No More Hats: High Risk vs. Low Risk SEO

[Garrett]

There are seo techniques that can get your site banned from Google if you're caught or one of your competitors notices and turns you in for spamming. These techniques, commonly referred to as "black hat" techniques, are the topic of many forum threads, and have brought ruin to many an unsuspecting optimizer.

Optimizers who use so called black hat techniques regularly have methods in place for managing search engine banishment, such as many, many registered domains.

Ammon Johns, in a thread over at Cre8site (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=8386&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0), removes the black hat vs. white hat seo distinction from the realm of morality and places it into more pragmatic terms: risk. (I also have to credit him for my title - his quote really got me started: "there are no hats.")

Throughout the thread I read repeated warnings against using high risk seo techniques - these are tactics that, especially if you're new to seo, you should not use, as you will not understand their actual risk and may end up causing severe damage to your business and livelihood. Beware.

Here's part of the thread that caught my attention, and the attention of the SEORoundTable blog (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000338.html), where I found Mr. Johns' concept:

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.

In WebProNews we focus on techniques that are considered safe (http://www.webpronews.com/archive.html). These techniques include content optimization (adding valuable content to your site), link building, and other ideas included in Google's guide for webmasters (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html).

One site that lists some risky practices is blackhatseo.com (http://www.blackhatseo.com/). Its creator, awall19 from cre8siteforums, intended the site to get people asking questions at forums and I'm including it here for the same reason.

This paper from Stanford (pdf) presents a taxonomy of search engine spam (http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=2004-25&format=pdf&compression=) (do you think there's a difference between risky techniques and spam?). (From SEORoundtable (http://www.seoroundtable.com))

At the very least you should understand what the high risk techniques are so that you can report your competitors.

This post is intended to inform, and is in no way advocating the use of risky SEO techniques, especially not by people who don't know what they're doing and could ruin their businesses.

It's written with the same spirit that infused this quote from Ammon Johns, "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."

I highly advise you read the Cre8SiteForum's thread, "Black hat techniques and what confuses me (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=8386&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)."

[cbp]

Interesting thoughts, Garrett and interesting thread over at Cre8.

I have posted a few replies to messages here recently taking a slightly different slant on it, using the gambling analogy rather than the whitehat/blackhat approach.

There are a number of speculated/hypothesized new parts to the Google ranking algorythm (eg HillTop. Local PR, TopicSensitive PR, stemming, latent semantic indexing; better analysis of the use of 'natural' language; etc) as well as an apparent more sophisticated anaylsis of links (eg link schemes; reciporcal links; off-theme links; affiliate links) - all of them have smart people supporting them, but just as many opposing them.

Because we do not know what or if Google have really done (and Google want it that way), we have to find out where the "line in the sand" between black hat and white hat SEO is.

In this context the average webmaster has to make a judgement call about where that line is - so if they want to "push the envelope", you are in effect taking a gamble on what Google have done with the algorithm, the possiblity that you have crossed over the "line in the sand", the possibility of being detected and the consequences of being detected - its a gamble .... cost and consquences vs benefit. ie what Mr Johns calls "Risk balanced and risk managed techniques"

CBP

[TrafficProducer]

Hats to wear.. (software I joke)

There could also be some Grey Hats, these may work in the short term but along with Black Hat users they could get sites blocked from being listed.

Black, Grey and white hats:-
http://www.solutions.ukdots.com/advertising_methods.html

Do other webmasters agree with the recommendations at the above site, which method work, which lost visitors in the longer run?

[urknighterrent]

I think it's important to remember that it's not just Google you have to worry about. I just spent some time on blackhatseo. Now I'm not big on seo. I use network marketing and Pay per Click. But I tell you what: I catch my competitors using thes techniques I'm gonna be doing some Emailing. This might be a good way to get on the first 20 pages, but I'll wager it's a pretty stupid way to stay there.

-Don Coyote

[red]

I don't know if we'll ever know where the line in the sand is - it's blurred... and you're 100% correct. Google does like it that way. There doesn't seem to be enough clarity for a webmaster or SEO to know whether she/he has crossed that line. I try to follow the Google guideines but even that isn't enough based on so many of the WPW posts I've read.
After making a (truly)innocent mistake last month and getting whacked by Google that I am, in a manner of speaking, paralyzed, and afraid to try anything new.
How does one know when they're too close to the flame without waiting until they get burnt?

