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, 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, 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. These techniques include content optimization (adding valuable content to your site), link building, and other ideas included in Google's guide for webmasters.

One site that lists some risky practices is 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 (do you think there's a difference between risky techniques and spam?). (From SEORoundtable)

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."

[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/adve...g_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.