrible depths to achieve them. Hidden text and links, redirects, cloaking...evil.

When I get bored of adding products to my site, or troubleshooting my defective PHP or SQL code, I go to google to bust the bad guys. Nothing is more rewarding than finding hidden text on that son-of-a-bi@#h's site with the #1 google spot for your favorite keyword. Now, I admit, I've dabbled in the dark arts myself a little with a few of my sites, but I would take the no-no code down after I saw that the googlebot had graced my site in the hopes that if anyone did report me, google would see that I had seen the error of my ways and repented. So the next time you get sick of staring at a page of your html for a missing ">", go to google, search for some of your keywords, check out the suspicious-looking rascals above you (look for keyword, after keyword, after keyword in the discription), check them out (the easiest way is to hit ctrl+a and see if any text shows up that you couldn't see before; there's other stuff to look for that involves checking their source, but the explanation of what to look for is beyond my ability to explain), when you find an evil-doer go to Google's report a bad guy link (http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html) and send them to search engine oblivion. I don't know how long it takes google staff to get around to the reports, but I know they do it faster than DMOZ adds your site to the directory. I assume other engines have ways to report this stuff, but I concentrate on google.

Every now and then, I'll just pick an odd keyword that has nothing to do with any of my sites just to see what I find. The more competitive the market, the more complex the tricks. Even non-sales sites get into the act, you would be surprised how many police web sites have hidden text to boost their rankings, don't ask me why they care. The best one was when I found a Baptist Church’s site with hidden text and links. They were loading up on keywords like "God, Jesus, salvation" and even "satan, evil, and teen pregnancy". I decided not to report them because...well, I just don't want to have to explain that one should Armageddon come tomorrow.

Bottom line, it's fun, it's effective, and your competition never know what hit them.

[fathom]

Personally I take a different approach.

I leave them completely alone.

The less I spend worrying about someone elses ranks and code, the more time I have to spend on mine.

It's even more fun to just rank above it! :-)

[PhilC]

Don't hold your breath waiting for Google to send them to "search engine oblivion" because it's unlikely to happen. Google keep the reports so that they can deal with what they dislike in their programming, but they don't take action unless the spam is really bad. Googleguy said that.

[jhilgeman]

Googleguy said that.

Just for the new or uninitiated, GoogleGuy is the living, breathing, talking, and typing form of communication with Google's brain. If I wasn't Christian already, I might be GoogleGuytian.

Now, on this topic, I am aware that Google doesn't always take action against the spammers, but I still report them because I think one day Google will do something (and in some cases, they might do something sooner than later anyway). If I find a site that uses illegal SEO techniques, I report them, even if they're not related to my current keywords. The reason I do this is twofold:

1) What they are doing is simply unethical, especially if it's giving them an advantage over someone else who's following the rules. They should need to do things like keyword stuffing. If you have a good site, you'll rank well.

2) I might not be aware of some other site that is using illegal techniques that IS gaining an advantage over me in some area that I'm not aware of, and I would want another SEO to do the same thing for me and report it.

I don't think it's unethical or wasteful in any way to "tattle-tale" on someone who's doing something wrong. However, I do recommend that if you find a company that seems to be legit that uses bad SEO techniques, that you try to contact them after the report and let them know that their techniques are bad. That company may be a small company that knows no better or hired the wrong SEO person. With that in mind, it may be important for them to stay in Google, even if they're a few spots further down.

- Jonathan

[flood6]

Don't hold your breath waiting for Google to send them to "search engine oblivion" because it's unlikely to happen. Google keep the reports so that they can deal with what they dislike in their programming, but they don't take action unless the spam is really bad. Googleguy said that.

Well, my experience has been that I send the report, then within a week, the reported sites are nowhere to be found. I realize that ranking will fluxuate greatly over a week as a result of countless variables, but I find it hard to believe that there wasn't any active action taken against those specific sites becase most of the truly optomized sites were still there.

Most of my sites operate in relatively narrow markets so it isn't too hard to keep track of the competition. I'll certainly defer the point to anyone who has inside information, but I have seen some pretty compelling evidence that points to action having been taken against the repoted sites.

