It’s 6 o’clock in the morning, I got up especially early (whilst my daughter is still asleep) to write this post as I feel I can’t just let what I read yesterday rest and not comment.
As you may know SMX Advanced in Seattle was on last week, I didn’t go this year but attended last year. SMX Advanced is where funnily enough ADVANCED SEOs speak and attend to; learn more, broaden our horizon, share and network. Well at least that’s what I thought.
Yesterday I read this blogpost on Bruce Clay by Lisa Barone where she writes about “SMX Advanced going to the “dark” side.” The blogpost truly shocked me (and as Lisa Barone is prime blogger that might even been her intention) In fact it disturbed me to the point I even considered to put a no-follow on the link to the post, but decided to leave it, as rightly everyone should be able to voice their opinion, although I strongly disagree with Lisa’s comments and the way she went about this blogpost.
But even more so I am really disappointed and a little disturbed of Danny Sullivans comments in this blogpost. Yes of course he has his SMX brand to protect but don’t pooh on your own doorstep. At one point he literally singles out individuals:
“I’ll single out Jay Young. No, I don’t think it’s anything goes. I do think there are ethics in marketing and limits you don’t go past….” I don’t think it was needed to single out anyone really. I know Jay very well, and he is a first class SEO and respected in this industry. Jay simply stated the obvious saying that buying links can still improve your rankings. Because it does! Most SEOs STILL do buy links, he was simply saying don’t by 100,000 of them, over night and from a link farm. Be clever about it. Yes it can be argued that this is black hat’ish, BUT why is it blackhat? Because the Googlesaurus say so, that’s why. If the Google Algorithm didn’t put such a big emphasis on incoming links and other areas such as age of domain you wouldn’t call link buying black hat technique. Who says a new site is less relevant than an old site? The algorithm says so, that doesn’t mean that its actually true!!! That’s for the user to decide!! Hang on, I’m actually going somewhere with this….
I think the stamp “black hat seo” should be based on INTENT not necessarily technique. Still with me? Basically if you are doing SEO for a (new) site that is in a highly competitive market, it is NOT going to be possible to rank and gain traffic on a well constructed and content optimised site alone. That’s just a fact. Buying a few links and investing in a proper link building campaign is something you have to do to get into the really competitive market. Unless you are not planning on ranking before 2048!!! BUT that doesn’t mean the website in question isn’t relevant or useful to the user. And the end of the day, that’s what we are all working for right? Both SEOs (well most) and the engines, getting fantastic relevant and good quality websites ranked so that the user will be satisfied and find what they were looking for!!
Back to the point, so called “black hat seo” techniques are important for the development of your skills as an SEO. That doesn’t mean you have to use this knowledge and techniques, but KNOWING them WILL help you understand how the engines work, what you can and can’t do. We NEED these people to share, we should be grateful that they will share not condemn them and pick on them. I can with my hand on my heart say that I am a white hat SEO, BUT you know what, the ONE person I have learned the MOST from in this industry, is in fact a black hat, and a very skilled one as well. That doesn’t mean he is some dodgy marketer spamming the web with any random crappy website to rank his clients. A good black hat doesn’t do that 
Anyway, I’ll leave the black hats that attended SMX advanced a suggestion for a T-shirt to wear to the next event (so that people don’t mistake advice for orders!!)
Btw Lisa you won the Best looking Seo ..
Daven
@Doug Heil
First, let me start off by saying, AAHAHAHAAHAHAHHHAHAHHA!
Now, who’s hiding little man? Not I, that’s for sure. But, because you, Google and the rest of the brady bunch are after all those who wish to earn their paychecks by being creative, id rather remain under the radar, plus the fact that i’m short, fat and bald, very nerdy is also why i don’t want to add a url, i’d hate to get picked on by big ‘ol mean you…ha ha….ha.
What’s this doing for you? What are you achieving? While you’re ranting on and on sir, clearly proving no point but the one which states you, are full of bs, we’re making money, those you refer to as cheats, con artists, we’re working developing new ways to rank.
You’re naive because when you refer to me as a BH, you think spammer, cookie stuffer and god knows what else. That’s now what I practice sir, not what a lot of us practice. Stealing is not blackhat seo. period.
Those that claim to BH’s by stealing are not, and should not be given the pleasure of being called so.
You really do have something stuck that needs removing from down below sir, really now. Gayness is not the way to go.
