White Hat vs. Black Hat SEO

[KristineS]

When I briefly worked for a SEO company one of the topics we often discussed was white hat SEO vs. black hat SEO. The company for which I worked was firmly in the white hat category, and thought anyone who didn't follow the white hat doctrine was basically scum.

I found this online debate between a self proclaimed "white-hat" SEO and a self proclaimed "black - hat" SEO. I think it brings up some interesting questions.

The debate is kind of long, but there is a lot of food for thought here. Also, it begs the question, if you manage a web site are you a "Black-Hat" SEO or a "White-Hat" SEO.

[vangogh]

I usually find this debate both silly and interesting. Silly because it always comes down to questions of ethics, when it's really not an ethical question. And interesting simply because I find it interesting

white hat = someone who's SEO is within the guidelines of search engines
black hat - someone who's SEO falls outside the guidelines of search engines.

What exactly is morally right or wrong about the guidelines of a search engine? Nothing. They're a set of guidelines designed to help you rank better, though often they're less about what a search engine wants you to do than what really does work.

Search engines are not the moral and ethical arbiters of the internet. They're businesses. They have a right to do what they want and the rest of us have a right to do what we want.

People act as if there's such a thing as a web page that deserves to rank #1 for a query. The only time that's true is when there is only one page relevant to that query. Most of the time any of hundreds of pages would be a perfectly fine result. Why should one page rank better?

There are many tactics that once were considered black hat and are now considered white hat. There are also tactics that at one time were considered white hat which are now considered black hat.

Instead of the hat debate being one about ethics it should really be about risk and reward. There are some tactics you can employ that have a great reward, but could risk your site getting banned. It's up to you though how aggressive you want to be with your marketing. Sometimes being aggressive and taking a huge risk pays off. Sometimes it doesn't.

Very little in life falls into absolute black or white. Same is true of SEO hats. Most people wear hats of varying shades of gray. My own hat tends to be light gray, because I don't like taking the risks with my sites or my clients sites. The real ethical question is whether or not you're honest about what you're doing with a client's site and you let them know in advance the potential risks.

While I don't consider myself a black hat I've learned a lot from others who do. I find black hats to be among the more creative SEOs and while I may not employ a specific tactic I can still take from that tactic, reduce the risk, and reapply it in a white hat way.

I can say plenty more, but I'll give someone else a chance.

[KristineS]

That's an interesting take on things, and that's a lot of what I got from the article that I mentioned in the original post. I think some SEO companies want to make it a moral issue because they don't want to take the risk. If there are "good" and "bad" ways to do SEO than those who espouse the "good" appear to take the moral high ground.

[billbenson]

I look at everything in the manner of can it come back and bite you in the future, and if it does, do you care? Reciprocal linking is a classic example. Useless link exchanges between sites, which gained SERPS rank several years ago may very well be hurting those sites today. It was there for the sole reason of manipulating Search Engines.

As Vangogh said, there is something to be learned from every technique. Maybe you can reapply a truly black hat technique to something acceptable? Kind of like studying hitler to build a democracy.

I look at MLM strategies, get rich quick sites, adult sites, affiliate sites, ecommerce sites, everything I can to see what their strategies are. And you might be surprised to see what categories of sites use the fewest of what are considered to be black hat techniques and bad ethics.

One thing I really want to investigate further are multiple ways to monetize sites as well as arbitrage sites.

As a footnote, right now I really want to look at are affiliate sites. I have never done a truly affiliate site. The webmasters I know that make good money in affiliate sites are always building new sites. Say 6 sites per year. If each site makes $500 per month and in a few years you have 35 sites, you have a pretty nice living.

[vangogh]

@Kristine - One of the funny things about the whole ethical thing is it's often used as a marketing strategy. Someone will say they provide ethical seo services with the implication that other SEOs don't.

@Bill - What's interesting is it's possible a site that engaged in mass link exchanges in the past was able to rank well and as a result of its search visibility picked up enough one-way links over the years that losing and benefit of the recips may not matter.

By the way I'm interested in playing in affiliate marketing myself. One other thing that sounds interesting is the idea of fixing and flipping websites. You buy a website that needs some repair, fix it up so it's bringing in more revenue, and then turn around and sell it for a profit.

