Regarding this comment “Most high page rank sites have got their PR through quality content.” well…that’s quite untrue, and do you think only high page rank sites rank well? If the toolbar pagerank is built on links for the most part, how can you justify saying it happens out of content? If you haven’t seen any SEOs who do write content, I’d love to know where you’re lurking.

What, in marketing, is NOT designed to get an unnatural position? And there are other search engines than Google, remember. Placing a billboard in a highly trafficked area is designed to get more attention than putting it somewhere else where no one will see it. Thus, the one that gets seen has been unnaturally marketed, correct? And is that bad? Or is it just smart?

“1. Have you ever actually REALLY ranked a site in a hyper-competitive niche more than page 3 without using ANY “black hat” or semi-questionable tactics?”

I’ve marketed my own site that way, but would be dubious about selling such things to a client. My problem with buying links is that it’s a gamble – if they get found out they could be blacklisted, and yet I don’t believe SEOs mention this to their clients, or mention that it’s merely a temporary fix.

“2. Why do you assume that all paid links are shit?”

Because they are temporary. You have to keep paying.
Also, the methods used to buy links are usually simply spam. I have a good PR site and rarely do SEOs ask to buy links for SEO reasons, they say they would like to advertise, not warning the person they are buying links off that they could be penalised for hosting them.

“3. How would you propose to compete in an industry where everyone else buys links? Just sit back and say “well not us, we’ll wait until our quality content (which is probably crap anyway) gets us to the top”?”

From “which is probably crap anyway”, I am assuming you don’t write content (fair enough, I’m yet to see an SEO who does). However, why do you not think good content works? Most high page rank sites have got their PR through quality content. If an SEO is merely buying links from someone who has a successful site through good content, then it looks to me that the wrong person is in the marketing job – the person with the naturally successful site should be doing it.

“Lastly, if the first thing that springs to mind when thinking “black hat” is paid links…get out more and actually interact with someone in this area. Black hats aren’t just sitting there buying shit links. They’re doing things you’d probably only dream about.”

Please clarify what the difference in the ultimate purpose of both practises is, though? Both go completely against Google’s guidelines. One is crafty and one is simple, but they are both designed to get an unnatural position.

White Hat seems blurred now to mean “Things anyone can do”, whereas Black Hat is “Things people with coding skills can do”.

For all of you who are protesting about paid links always being black hat…I have a few questions.

1. Have you ever actually REALLY ranked a site in a hyper-competitive niche more than page 3 without using ANY “black hat” or semi-questionable tactics? I know it’s possible, but I fail to believe that it’s all that common unless you’ve been in control of the site and its SEO for the last decade.

2. Why do you assume that all paid links are shit?

3. How would you propose to compete in an industry where everyone else buys links? Just sit back and say “well not us, we’ll wait until our quality content (which is probably crap anyway) gets us to the top”?

Lastly, if the first thing that springs to mind when thinking “black hat” is paid links…get out more and actually interact with someone in this area. Black hats aren’t just sitting there buying shit links. They’re doing things you’d probably only dream about.

As for the blackhat vs whitehat question, I agree completely. Although I’ve never bought a link, I HAVE had my butt kicked by competitors that did. It’s really pretty tame stuff. I know some SEOs that buy the vast majority of their links, that have a lot of integrity and professionalism. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not blackhat, it’s just a bit more risky than I care to operate.

“Is any marketing truly natural?” Lordy, we could start a marathon discussion with THAT question!

I’d say the difference is that marketing is to positively raise a profile, whereas spam (for which I’d include paid links) is to trick people into clicking something second rate.

By “natural”, I meant designed for internet users to see, rather than just to spam search engines. Most paid links are not designed to advertise to the users of that website (which would require market research for the best target audiences) – they are merely there because a site has good page rank / relevance.

Personally, I’d say “white hat” SEO is making a site rank as well as it can for it’s quality – improving the code etc., but after that – if it is not just spam – it needs proper marketing work so it can gain natural links from real people. There is marketing skill in that. If you are just buying links, you are not doing marketing.

Indeed, Google say they will penalise paid links, hence I’d say it’s a black hat approach unless you warn a client of this risk. Why would you say it is different to more elaborate black hat methods, apart from being easier?