RE: @ Doug. I would appreciate it if you could refrain from personal attacks in your comments please. It’s kind of vicious and aggressive, and totally not necessary. Thank you
=================================
But posting private emails is just fine? IMO, Doug should abuse Danny $ullivan in all the ways he just did and then sue his greedy blackhat arse.
Danny $ullivan has driven the entire SEO industry into the gutter for nothing more than his OWN PERSONAL fiscal gain and YOU get on Doug’s case. Amazing.
My posts are “vicious”? Oh my. I actually thought I was being extremely nice in this thread. I guess other people are nice for posting private email that is misleading? Oh, I know Lisa; you wouldn’t want those people mad at you. That’s OK. It’s easier to just bash Doug. Thanks. BTW: I suggest everyone put a disclaimer in each email saying it’s private when corresponding with anyone in the SEO industry. It’s sad when you assume others have ethics, but really don’t. A few blackhats over the years have emailed me and even called me wanting a truce of some kind. Do you think I have “ever” made anything public or posted names who did? Nope. It’s called ethics and integrity and personal respect.
Mike (firetown) above knows when I am actually vicious. At least he and many others know I take a stand and stick with it….since 1998 now. Much unlike many who claim to be whitehat, but are not, or who talk out of both sides of their mouth.
@Dave
“Danny $ullivan” Ahh I get it, like Micro$oft. Clever.
I guess you’re young and unaware of the history but Danny’s kinda instrumental in there *being* an SEO industry.
A lot of people are testing both sides to see what works for them. Sure, the best thing to do is have a business site and a brand and get that thing ranked thru it’s own quality. It does happen, but the fact remains that Google is not fixing the holes. If my neighbor has a 2 Million Dollar mansion that people keep breaking in and won’t spit out 9 bucks an hour for a full time rent a cop, why would I feel bad for him or even want to listen to him complain?
Congrats on winning SEO Chickbest looking seo, Lisa.
thanks SEOPune, it’s flattering, but I would rather have a title like “respected seo” or even “good seo, that knows her shit” rather than “best looking”. That doesn’t say anything about me really, looks will fade, knowledge will not (ehm unless I get Alzheimer’s, touch wood.)FFS I sound like Yoda…
But thanks anyway whoever voted, although I still think DaveN was drunk when calculating this…Pint in one hand and calculator in the other ;p
@firetown. Good analogy lol
Lisa, you are so my hero!!
[...] addition to that “SEO Chick” Lisa D. wrote a great post which a completely agree with, definitely wort reading. Also be sure to check the comments over [...]
RE: I guess you’re young and unaware of the history but Danny’s kinda instrumental in there *being* an SEO industry.
===============================================
I’m old and wise and very aware that $ullivan it “instrumental” in there being gutter “SEO industry” with low morals and ethics.
Looks like he has you fooled though even after posting PRIVATE email in a PUBLIC forum. About the only “instrumental” things $ullivan does is being a tool.
RE: A lot of people are testing both sides to see what works for them………………….
===============================================
Just like a lot of students cheat on their final exams. Or people cheat when playing cards etc.
RE: If my neighbor has a 2 Million Dollar mansion that people keep breaking in and won’t spit out 9 bucks an hour for a full time rent a cop, why would I feel bad for him or even want to listen to him complain?
=================================================
Bad analogy. Google spend millions perpetually in an ongoing effort to rid it SERPS of spam while still meeting it users (searchers) needs. It’s a continuing cat and mouse game.
The biggest problem with the whitehat-blackhat debate is that it is poorly defined.
Do whitehat activities and blackhat activities refer to the way a webmaster interacts with web users (visitors and other webmasters) or the way they interact with search engines and bots?
If we determine our ethics in regard to how we treat users, then we define whitehat and blackhat techniques based upon how they impact those individuals. Content generation, for example, can be part of an ethical strategy because it can improve the rankings of legitimate content that is most relevant and valuable to the user for a particular search phrase. For example, a website that sells cable television subscriptions in 1000 cities would be justified in generating unique content for each page because doing so would assist users in finding their local-relevant information. Link spamming, on the other hand, is unethical under this guideline, because it infringes on the property rights of other webmasters (also a web user). Link-buying, however, can be ethical if the links are relevant. This is also considered a consensual model of ethics.