[Curious George]

It's CONTENT stupid!

It is time the so called SEO/SEM experts help keep the internet real. I believe a lot of these individuals don't have a good understanding of how the system is suppose to work. Those that do are more interested in making a buck or two to care.

Internet is suppose to be a digital library with the search engines acting as the librarians. We all know that the old card catalog system (Library of Congress) is all the user needs to find a book in the local library. Now that we no longer use the card catalog, why can't we try and replicate the that system in the digital form.

The librarians (search engines) are right in banishing the sites that try to fool the system. Afterall we will not be happy to find our favorite recipe book in the local library filed under home improvements.

I believe that if these folks follow honest SEO paths and let their design and content be deciding factors. The system will function the way it is meant to function.

That is my 2¢ worth :-)

Curious George

[red]

"It's CONTENT stupid!"

We don't take kindly to name calling around here George.
This forum is for those that want to learn from the other members and for members that have something valuable to share or teach others.

Content is and as been discussed exhaustively in hundreds of other threads. It is not a new concept.
The black hat white hat thread has been discussing techniques; it's been very informative.

My site http://www.lockpickshop.com/ has a LOT of content and I work hard to keep it fresh and relevant. If you were really CURIOUS you'd have taken a look and noticed that prior to making an uninformed comment.

Funny, one of your sites listed in your signature is "under construction" and another is e-commerce, most of the images are missing and there's very little content...

Don't throw stones George...it's just bad form.

[Curious George]

Dear Red,

My sincere apologies if my expression is misconstrued by anyone. I am sure you've heard the phrase "It's the Economy Stupid" before. Just incase you have not, it was used by Bill Clinton during his run for presidency.

My expression is was alluding to the importance of content development over trying to beat the system. I guess you wouldn't have had any problem if I used "CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT!!!" instead :-).

This discussion is neither about your site nor the site listed in my signature. It is exactly what you said it is - techique. Unless you feel that content development should not be considered a form of technique.

Bottomline is some of these black hats SEO/SEM need to go back to the basics instead of trying to circumvent the system.

Curious George

[red]

George,
Thanks very much for clarifying. I appreciate that.

"My expression is was alluding to the importance of content development over trying to beat the system."

I would never try to beat the system. I don't know enough about it (: But this forum sure does help!

There are different ways of developing content. I'm interested to know what works.

For instance - when should a call to action be a hard sell and when should it be a soft sell?

The article on the front page of WPW this morning was really interesting and looked at content from several different perspectives.

Any thoughts?

[Black Knight]

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).


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.

[urknighterrent]

I wish it was "content, content, content". Unfortunately, where seo is concerned, it's not. Our googlebot librarians are not just directing us to the young adult section, they're giving us a list of books in the order that they think we should read them. And that list is LONG!

Content IS technique. Use each keyword 3-7 times. 105 to 490 words total. Use each keyword in an <h1>-<h6> title and a text link. Optimize your three primary keywords to your first three alt images. With restrictions like this one has no choice but to try to make a choice between optimizing for the bots and the visitors. This is why I discourage my clients from seo unless they're highly specialized. Finding that balance is what seo is all about. I personally prefer a good website to a well optimized one, but then I'm not trying to sell australian fashion footwear. My organic ranking won't make or break my business.

[Krapulator]

At the very least you should understand what the high risk techniques are so that you can report your competitors.

Thats not very nice Garrett

[fathom]

I can likely remove a wart off my son's hand - but instead take him to a doctor I trust.

I can likely tune-up my own car - but instead go to a mechanic I trust.

I can likely invest my own money wisely - but instead go to a financial advisor I trust.

...each example has the same theme, I could do it myself or go to a professional for one reason or another however, none of us would consciously do neither. That is my take on the implied response here. You are not happy with the "unprofessional approach" and refuse to seek professional guidance.

Among other things - Google is an advertising/promotion media "by design" not by accident - and I know of no successful company that favors "let the chips fall where they may business approach" as a secret to their success.

In saying that - it is all about "content" as everything on the web is content and even the "links" are merely extending content elsewhere (to you [inbound], to more of you [internal], from you [outbound], etc.

Can some do it badly... are their bad doctors, mechanics, investors?

Get real - in the real world "trusted quality service" competes against "untrustworthy scam services" and many fall victim, the Internet (& SE) is no different.