[PhilC]

1) What they are doing is simply unethical, especially if it's giving them an advantage over someone else who's following the rules.
Except for the practise of optimizing a page for one searchterm and then redirecting poeple to something completely different, there is no such thing as unethical seo. It's a myth put about by 2 types of people:- (1) those who are unable or unwilling to do real seo and (2) those who have believed the myth without ever having given it much thought. In fact, what the 'ethicals' do isn't seo at all - it called making pages and sites "search engine friendly", and has nothing to do with "optimization", except that it is the first step in optimizing a site, and only the first step.

So-called "ethical" seo cannot compete. It's a known fact. They can only succeed when there is little or no competition for the searchterms. One of the best known practitioners of 'ethical' seo recently admitted publically that she doesn't even try to go for 1 and 2 word terms because she doesn't want to fail. In other words, she knows that she can't succeed when there is competition. You might find this "Ethical" Search Engine Optimization Exposed!" (http://www.webworkshop.net/ethical_search_engine_optimization.html) article interesting.


If you have a good site, you'll rank well.
Only if there is little or no competition for the searchterms. But, if the site is in a reasonably competitive area, it has no chance of ranking well without either vigorous seo or a vigorous inbound link strategy - or both.

On the other hand, what is unethical is taking on seo clients and taking their money in the hope that the so-called 'ethical' seo will work. I often get people coming to me because they've spent money on seo without any success - sometimes they've paid some of the biggest 'ethical' names in the business and got nowhere.

I could go on for hours on the failings and failure of so-called 'ethical' seo, but I won't.

Having said all that, I do recommend the search engine friendly method as the first step. For some sites, it may well be the only step they'll need.

[jhilgeman]

<shrug> I disagree. Bear with me - I'm long-winded.

The problem with that article is its base perspective. I'm assuming PhilC = Phil Craven (on the article), by the way. If I'm wrong, no offense intended.

All perspectives are built step-by-step like a layered image, so read all steps before you jump to a conclusion. The article seems to build the perspective like this:

1) First, all SEO techniques are fundamentally ethical.

2. Second come the search engines who selectively disapprove of certain techniques (they have their reasons).

3. Third come the search engine optimizers, who decide whether or not to follow the search engine's guidelines or not when working.

Now, assuming I've read into your article/thoughts correctly, the problem here is in Step 1. Search Engine Optimizing comes AFTER the search engine. When you optimize a site for a search engine, you are ultimately playing by its rules because it is ultimately doing YOU the favor by allowing you to be in its database. Arguably, the relationship goes both ways, since better databases make a search engine more popular.

However, this is not too unlike a country and immigration (ooh, I love stories). Let's say a man from a distant nation decides to come to America and passes through legal immigration. He is now a guest in that country and must obey its rules.

Now let's say there's some disaster and he has to get out of the city quickly. He knows a few things:

- he has a car that goes faster than anything out there

- there are speed limits (even though he's grown up in a country without speed limits),

- that cops are probably too busy with other things to stop him.

Let's also assume that for some reason, if he does it, he will keep some people from getting out of the city in the process. Would it be ethical for him to utilize the speed of his vehicle to get ahead of other people, knowing that he is currently bound to the country's speeding laws and knowing that the other people will most certainly be obeying them, which would make it even easier?

The way your article sounds, you're saying that since the ability to speed is before the laws, that it's up to him to decide whether it is ethical for himself or not.

Ethics are similar to norms in that they only exist when people are willing to stick to guidelines. (And yes, there are scenarios in which being ethical would require someone to break the laws of a nation, but that depth isn't really relevant here.)

Bottom line, the SEO is a guest in GoogleLand, and being ethical means following GoogleLand's rules, even if they put you at a disadvantage. Perhaps GoogleLand can't always dispose of ill-intentioned people that are using unethical techniques to get ahead of you, but that's their problem to handle, not yours.

Failing IS a part of the whole balance - if you don't like failing, then tough, you shouldn't be in the optimizing business, because you ARE going to run up against a wall at some point. And at that point, it is up to you to tell the client, "I can't go any further without breaking or heavily-bending rules." (P.S. I really don't care if some paid-SEO-rep is up against the wall - that doesn't mean you're supposed to give in to his or her bad example.)

A lack of respect for Google's rules and guidelines is why those sites are ahead of you in the first place, and you are not doing anything to help solve it by simply continuing to break rules so your client can get higher rankings.

Ethical SEO behavior DOES exist (to try to deny it or expand it's boundaries for your SEO purposes is sort've ironic), and being ethical can often mean less income, but what's more important to yourself and to everyone around you in the end?