This model also informs traditionally whitehat techniques. Your title and meta description ought to accurately describe the content so as to provide informed consent to individuals who are considering your site from the search engines results page.
However, most whitehat extremists like Doug wrongly believe that the ethical interaction in question is that relationship between webmaster and search engine. They hold that no technique should be employed that violates the ToS or guidelines of the search engines. This is very much akin to choosing your government over your neighbors. You have chosen to abide by a third-party’s set of rules and regulations regardless of whether they may force you to treat others unethically. In the same way that I may choose to jaywalk to push a child out of oncoming traffic, I may also choose to buy links to ensure my client’s FAQ on dangerous drug interactions ranks above an abstract on a similar topic from a medical journal that cannot be accessed without a username and password. Sure, I may be violating a Google-centered ethical model, but I am fulfilling a user-centered ethical model. I am using Google as a method to provide users with better information and, in reality, I am actually improving Google’s results.
I am not so naive as to believe that the majority of true blackhats ponder over such questions. However, I believe that the average whitehat SEO justifies his or her ethical existence along these lines. And I believe they are right in doing so.
The truth is, Doug, that the realm of ethics in marketing must consider all parties but, ultimately, must consider the consumer first.
Google is working very hard to push an ethical model upon webmasters that puts the Search Engines first, not Users, and many have fallen for it.
The case-in-point is No-Follow. This seemingly innocuous scheme allows webmasters to, by definition, cloak links on behalf of Google. Webmasters present untrustworthy links to their users with no warning, but show Google in the code via nofollow that the link cannot be trusted. Google doesn’t mind you showing untrustworthy content to your users, as long as you don’t impact their rankings. Google only cares about their users, not yours – and they will do everything within their power to see to it that you, as a webmaster, hold those same values.
Perhaps what is most frustrating about this debate is that it is being pushed most heavily by individuals who at least appear to be ill-equipped to carry on a logical, academic discussion. Instead, we get invective and accusation.
Hi Russ, That was a very nice post, however; you assume some things that are very much not true at all.
You are assuming that a whitehat does not think about the end user? The realty is that a true whitehat thinks about the end user of a search engine or any other visitor first… not last or never. It’s first. Let me repeat that; a true whitehat thinks about the end user of a search engine or any other visitor first. I’ve thought that way for over ten years and guess what?; if you do things in that way it just so happens it’s also very good for the search engines. You could debate this with me until the end of time, but won’t get anywhere with it. The above are the facts.
Again though; you made a nice post.
Thank you for your reply Doug. Hmmm, how do I explain this politely.
To begin, your statement that “the above are facts” is actually a common logical fallacy known as a “Hasty Generalization”. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
What you have done is taken an non-representative sample (your anecdotal experiences, your perception of what is right for the user, and your perception of what the search engines view is right) and jumped to the generalization that what is right for the user is right for the search engines.
What is puzzling is that I have already presented a situation above where this is simply not the case – where a user would find a complex, password-protected journal article for a keyword rather than a page that provides the same, if not better, information for free. For some reason you chose to ignore this counter-example and instead, simply restated your point. It is as if you said Roses are Red, and I showed you a yellow rose, and your response was, Roses are Red.
You use Google’s guidelines to dictate how you behave, without questioning whether those behaviors may negatively impact a user. I do agree with you that a “true whitehat thinks about the enduser of a search engine or any other visitor first”. You, however, do not. Google’s guidelines are not an acceptable substitute.
Do you use nofollow on your site? your clients’ sites? Do you show your users links that you would not entrust to Google? How is this not putting Google first?
Furthermore, your position that we could “debate till the end of time” indicates that not only do you believe these to be facts, but that they are immutable facts. This, in itself, indicates that your position is far more akin to a religious belief than a logical conclusion. For example, the search engines could change their policies and begin to inject paid listings directly into the otherwise organic results. Clearly, at that point, participating in such a program would be negative to the user but well within the search engine guidelines.
Doug, I truly hope that you will take the time to thoughtfully reconsider. You have a strong voice in the SEO community, and clearly a knack for marketing, but your positions are embarrassingly intellectually false. And worse, they are keeping you from becoming a more effective SEO.
@russ You will never change Doug’s tune. Over the top anti-blackhat raving has it has been his shtick for serveral years now and he gets tons of attention and business because of his blackhat bashing.
It is genius when you thing about it…
It keeps him on Google’s good side and makes his niche of clients feel warm and fuzzy.