[yankeerudy]

Actually, I think the ethics of black hat vs white hat come into play when you do SEO work for clients. It isn't a question of the ethics of "violating" search engine rules, though -- it's the idea of playing Russian roulette with a client's livelihood.

Using an off-line analogy, say you're a building supply company that hires me as a business consultant to increase your sales. If I launch a marketing campaign with some event sponsoring etc. to accomplish the goal, that's white hat. If I commit several acts of arson throughout the town that drive up demand for building supplies, that's black hat -- I can get you in big trouble without you even knowing it.

The ethics come into play when the SEO consultant does the black hat stuff without advising the client of the risks. If the risks are laid out, though, then all bets are off.

[vangogh]

Absolutely Rudy. I agree completely that ethics come into play in those situations. It's interesting to me though when people start shouting that someone is unethical because they purchased a link. It's now something Google prefers we don't do, in part because it's been abused, and in part because they really can't detect it. But people were buying links before search engines and will buy them after. It's simply advertising. Those kind of things aren't ethical questions to me. It's more about knowing the pros and cons and making an informed choice.

But I absolutely agree if you're doing something that might one day cause problems for a client's site without letting them know in advance it could happen that's unethical. And sadly there are a number of people who will do things like that.

[cbscreative]

I've said this before in SEO discussions, but I think it's the first time I've said it here, so I'll lay out the premise I use for SEO:

Google, and all other search engines, have "customers" who use them for searching the web. The object of any business is to keep customers happy. To create customer satisfaction, Google must deliver relevant results. If your SEO efforts help Google to accomplish this, Google will reward you. If you try to "lie, cheat, and steal" your way to the top, Google may respond by targeting your tactics for removal. IOW, they will punish you.

I believe living by the "Golden Rule" will bring its rewards, and those rewards are more lasting.

[vangogh]

That's how it should work. Sadly it doesn't always work that way. There are lots of things that you might think you'd be punished for doing, but never are. Google has also shown that if you're company is big enough or if you spend enough money on AdWords some of the guidelines don't quite apply to you.

However I do agree with you on how to accomplish SEO success. I think you're better off building a site that leads to a happy search engine than you are trying to trick them.

I still see it as less of a moral and ethical issue. For example I don't think people are really cheating or stealing their way to the top. There aren't any rules, only guidelines and some of those guidelines are not being honest. I'm not sure how going against them is cheating.

Using the example of link buying again there's nothing fundamentally wrong with paying someone to link to you. It's advertising. Google doesn't like it because they want to see links as votes and I completely understand why they would like to see link buying go away. It's now against the guidelines, but it's hardly cheating anyone. In fact one of Google's guidelines is to ask whether or not you would engage in a practice if search engines didn't exist. People would still buy and sell links regardless of the existence of a search engine.

At the other end of the last guideline there are plenty of things that Google would endorse even though they exist solely for the purpose of a search engine. Canonical URLs for example. Real people could care less whether they view your site as domain.com or www.domain.com. I can't think of a single reason why you'd care about those kind of things other than for search engines. As long as each URL took you to the same content it shouldn't be a big deal.

That's why I think the ethical debate about this borders on ridiculous to much of the time. People act is if going against Google's wishes is some kind of violation of morality when Google itself often does things most of us would consider unethical. And their guidelines are far from clear cut.

I agree there are unethical people out there and some people who lean to the dark side with their SEO are clearly unethical people, but most of the specific tactics just are. They aren't ethical or unethical on their own and most of the time can be used either way.

[theGypsy]

I generally avoid these convos in the community... but just this once;

A. I don't wear hats... mucks up my hair

B. SEO = Search Engine Oportunist

C. All's fair in love and SEO (http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Engine-Optimization/Alls-fair-in-love-and-SEO.html) - yes, there are some varied standards of treatment in the SERPs, tho Matt recently disputed; YouTube - Matt Cutts on Big Brand BlackHat Sites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2aPa5Jm79E)

D. Ethics/Morality don't enter into it unless a provider is abusing the TOS without the client's knowledge.

E. I spent time on black hat forums and learned all things SEO as part of my personal journey/education - one must understand everyone in a query space.



Most true so-called black hats laugh at peeps that don't get it. They are throw away domains, isolated servers with monetization schemes to keep the whole things rolling (multiple bank accounts, affiliate and adwords sock puppets etc...) - when peeps consider such tactics on a valued domain they are fishing daft. That is not what it's about... they are proud search engine spammers... and some smart ones that make a pretty penny.