- Jonathan

[jhilgeman]

Ah, one more thing. I've been up against the wall, too - with extremely competitive keywords, I might add. Maybe you can't do it in your proposed time, but it CAN be done. Sometimes it just takes a while. Just because you're up against the wall doesn't mean you can't push it over with enough constant force.

Perseverance DOES pay off.

- Jonathan

[JayDrake]

I apologize in advance that this is long, but I don't have an article bookmarked to go along with my post.


Except for the practise of optimizing a page for one searchterm and then redirecting poeple to something completely different, there is no such thing as unethical seo.


While this practice is certainly one of the worst of unethical practices, it is not the only unethical SEO practice.


In fact, what the 'ethicals' do isn't seo at all - it called making pages and sites "search engine friendly", and has nothing to do with "optimization", except that it is the first step in optimizing a site, and only the first step.

...snip...

"Ethical" Search Engine Optimization Exposed!" (http://www.webworkshop.net/ethical_search_engine_optimization.html) article interesting.

This is simply incorrect from the bottom up. Reading the article helps me to understand how it is that one might come to think this way, but at it's base it is fundamentally flawed. In the first place, the definition put forth of unethical as having to do with morality is incorrect. While one definition of unethical will surely have to do with morality, there are a handful of definitions for the term and, in fact, the very first definition found when looking at http://www.dictionary.com is quite applicable to the discussion, stated as:

1: not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices" [ant: ethical]

So for search engine optimization methods to be ethical, they should follow approved standards of professional behavior. As such, not doing as the search engines would have you do most assuredly equates to unethical behavior.

Further, use of these practices puts your customers, or yourself (depending on whether you are optimizing your own site or others) at risk of being banned from the search engines. You might just as well try sneaking on a plane for business trips rather than buying a ticket and call that an ethical practice.

While I am admittedly new to SEO, what I can say is that my ethical practices are guaranteed to raise the rank of the sites I work with, not to gain the top spot in the top searched keyphrase. In addition to this, I can guarantee that the practices I use will not have my sites banned from the search engines. If you are using any method that the search engines say not to you cannot guarantee that and you are putting your clients at risk, which is surely unethical.



On the other hand, what is unethical is taking on seo clients and taking their money in the hope that the so-called 'ethical' seo will work.


No. Unethical is taking on SEO clients and promising more than you can deliver. Unethical is also taking SEO clients through unethical SEO practices, then making off with their money knowing that your practices may well cause their sites to be banned from the very same search engine they paid you to be optimized for.

[Steven Glover]

It is people who try to justify their practices that are so clearly against the SE guidlines that give true ethical SEO agents a bad name.

I as a customer have always been turned off by businesses that are willing to bend the rules to give me a better deal.

For example. Lets say I come across a used car that is sitting on the side of the road with a for sale sign reading 2000.00 dollars. Lets say I meet with the person selling the car and I decided I wanted to buy it, but wanted to do a little haggling. If this person tells me something along the lines of why don't you buy the car for 2000.00 and we will say you paid 500.00 so when you go to the tag agency you will save money on the tag. This would be the "deal"

My first thought would be that if this person is willing to help me lie whats preventing this person from telling me lies? How do I know this person hasn't done something to the car I am thinking of buying to make it run better than it really does. How do I know it's not gonna clunk out a week after I buy it. I wouldn't.

I don't do shady things even to benefit my customers. It's not worth it.

I build computers and I can honestly say that

Very reminescent of the early years of web design. I never sold a computer that didn't have a legal operating sytem on it. Even though I lost business.[/i]

[HillsCap]

Hear, hear!!

I wholeheartedly agree that there are indeed unethical SEO practices, most especially the practice of 'optimizing' a website using unethical practices, taking your clients' money, then leaving them swinging in the wind when the search engine cops come calling, and ban their site due to the unethical practices.

To me, this is the worst offense in the SEO genre.

And, because of this thread, I'll now begin reporting those sites that are using unethical practices to achieve rank. Before, because I was advised that Google usually did nothing about unethical site except enhance their code to detect it, I never reported sites. But, if flood6's experience is the norm, and sites do indeed disappear from the rankings when they are found and reported to be using unethical SEO practices, this can only be good for those sites which follow the rules for that particular search engine.

Has anybody else had any experience in reporting sites achieving rank unethically, whether those sites were removed or not? I'd like to hear from more people who are doing this, to see if flood6's experience is the norm.