Hi Russ, you wrote:
“What is puzzling is that I have already presented a situation above where this is simply not the case – where a user would find a complex, password-protected journal article for a keyword rather than a page that provides the same, if not better, information for free. For some reason you chose to ignore this counter-example and instead, simply restated your point.”
Ok fine; allow me to directly answer this then. First off; it’s a not so knowledgeable designer who would do it this way. Wouldn’t it be much more user-friendly to show at least one juicy paragraph of that article that is NOT password protected? Sort of like a teaser thang? It sure would be. In fact; not only would it be more user friendly, but it would also be more search engine friendly as well. That’s what I mean by putting your users first. I do this all day long and have done so for a long time. Why would you want an article totally hidden by a login screen anyway? Even if it’s a paid article, etc, why not show some content that is open and public to everyone and everything? You can a bad example there Russ, but I do know where you are coming from.
My point is that you can do most anything you can think of by putting the user first… and it’s just fine and dandy for that se as well.
Second; Maybe you do not read what I write too often, but I’ve said multiple times that I do not read the G guidelines as as really see no need to do so. In fact; google just put up some new stuff they say is more clear. I thought their guidelines 5 years ago were clear enough. I have no need to read them now either.
BTW; you wrote this:
“Do you use nofollow on your site? your clients’ sites? Do you show your users links that you would not entrust to Google?”
My answers:
No. No. No. I have no reason to stick up a link on a client site that the client did not trust. But yeah, members might sneak a forum post with a live link on it, but we usually find them and delete them. Besides; se’s pretty much ignore forum comment links.
I really have no desire to stick up links I don’t trust or my visitors wouldn’t think we great resources. After all; doesn’t putting your visitors first mean that you post links for your visitors as well? Yep.
Again Russ; you can debate this with me all you wish, but you won’t sway my thinking on this issue. People have tried to change me since day one with no success.
Unlike many in this industry, I don’t sway with the current public opinion polls of what this SEO wrote or that one promotes. I don’t back down from my stances on anything. I won’t tell one audience one thing and turn around to tell the other something else.
Hi John, you wrote:
“it keeps him on Google’s good side and makes his niche of clients feel warm and fuzzy”
Yes, I’ve found that most people/site owners don’t like unethical/blackhat helping their sites… so you are correct about that. I don’t about the Google thing though, as I know Google has many best friends who are blackhats and who have their ear almost daily. Also, I’m one of the very few who bashes Google all the time for allowing blackhats to continue advertising through adwords, and taking money through adsense, even though the same blackhats had sites banned by Google. I don’t feel it’s right at all. I also don’t feel that Google is tough enough on penalties or bans. So on Google’s good side? If they have one I wouldn’t be the first or second or tenth SEO on that good side, if at all.
I am not sure why you responded as you did. My example was that the top ranking page was to the abstract of a journal article that is password protected. IE: the user can see the description once they click through, but get no value from visiting the page. Your site, on the other hand, offers the complete content for free, but is outranked – perhaps because the journal article abstract is hosted on a .edu. Buying links to promote your content over theirs actually improves the user’s experience by seeing to it the more complete, relevant information is ranked at the top of the results.
The pro-user ethical response is to rank above the poor content that is currently #1 using any available technique that does not harm other users or webmasters.
The pro-search-engine ethical response is to restrict yourself to techniques that may not accomplish the goal.
This understanding of consensual ethics requires that you adjust your terminology of what is blackhat and what is whitehat.
And, actually, you do use nofollow. It is used on your blog to manage links coming from users who post comments. http://www.ihelpyou.com/blog/?p=11 . It appears you don’t really take much time to update your blog, which was last updated 10 months ago.
You are, Doug, a true conservative though. I am impressed that, even if faced with an obvious truth, you would not back down from your false position. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, but I think you have made it clear to us, the community, and your clients – that once you have made up your mind (which apparently you did 5 years ago), you won’t “back down”. I hope you didn’t decide what browser was best back then – I would hate for you to still be using IE.
RE: If my neighbor has a 2 Million Dollar mansion that people keep breaking in and won’t spit out 9 bucks an hour for a full time rent a cop, why would I feel bad for him or even want to listen to him complain?
=================================================
Bad analogy. Google spend millions perpetually in an ongoing effort to rid it SERPS of spam while still meeting it users (searchers) needs. It’s a continuing cat and mouse game.