Me? I am more interested in a future that includes creating value for domains and varied income streams that are less stressful.

But when it comes to SEO... might as well embrace it all... that is why, to the other extreme, I immerse into search engineering theory and search patents... true SEO is an artform... I like to play with all the brushes and textures :o

[vangogh]

Dave I knew you'd find your way into this thread. I usually avoid this conversation too, but I do find it interesting. I enjoy some of the industry arguments and listening to people getting bent out of shape for no reason.

I'm with you on your points. I've watched some blackhats over the years and some are much smarter than one side of the industry would like them to be. I'm sure there are many more laughing at the rest of us as they carry all their money to the bank.

I'm more interested in creating value for domains too, but I've learned a lot from the dark side over the years. Much of the ideas can easily be applied in value added ways.

[theGypsy]

Agreed.... never been into the 'quick buck' type of businesses. So I am always working on building quality domains...thus BH has little of interest.

One of the things I did enjoy about hanging on Syndk8 was that they push the boundaries which is great for de-constructing the Algos. There is much to be learned from watching them blast the engines and pass along what they learn. This is quite useful for the WH optimizers...

In truth, we're all manipulating the algos to some extent, some more than others.

Now, personally I hate web spam and don't care for the crap that BHs put out there...

BUT... as with yerself, the discussions around this issue are generally missing the point and the whole ethics/morality crap makes me shake my head. I am going to be up against WH and BH in query spaces I compete in and I say BRING IT ON!! he he.... don't care what the competition is doing, they're going down... hee hee

[vangogh]

I've gotten some of the same things out of places like Syndk8 and some of the blogs I read. I have no desire to create content through scraping other content and producing some garbage pages, but you're right about the tactics being great for de-constructing algos.

One of the things that gets me about the ethical part of the conversation is how many people seem perfectly fine doing unethical things to spread the message that BH is unethical. You can see highly focused smear campaigns and people pushing their own morals as though their morals are the only ones valid. I consider forcing your morals on others much more unethical than going against a search engine guideline.

And it's true, we're competing with WH and BH so I want to know what both sides are doing.

[cbscreative]

and people pushing their own morals as though their morals are the only ones valid.
You mean to tell me that mine aren't the only ones valid? Oh, man! I'm not buying into that. :)

[vangogh]

Funny. Actually mine are the only valid ones. :)

It's amazing though how many times I see people that don't get that we each have a different set of morals and a different ethical compass to guide us. Some things the overwhelming majority will agree about, but so much more we won't and so often most issues find their way to a fuzzy gray line where we all sometimes have trouble deciding what's right and wrong.

[jenny12]

Hello Friends.........

Stuffing or spamming your Meta tags does nothing for your search results except flag your site as one using black hat SEO. Search engines are always on the lookout for spammed Meta tags. For example, let's say an online pet store called Fiction Pets is stuffing its Meta tags. The site's black hat Meta keywords might read:

<meta name="keywords" content="fiction pets, pets, dogs and cats, pet stores, dogs, cats, lizards, birds, dog collars, hamster cages, jessica alba, fish, dog shampoo, dog treats, bird seed, good dogs, bad dogs, nice kitty">

White Hat SEO - Choose a Solid Keyword Phrase
Research your keyword phrase. Choose a solid keyword phrase that accurately represents your page and use it in your Meta tags. An example of Meta keywords:

<meta name="keywords" content="online pet store, fiction pets, pet supplies, pets store, pet supply store">

Thanks

[billbenson]

I really doubt that is viewed as black hat by G. What you describe is most likely ignored by G. Plenty of well meaning site builders (typically amature, but not always) do this out of ignorance, not trying to beat the system.

You are correct that if you are going to use the meta name tag, use only one phrase and optimize the page for that. Most knowledgeable web designers don't use this tag today.

[Capitalist]

The keywords meta is ignored by Google and Bing/Yahoo. I have run my own, independent tests and they have confirmed this to me.

Also, Jenny - do you realize you replied to a thread that is nearly three years old? Just let it die!

[Capitalist]

I really doubt that is viewed as black hat by G. What you describe is most likely ignored by G. Plenty of well meaning site builders (typically amature, but not always) do this out of ignorance, not trying to beat the system.

You are correct that if you are going to use the meta name tag, use only one phrase and optimize the page for that. Most knowledgeable web designers don't use this tag today.