[se-survivor]

I've often wondered about black hat issues. I always try to look at something from both sides before I judge it.

Have you ever wondered how many people you would have to put in a room to manually check every website that was submitted to Google for "unfair practices". Why there must be something like 100,000 submissions a week (maybe a day). Do you ever wonder why Google is so draconian about what they will do to your website if they catch you at these "unfair practices".

If I sit down and I ruminate about these two questions it doesn't take me long to realize why people cheat. They pretty much have figured out that Google is in a losing battle in trying to prevent people from taking advantage of their algorithm. It's why we've gone through all these updates. There's just no way to manually remove the cheaters from the rest of us, and the cheaters know this and most of us don't...and those of us that don't buy into the Google scare campaign to keep us from cheating.

Since you can change domain names like a cheap pair of clothes, and getting to the top of Google means making money, I guess we will never see an end to cheating. Only an increase when people figure out the two questions I've raised.

[fathom]

I guess we will never see an end to cheating. Only an increase when people figure out the two questions I've raised.


Cheating:

To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.

To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.

To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.

To elude; escape: cheat death.

The black hat (or high risk) isn't really none of these... unless that site itself is about casino but sporting fishing ranks... then maybe I would agree.

3 websites all in the same industry, targeting the same markets and all selling the same products, and none have a real "traditional" competitive edge over the others:

#1. puts out a website but does nothing but design it

#2. white hat (low risk)

#3. Black hat (high risk)

Remove yourself from the equation (none are yours) - which site is the best site -- that MUST rank at the top?

Obviously the website that did nothing to get ahead -- right?

Business is business - nothing more, nothing less.

[urknighterrent]

lmao at "krapulator". Dude, give us a break. Is that really the best username you could come up with?

Isn't it amazing how liars, cheats, and theives get all concerned with being "nice" when you call them on it?

Krap, cheating is not nice. Make no mistake about it. I catch my competitors using blackhat to beat my rankings, I'm turning them in.

[Mel]

...
3 websites all in the same industry, targeting the same markets and all selling the same products, and none have a real "traditional" competitive edge over the others:

#1. puts out a website but does nothing but design it

#2. white hat (low risk)

#3. Black hat (high risk)

Remove yourself from the equation (none are yours) - which site is the best site -- that MUST rank at the top?

Obviously the website that did nothing to get ahead -- right?

Business is business - nothing more, nothing less.

I really hope you are being sarcastic Fathom, since surely the factor that determines which page should rank at the top of the SERPs in any search engine should be only the relevancy of the page?

[Mel]

...
Krap, cheating is not nice. Make no mistake about it. I catch my competitors using blackhat to beat my rankings, I'm turning them in.

Sure and thats your right if you want to, but first of all how do you know what (or even if there is such a thing) constitutes "black hat" practices?

Secondly, its also the right of the search engines to do absolutely nothing about your spam reports except file them for future use when looking at algo mods, and I suspect in the real world thats much closer to the the way it actually works.

[Dave Hawley]

Sure and thats your right if you want to, but first of all how do you know what (or even if there is such a thing) constitutes "black hat" practices?

He would not need to, Google will do that.

I see Google as being the ultimate winner in the 'cheating game'. I would guess they probably have a team working full-time to try and weed out the cheaters via their algo. There are only so many things one can do to 'trick' Google into ranking them higher. I would say the Google have most, of the black hat stuff, taken into consideration by now.

[Mel]

Sure and thats your right if you want to, but first of all how do you know what (or even if there is such a thing) constitutes "black hat" practices?

He would not need to, Google will do that.

I see Google as being the ultimate winner in the 'cheating game'. I would guess they probably have a team working full-time to try and weed out the cheaters via their algo. There are only so many things one can do to 'trick' Google into ranking them higher. I would say the Google have most, of the black hat stuff, taken into consideration by now.

Why Guess? A quick look behind the scenes of the top ranking sites for almost any Google search will quickly show that Google have a long ways to in eliminating things like hidden text, linking rings, etc etc.

If that doesn't convince you try reporting blatent spam to them and see if there is any action on their part in the following year.

[Dave Hawley]

Why Guess? A quick look behind the scenes of the top ranking sites for almost any Google search will quickly show that Google have a long ways to in eliminating things like hidden text, linking rings, etc etc.