It’s not the amount you spend, it’s about what you spend it on and most of all how you prioritize. Funny who quick people are to jump on Danny but would never dare pointing out where Google is lacking something.
To clarify my last comment:
1st part is What I posted, second part Mr. Naylor and 3rd my response to that!
Lisa, it doesn’t matter what you initially get known for, as time goes by you’ll be known for what you are, whatever that may be
SE0=Myth
Do some “SEO profesional” REALLY think Google gives more long term weight to pages optimized for Search Engines over pages optimized for humans?
Common sense tells me that Google ranks pages optimized for humans and EARN one-way links based on merit of content, WELL above those optimized for a Search Engine.
You see, what Doug and a select few others KNOW is, Humans use Google to search and **Google put’s it users 1st and foremost**. Take a leaf from Google’s book and you too can stop playing guessing/cat & mouse games with Search Engines.
Think long term and optimize your pages for humans and nothing more is required.
RE: It keeps him on Google’s good side and makes his niche of clients feel warm and fuzzy.
======================================================
It also keeps clients on page 1 for Google SERPs and they NEVER have to check their rankings or request those silly “reports” that most SEO supply to clients to justify their over-the-top fees.
This will come as a shock to most SEO “Pros” (cough) that, like Google, Doug puts his clients 1st.
RE: It’s not the amount you spend, it’s about what you spend it on and most of all how you prioritize. Funny who quick people are to jump on Danny but would never dare pointing out where Google is lacking something.
==================================================
Where did I say it’s the amount that counts? In regards to “prioritize” they put they users 1st and foremost and that in turn gives them the right balance.
The facts are, Google has a balance to find and shareholders and users (searchers) to answer to. Their history and the fact they ARE still the most popular SE on the Planet, proves beyond doubt, they have got the mix pretty well down-pat.
I would love the opportunity to “jump” on $ullivan and like Doug, I voice my negative opinions on Google frequently. But of course, you wouldn’t let facts stand in the way of good story
Hi John, You are very right; I have about 400 comments waiting to be moderated on that blog. I’m going to take it off the site as I have no time for it whatsoever with the forums, etc.
Ok; I read your example wrong. But again John; that’s easy for me. I don’t call that cloaking at all. Cloaking is very specific and has to do with showing content that “only” a spider sees. What you describe is showing password protected content that BOTH a spider sees and a user who is already logged in will see. Not cloaking. I could do the same darn thing for the paid/private part of my forums and not blink an eye. However; I don’t feel it’s right for a search engine to show a listing in the SERPS like that without a disclaimer saying you must pay to see the content or already be a member.
I hope that answered your questions sufficiently.
[...] SMX thinks Advanced SEO [...]
I think the realms between black and white hat SEO are blending since Google is constantly trying to stop SEO’s from getting the results they work for because that removes Google’s “control”
I believe that eventually, there will only be “black hat” SEO because Google will outlaw just about anything webmasters can do to optimize their sites beyond writing attractive content. Then there will be no more “white hat” SEO and just good publishing.
From what I see, attractive content is no longer enough. It helps, but the first few pages of the SERPs for just about any keyterm are so full of sites spending high figures on linkbuilding and SEO, the good content sites can no longer compete. Web promoters are choosing different avenues to generate revenue and targeted traffic. Remember when the numeber 1 result for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sportscars was a totally non commercial hobby site with great content? Those days will never come back. More and more clients are asking me now to focus on Social Network promotions as well as Pay per click. Many blackhats are finding keyterms easy to get yet generating much more traffic in combination and quantity of terms than a tough keyword would get.
The days of idealism on Google’s part are over.
This is the era of survival of the fittest. Sure, if you have an authority site then you don’t need to do anything to get Google’s blessings. But if you don’t, you either stand on the sidelines or think outside of the SEO box to keep your business alive.
@evpstud: Yes, Google would prefer that we be SEO secretaries and limited crawlability technicians. They intend that the linking universe be anarchy and the only predictable “SEO” options be THEIR universal search verticals(labor intensive)and AdWords.
Are you selling this tshirt?
Hi,
This is really good article to know about black hat.
Thanks
[...] outstanding material, and I’m sorry my poor response to the criticism may have made them feel abandoned, upset or that I was embarrassed to have them take part. It was a terrible thing to say [...]