Bill --- if you're still interested in affiliate sites, I have a couple that I'd be willing to share. I've had limited success so far, but I'm encouraged by what I have seen.

[billbenson]

Bill --- if you're still interested in affiliate sites, I have a couple that I'd be willing to share. I've had limited success so far, but I'm encouraged by what I have seen.

Interested in your opinion, but I've come to the conclusion that the best product model today is a cart. Like everything, I'm sure there are exception, but that's my thinking right now. I have a successful cart site that has worked well for 5 years or so. Maybe I'm just biased?

[jpohl]

I've wore both hats and I like the white one better. I don't have to keep re-aligning business tactics. However, I agree with the general sentiment about the grey hat area being quite large. For example:

I consider myself a white hatter. However, I do what most people do and that is try to get backlinks. Posting here with my signature is probably a true representation of a backlink. I am adding (hopefully) value to discussions and letting Google and Bing know where I live. However, I also will bookmark and post links to sites, create articles, etc. with the sole reason of creating backlinks. This is totally legal and I guess ethical but in reality, shouldn't the sites have natural linking? Aren't I (and others) creating an artificial enthusiasm for a site?

Others have said it but do whats right for you to sleep at night. I personally got fed up with scamming the system, then google getting wise and turning off the traffic or responding to cease and desist letters. The one long term thing I gotta believe will always work is to provide valuable relevant content so thats my game now.

[CloptonCapital]

I've wore both hats and I like the white one better. I don't have to keep re-aligning business tactics. However, I agree with the general sentiment about the grey hat area being quite large. For example:

I consider myself a white hatter. However, I do what most people do and that is try to get backlinks. Posting here with my signature is probably a true representation of a backlink. I am adding (hopefully) value to discussions and letting Google and Bing know where I live. However, I also will bookmark and post links to sites, create articles, etc. with the sole reason of creating backlinks. This is totally legal and I guess ethical but in reality, shouldn't the sites have natural linking? Aren't I (and others) creating an artificial enthusiasm for a site?

Others have said it but do whats right for you to sleep at night. I personally got fed up with scamming the system, then google getting wise and turning off the traffic or responding to cease and desist letters. The one long term thing I gotta believe will always work is to provide valuable relevant content so thats my game now.

By this same argument the person who puts flyers on peoples cars and advertises in the local paper doesn't deserve more business. If more sites approve your content and link to you, even if your primary goal was just to build links, you deserve the higher ranking

[cbscreative]

The one long term thing I gotta believe will always work is to provide valuable relevant content so thats my game now.

Agreed! It's simple, but not easy. Many people seem to want to always game the system and they end up with Google getting wise to it just like you said. For their clients, it's high maintenance (and expensive) because the tactics used are short lived.

[vangogh]

If more sites approve your content and link to you, even if your primary goal was just to build links, you deserve the higher ranking

Of course a site that approves your content today may stop approving it tomorrow. For example if we determined your posting here isn't an honest attempt to contribute to the forum community, but instead see it as unhelpful posts in order to gain more signature links, it only takes a moment to remove your signature privileges.

You also need to consider that any site that approves links so easily may not exactly be seen as having much value in the eyes of search engines. Take the recent algorithm change at Google that wiped out a lot of value in article directory sites. If article directories have been a big part of your strategy you likely lost a lot of link equity into your site recently or will in the near future.

Jeff's point is that if your efforts are based solely on trying to manipulate rankings it's quite possible and even probably that what you're doing will be discounted in the future by search engines. Instead of spending time seeking a temporary benefit it makes sense to spend time doing things that will provide benefit longer term.

That's not to say building a link can't be your motivation for doing something. It's more that you should still be offering something of value in exchange for that link and you should be choosing link sources wisely.