[Clay Martin]

Hear Hear for professional ethics! The only way to protect the reputation of you whole profession is to turn in the cheats. When I taught UNIX shell programing at GWU I used to tell my students, "Do you want your profession viewed like lawyers or civil engineers? Lawyers can do all sorts of unethical things, and they are rarely taken to task even by the "ethics enforcement" organizations within their field. A civil engineer builds a bridge that falls down, and they are not allowed to even look at a blue print, ever again. Your own actions, and your reaction to others in your field will determine how all programmers are viewed."

PhilC's comments sound a lot like "but everyone else is doing it", "its too hard to do it right" or "doesn't count if you don't get caught", more child like than professional.

Thank you jhilgeman, HillsCap, JayDrake for taking time to speak out (even if some may think you too "goody-goody") instead of just going on to another forum. You do your profession proud.

Just my $0.10 (inflation you know),
Clay

[clivemcg]

Here's, hopefully, an humourous turn on something that pisses us all off.

Some years ago I went to the theatre to see a version of the play 'Anne Frank's Diary' - she and her family were hiding from the Nazis, ring a bell?

Anyway the play was really bad, the acting wooden and it got just worse as the play went on.

When it came to the scene where the Storm-Troopers were searching the house where the Frank family were hiding the cry went up from the audience: "They're in the attic!"

The surreal point of this story is: while nobody likes a tell-tale, if the play is bad enough and you have paid good money to be entertained/informed then then you have the right to shout "No" when the actors are expecting plaudits under false pretences.

Regular theatre go-ers won't do it but we are the equivalent of theatre critics and therefore it is part of our job to cry 'foul' when we see crap promoted as gold.

[janeth]

After reading this post I went to the meta tags for PhilC website to see his main key words. Which turned out to be Search Engine Optimization.
I then did a search on Google and could not find him.
I guess cheating didn't work either.

[HillsCap]

Well, I did some research on my competitors, and found that the #3, 4, 8 and 13th ranked websites were using various methods of search engine spamming, ranging from keyword stuffing and hidden text, to cloaking.

I changed our TITLE and H1 tags to more directly compete with them, then reported them to Google.

The results?

Our site went from PR4 to PR0! (This is a temporary result of changing the TITLE and H1 tags).

The #8 site went to #6, no sites have been taken out yet.

We moved up in the search rankings to #44 (before, we weren't even in the top 100), the highest we've ever gotten for such a generic search term.

Hopefully, with the new TITLE and H1 tags (and a few other tweaks I made to our links and content), we'll go even higher. And as I add more content to the site, hopefully, it will drive our ranking higher.

[HillsCap]

Update:
Our PageRank is back, and better than ever! We're now at PR5, whereas before we had PR4.

The #8 ranked site, which was using cloaking, is now gone. The #3 site has moved down a bit, despite cleaning up their code (they're a very large, very well known futures trading outfit, so I think Google probably contacted them and told them to clean up their act... banning them would have cost Google money, since they do massive advertising through Google).

The others are pretty much same-same... still ranked well, still using sleazy tactics.

[Willers]

Okay, I am completely lost here. Um... (tries to form semi-intelligent questions)

Why are meta-tags okay, but "hidden" keywords aren't, when your customers are unaware of either thing when they visit? What's the difference? What is "flooding" or "stuffing" search engines? What are "illegal" SEO techniques? Do you mean literally against the law or against SE policies? And how can anyone be expected to know what the policies are for every search engine on the planet and whether you're violating any of them?

Help???

[Black Knight]

Hi Willers, don't get too confused.

A quick search for "webmaster guidelines (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=30&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=webmaster+guidelines&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)" gives you a few places to start answering all those questions you have, and includes the official published guidelines of some of the engines themselves. Most engines and directories do publish such guidelines right on their sites for you to read and know.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
http://addurl.altavista.com/addurl/new#rls
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/
http://www.joeant.com/webmaster.htm
etc, etc, etc.

Unless you are deliberately trying to 'fool' a search engine you're usually pretty safe.

[JayDrake]

The difference here is pretty simple, really. Meta tags are there as a tool to describe what your page is about. These are hidden from the average viewer, but they are also expected to be so. Black text on a black background, or some other similar method, is hidden from the viewer while presented as not being so in the source code. This serves no purpose practically other than trying to fool search engines and is a bad thing for this reason.

It's not about whether or not something is actually visible to the visitor that causes an issue. All the markup is invisible to the user as are comments, but they aren't bad.