I think that is a common mistake made by many. Google's aim is not to ban pages that spam, but simply ignore the spam factors. Just because a page has some hidden text does not mean it's not the most relevant page for a search term. Just because a page has some spam factors does not mean it wouldn't rank as it does without them.

[Mel]

...Or then again maybe its the spam factors that are getting the rankings, how do you know unless you look at a particular site and make some informed decisions.

[Black Knight]

I think that is a common mistake made by many. Google's aim is not to ban pages that spam, but simply ignore the spam factors.
That's Google's common PR line alright. They've been churning that out through interviews and forums for over two years. It works for them, because many believe it - for a while.

But it isn't strictly true and never has been.

Google is still easy to game, which is why they make the penalty for getting caught so very high. They can't make it so that you are more likely to get caught than not, so instead they make it so that if you do get caught, however slim that chance, it will be totally catastrophic to that domain.

Inter-linked domains, with completely artificial linkage structures that have been devised solely and purely because it will help the sites rank on Google are commonplace. In fact, you have to struggle to find a commercial SERP that isn't dominated by those who manipulate their link popularity.

Yet this is despite the one truth: SPAM will not go away until it stops working. As long as it continues to work, people will continue to use it.

[Dave Hawley]

None of those assumptions fits with Google excellent overall relevancy. If Google is so easy to spam they would not be where they are today.


...Or then again maybe its the spam factors that are getting the rankings, how do you know unless you look at a particular site and make some informed decisions

I could throw the same rhetorical question back.......but. Maybe, as mentioned, this is less likley IMO. I have looked at many pages, that use some sort of 'black hat' trick, that hold a top 10 position. These pages (most of the time) fit very well under the heading "relevant".

It's no secret and cannot be denied that Google's ultimate aim is to return the most relevent results for it's searhers. To do this they need to have the largest database of pages in the world to choose from, which they have. It would not make sense to include spammy pages at spidering time and then try to omit them later at algo time. Google also prides itself on its speed of returning relevent from its huge database very fast!. To try and do the penalizing at this time is counterproductive. At spidering time though, the pressure for speed is probably not as great.

There are many, many very relevent pages out there that also just happen to use spammy methods. Why on earth would Google penalize relevent pages??? This would also be counterproductive and mean millions of relevent pages are left out! Google never has, probably never will, work in this way. They are simply too prudent and one of the reason they are #1. Yahoo, MSN *might* do, but they are not #1 are they.

[Mel]

When you put it that way Dave I find myself agreeing with you.

IMO Google (and it seems to me many other engines also) are not so keen to impose penalties on sites so long as the search results return relevant pages even if the pages use spammy methods to achieve high rankings, and that after all is the Holy Grail of search, not to be just included somewhere in the results because you are relevant, but to rank very highly.

And as Ammon said, as long as spam works there are those who will use it.

But in all fairness, I must say that Google keeps nibbling away at the problem of spam, particularly interlinked domains, and every now and then make an improvement that shunts some of the spammiest sites to the bottom of the ranks.

[se-survivor]

I don't really believe it has to do with "what a search engine should be doing". I feel it's still a matter of business common sense and manpower.

For every website you penalize, that's another potential lawsuit and another 10 screaming emails you have to respond to.

Everyone can see how far behind dmoz is dropping with their manual approach, and they must have 100x the number of workers doing filtering compared to Google.

It's just not possible to keep up with the spammers and determine who is just attacking their competition, so Google imposes a heavy penalty and hopes for the best. Every once in a while they take out a "low risk" spammer to show they mean business.

[oneeye]

particularly interlinked domains, and every now and then make an improvement that shunts some of the spammiest sites to the bottom of the ranks.


I have some of my own sites that link together. (3 sites) For the most part they are relevant to each other. Am I asking for trouble here? I am not out to unethically improve my rank, but I have seen this all over google and have not been given any reason to believe it is unacceptable.

Thanks,

Oneeye

[fathom]

particularly interlinked domains, and every now and then make an improvement that shunts some of the spammiest sites to the bottom of the ranks.


I have some of my own sites that link together. (3 sites) For the most part they are relevant to each other. Am I asking for trouble here? I am not out to unethically improve my rank, but I have seen this all over google and have not been given any reason to believe it is unacceptable.

Thanks,

Oneeye

No to all. Links are natural whether owned by same company or not... link if it makes sense to do so.