[greenoak]

vg....whats wierd to me is that some things, like trying to link up to other blogs , would probably help my ranking but im beginning to see it a s mainly manipulating .... its time consuming and its not local so the actual customer return isnt much...now i just dont spend time doing it and work on other things...hope im not giving up too much.... maybe 8 or 10 blogs link back to me...not sure... its a huge goal in my world to trade links....
.
back to gaming the system... imho... a lot of new businesses mostly work on the game and not the content.....thus so much focus on marketing before they have much to market....like assuming expertness when they arent even close and trying to market that...
i have one internet marketer/buddy who lost her store ,not enough sales,huge debt, , lives with her mom.....she openly shared these facts on a private blog.... and now is presenting herself as a business coach... she has a big fancy online presence aimed at boutiques and indie stores ....its all women... ..... her marketing seems good.... i dont know how she is really doing ... but her presentation is georgous....she is a great writer and has very neat site.......and she is very tekk savy doing all kinds of things on line...
but if you pay her 500$ for a couple of hours of help ...well shes trying to help you do something she never could do..run a business.. im sure its legal but dang!!! .buyer beware....

even online i would thnk there would be ways to build a business the organic way...thru satisfied customers, word of mouth, referrals, the actual WOW thing when they get to your site... but if you spend all your time on hype you might miss all those other ways to grow....in other words what are you trying to market?

[Spider]

....even online i would thnk there would be ways to build a business the organic way...thru satisfied customers, word of mouth, referrals, the actual WOW thing when they get to your site... but if you spend all your time on hype you might miss all those other ways to grow....in other words what are you trying to market?I think there are plenty of ways to build a business organically online, the problem is they are swamped by the technical tricks that are used to climb the search engine results pages (serps.) Swamped, to such an extent, I believe, that you either participate in the techincal trickery or have to ignore online growth and focus on offline growth.

Your example business coach is a case in point. She wasn't able to succeed offline, so she changes her business and is now making efforts at succeeding online. I'm sure you don't begrudge her the right to pick herself up after that previous failure and try again to become a success - failure in one business doesn't prevent a person from being a success for all time.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her new chosen career, either. As a failed marketer, she learned some things. Why should she not be able to teach those things to others? Being a failure as a marketer then, does not mean she doesn't know marketing now. She might give exactly the same advice as a you, a successful marketer - what makes her advice bad and your advice good? Maybe she did everything right marketing her previous business but unconscously picked her nose all the time. Who was going to buy from her? But her marketing may have been exemplary. Success or failure in a previous career is not a good way to judge the efficacy of a coach.

Nevertheless, manipulating the search engines is the new game. Whether one calls the techniques white hat or black hat or pink berets, it's all manipulating. Sometimes this bit of trickery is acceptable and that isn't, and other times it is the reverse. But very little of it has anything to do with the business that is being promoted.

[greenoak]

i hear you spider.. i really value the coach idea.... but they shouldnt have to twist things around...i know you could help someone outside your main field... .
you are right, i dont begrudge her a successful online business...i hope for her to have something work..she really has talent... ........ i wouldnt complain if she were selling self esteem advice ......shes pretty specific about actually setting up and running a store.... which she wasnt any good at...unless closing owing huge debt is good....
. we wouldnt be giving the same advice!!! also im not trying to sell advice...im trying to sell furniture......lol it does bug me a bit.... but i have no goals in that department...i love to see businesses make it.... i wholesale ...and work with new stores a lot...
...
we had a store fail early on....and it was a great learning experience.... it was really valuable in the long run..... but i never said we closed it because we were tired of it....we were tired of no money and living in poverty........ a big company came into town and sold our main product for about what we were paying....and we finally got the message that it wasnt working....and wasnt going to....

[cbscreative]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her new chosen career, either. As a failed marketer, she learned some things. Why should she not be able to teach those things to others? Being a failure as a marketer then, does not mean she doesn't know marketing now.

That's an excellent point, Frederick, and one I can personally identify with. My first biz started in 1986 was doing signs and graphics. A couple of years later, the computer began making serious inroads and computer sign making was born. It was great. I welcomed the change because it greatly improved productivity.

But with that blessing came another blessing in disguise. Suddenly, the tools that helped us "sign guys" become more productive also allowed "anyone can be an artist now" to flood the market. Prior to that, us sign guys only needed talent to succeed. We didn't need to be all that great at marketing because if you needed a sign, you opened the YP, made a few calls and chose your sign guy.

With the birth of computer sign making came an onslaught of ugly sold in huge volume for cheap prices. We now had a whole new breed of competition. Anyone with investment capital could (and did) open a sign shop in as little as a week. Most of these were franchised operations, so the people behind them were great at marketing. So Joe the banker who got tired of his job could take a one week training course and become a sign expert with a built in marketing plan.

