<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: </title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html</link>
	<description>The SEO Blog with attitude</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:10:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Apologies For Having Been An Asshole</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-17472</link>
		<dc:creator>Apologies For Having Been An Asshole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:24:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-17472</guid>
		<description>[...] outstanding material, and I&#8217;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 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] outstanding material, and I&#8217;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 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: swapna khade</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15989</link>
		<dc:creator>swapna khade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:49:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15989</guid>
		<description>Hi,
This is really good article to know about black hat.
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
This is really good article to know about black hat.<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SEO Specialist</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15968</link>
		<dc:creator>SEO Specialist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15968</guid>
		<description>Are you selling this tshirt? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you selling this tshirt? <img src='http://www.seo-chicks.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marty</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15923</link>
		<dc:creator>Marty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15923</guid>
		<description>@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 &quot;SEO&quot; options be THEIR universal search verticals(labor intensive)and AdWords.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@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 &#8220;SEO&#8221; options be THEIR universal search verticals(labor intensive)and AdWords.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Firetown</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15921</link>
		<dc:creator>Firetown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15921</guid>
		<description>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&amp;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&#039;s part are over.
This is the era of survival of the fittest. Sure, if you have an authority site then you don&#039;t need to do anything to get Google&#039;s blessings. But if you don&#039;t, you either stand on the sidelines or think outside of the SEO box to keep your business alive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=sportscars" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=sportscars</a> 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.<br />
The days of idealism on Google&#8217;s part are over.<br />
This is the era of survival of the fittest. Sure, if you have an authority site then you don&#8217;t need to do anything to get Google&#8217;s blessings. But if you don&#8217;t, you either stand on the sidelines or think outside of the SEO box to keep your business alive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evpstud</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15920</link>
		<dc:creator>evpstud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15920</guid>
		<description>I think the realms between black and white hat SEO are blending since Google is constantly trying to stop SEO&#039;s from getting the results they work for because that removes Google&#039;s &quot;control&quot;

I believe that eventually, there will only be &quot;black hat&quot; 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 &quot;white hat&quot; SEO and just good publishing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the realms between black and white hat SEO are blending since Google is constantly trying to stop SEO&#8217;s from getting the results they work for because that removes Google&#8217;s &#8220;control&#8221;</p>
<p>I believe that eventually, there will only be &#8220;black hat&#8221; 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 &#8220;white hat&#8221; SEO and just good publishing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Advance SEO Tips &#38; Techniques</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15868</link>
		<dc:creator>Advance SEO Tips &#38; Techniques</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15868</guid>
		<description>[...] SMX thinks Advanced SEO [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SMX thinks Advanced SEO [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Heil</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15827</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Heil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:21:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15827</guid>
		<description>Hi John, You are very right; I have about 400 comments waiting to be moderated on that blog. I&#039;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&#039;s easy for me. I don&#039;t call that cloaking at all. Cloaking is very specific and has to do with showing content that &quot;only&quot; 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&#039;t feel it&#039;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. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John, You are very right; I have about 400 comments waiting to be moderated on that blog. I&#8217;m going to take it off the site as I have no time for it whatsoever with the forums, etc.</p>
<p>Ok; I read your example wrong. But again John; that&#8217;s easy for me. I don&#8217;t call that cloaking at all. Cloaking is very specific and has to do with showing content that &#8220;only&#8221; 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&#8217;t feel it&#8217;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.</p>
<p>I hope that answered your questions sufficiently. <img src='http://www.seo-chicks.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave (Original)</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15803</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave (Original)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15803</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.<br />
==================================================</p>
<p>Where did I say it&#8217;s the amount that counts? In regards to &#8220;prioritize&#8221; they put they users 1st and foremost and that in turn gives them the right balance.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I would love the opportunity to &#8220;jump&#8221; on $ullivan and like Doug, I voice my negative opinions on Google frequently. But of course, you wouldn&#8217;t let facts stand in the way of good story <img src='http://www.seo-chicks.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave (Original)</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/553/shock-horror-%e2%80%93-blackhat-seo-discussed-at-smx-advanced.html/comment-page-2#comment-15794</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave (Original)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:19:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/?p=553#comment-15794</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: It keeps him on Google’s good side and makes his niche of clients feel warm and fuzzy.<br />
======================================================</p>
<p>It also keeps clients on page 1 for Google SERPs and they NEVER have to check their rankings or request those silly &#8220;reports&#8221; that most SEO supply to clients to justify their over-the-top fees.</p>
<p>This will come as a shock to most SEO &#8220;Pros&#8221; (cough) that, like Google, Doug puts his clients 1st.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