The lesson I learned was that if they could beat us talented sign guys over the head while selling visual pollution, think of how well I could do selling a "real" value if I learned marketing. I didn't know marketing very well back then and suffered for it. I corrected that problem, so that kick in the hind end served a useful purpose.

[vangogh]

some things, like trying to link up to other blogs , would probably help my ranking but im beginning to see it a s mainly manipulating

Ann there's a fine line sometimes and the truth is we each set that line for ourselves. With any business, online or offline, you need to do some kind of marketing and promotion. You have to at least let some people know you exist so they can start spreading the word. Online links are one way to do that. What is and isn't manipulation is a fine line though.

I'll use the forum as an example. It's fine to have a signature link and even to post with the motivation to have more signature links. As long as what you're posting is contributing in some way I don't see a problem. Same thing for adding a link inside a post. To me the proper way to do that is post a reply with enough information to add to the conversation without requiring people click through on your link and then provide the link for those who are interested in more details.

The admin part of me isn't going to think that link is spam as long as there's enough content in the post so people can get the point without following the link. On the other hand if I notice someone drops a link like that in most every post it does start coming across as spam. There's no absolute line I can draw though for when something crosses over into spam.

As a site owner who'd like more links pointing back to my site I think first about contributing something to the site where I may be adding a link. I'll also look into the site and see if it's ok to ad a link. Does the owner of the site allow it, encourage it, speak out against adding links. I also want to look at how the community around the site views links and the people who might add them.


even online i would thnk there would be ways to build a business the organic way...thru satisfied customers, word of mouth, referrals, the actual WOW thing when they get to your site... but if you spend all your time on hype you might miss all those other ways to grow....in other words what are you trying to market?

I think building a business is still mostly the same online as it is offline. You'll find good and bad marketing, products, services, advertising, etc. in both. Satisfied customers, etc. work just as well online as they do offline. The web adds some challenges like not being able to talk face-to-face with customers at the point of sale. On the other hand the web makes it easier to reach more people. Word of mouth for example can spread a lot faster and wider on social sites like Facebook and Twitter than it can offline. The principle of delivering something customers are happy with and want to tell others is still the same.

[greenoak]

right vg....and im trying to find logical links...and do whatever seems good ...to me...
love your words gypsy...[just reread your post on page one]
im the same especially the part about wanting to create value and less stressuful income streams....but i want to know it all, i love investigating all the parts of my industry too, so i liked your words about playing with all the brushes too....
.. i would go for whats legal not what s omeone else calls moral..... im from the auction world...and right and wrong there is kind of a joke...some of my favorite guys would say about anything when they are up there selling........i have to know whats going on or its my tough luck.... we laugh in selling at the store by saying...the auctioneer said it was good...everybody auction goer gets that joke......but the reality is that the same guy who tried to TRICK us into bidding, within the accepted auctioneer trickery habits, might be super honest when it comes to his legal stuff like paying honestly or shill bidding.......you just need to know what you are dealing with... ...and you need to know the difference between'this looks like silver' and " this is marked sterling" ....
..also lots of the folks giving advice arent really out there making money like their recievers are trying to.... they are out there writing or somehow being experts without being in the trenches...thats how it is in my world anyway...and we have to see that some of it isnt very good from the bringing home the bacon point of view....i have so many examples of this but maybe boring to outsiders...
it would be hard for me to accept a self proclaimed white hat as moral ...i would have to see them in action..
.

[vangogh]

lots of the folks giving advice arent really out there making money like their recievers are trying to.... they are out there writing or somehow being experts without being in the trenches

Sadly the does happen. Some people provide the advice as part of their own learning, which I think is ok, but many are just repeating what other say so they can appear more like experts.

[Anthony]

Black Hat SEO and White Hat SEO both are part of the SEO one is ethical process and another one is unethical process.

White hat SEO - When webmaster follows all search engine guide lines while doing their SEO activities this called white hat SEO. Like they follow all On-page and Off-page SEO process.

Black Hat SEO - When Webmaster or SEO's break the rule of the search engine and try to spam then this process called the black hat SEO techniques like Keywords Stuffing, Hidden Text, use of Cloaking and many more.

[1mike]

The only real answers are what Google and the Search Engines are what THEY consider white hat or black hat. And in many cases it's pretty vauge. If you do something on line without regard for what its effect will have on a search engine, then its probably fine.

[vangogh]

True, though how search engines became the moral compass for the internet is a question most people don't want to ask. In the end you the white hat and black hat conversation is somewhat meaningless. What you feel comfortable doing is going to come down to your own ethics and what you think ok to do. It'll also come down to how willing you are to potentially risk the ire of a search engine.


If you do something on line without regard for what its effect will have on a search engine, then its probably fine.

Agreed. I generally think about real people. If something is good for my audience then I'm going to do it regardless of how a search engine might see it.

[PatrickC]

Basically, you are using google and google makes the rules. Are you willing to risk being banned for your black hat tactics? If my client is huge and has a client base, being banned from google would be a horrible thing. However, if my client is a new unknown startup in a saturated market with not much money invested in them, why not take a little more risk? Question of risk vs reward

[seolman]

I agree totally with what most have said here about the WH/BH ethics issues. BH is a fact of life and knowing your enemy is a key to victory.

A couple years ago I was helping a US based law firm with their search strategy and every law firm in the top 10 of Google in my client's city was buying huge volumes of links from multiple sources (oops and they were all "do-follow" what a shock :O). I told the client "either join 'em or stay in the cellar". To their credit they decided to use other marketing methods rather than go the BH route.

I don't get it. I have tools that easily show me when someone has 40,000 links from only 20 domains all on the same C class IP (a la GoDaddy masking)- and still these guys seem glued to the top in Google. It makes me doubt the effectiveness of Google's spam filters or their commitment to discounting bad links.

[vangogh]

It makes me doubt the effectiveness of Google's spam filters or their commitment to discounting bad links.

There are definitely things Google will tell you not to do that still work. I think at times while Google would like to discount certain links or some tactic it's difficult for them to tell it's been done. For example Google doesn't want people buying links, but realistically they could never know if you and I called each other up and deiced that one of us would buy a link from the other. As long as we don't go publicly bragging about it, how could they ever know.

Now if one of us repeated that practice enough to leave an obvious footprint or if some of the people buying or selling links made it obvious, then Google could track all the links into or out of some sites and discover most of the paid links.

On the positive side Google does seem to be getting better at this stuff all the time. Sure there are practices that still work, that perhaps shouldn't, but look at the quality of results today compared to a few years ago. The bigger problem today might be that Google pushes it's own properties in the results over some other sites most people would consider "better" matches to their query.

[willmfftt]

As long as the internet and SEO exists, so will this debate. People who use Black Hat tactics are the kind of people that throw a website up as quickly as possible. They use their tactics to get high up in the SERPS and earn some coin until they get shut down, then they move onto something else. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with this, as they probably wouldn't get anywhere with those sites using White Hat techniques. On the other end of the spectrum you have legitimate businesses who need to think in the long term. They have to do White Hat SEO because they can't afford to get blacklisted in the SERPS, and White Hat SEO yields better long term results anyway. So it's basically a debate and nobody's on the losing side ;)

[CoolHandCol]

The reality is that any SEO is essentially black hat. If you or someone else are building links to improve your rankings, you are violating Google guidelines. Links should be earned and naturally organic. But that takes a long time so we do it manually - it's about minimising the risk of being penalised by Google

[billbenson]

The reality is that any SEO is essentially black hat. If you or someone else are building links to improve your rankings, you are violating Google guidelines. Links should be earned and naturally organic. But that takes a long time so we do it manually - it's about minimising the risk of being penalised by Google

No, anything that Google likes and helps you rank better in SERPS is SEO and is not black hat, it's white hat. Take something as simple as properly using the title tag in html. That's white hat SEO and Google likes it.

[JoeInTheMiddle]

The reality is that any SEO is essentially black hat. If you or someone else are building links to improve your rankings, you are violating Google guidelines. Links should be earned and naturally organic. But that takes a long time so we do it manually - it's about minimising the risk of being penalised by Google


No, anything that Google likes and helps you rank better in SERPS is SEO and is not black hat, it's white hat. Take something as simple as properly using the title tag in html. That's white hat SEO and Google likes it.

I tend to agree with CoolHand. Didn't Matt Cutts define black hat SEO as anything that attempts to manipulate a sites position in Google SERPS? So, if you properly use a title tag but include specific keywords in it aren't you attempting to manipulate a sites position in Google's SERPS for those specific keywords?

For me there's no such thing as white or black hat SEO, there's only Google approved or disapproved. And whoa betide anyone that tries to step on Google's toes.