Black Hat SEO

[Will Spencer]

I wrote this up for the FAQ.

Constructive criticism anyone?



What is black hat SEO?
----------------------
Within the SEO comunity, some optimization tactics are considered Black
Hat SEO. These are tactics which are not considered to be good or fair by
search engine operators, search engine optimizers, or web site visitors.

There is no generally accepted definition for black hat SEO. What may be
considered appropriate by one webmaster may not be considered approriate
by another webmaster. In addition to personal differences, guidelines for
appropriate conduct vary across web site categories. What might be
considered acceptable for a web site in the gambling industry may not be
equally acceptable for a health care web site.

Here are several guidelines for determining if a technique should be
considered Black Hat SEO.

Search Engine Operator Policies

Many search engine operators, such as Google, MSN, and Yahoo, publish
policies and guidelines which document what they feel are appropriate and
inappropriate SEO techniques.

One school of thought believes that if you stay within these guidelines,
you are not practicing black hat SEO.

One difficulty with this model is that the search engine operator
guidelines tend to be extremely vague and non-technical. Another
difficulty is that the guidelines differ between search engines. For
example, Google prefers 301 redirects, while Yahoo prefers doorway pages
which inform the user of the new URL.

The Property Rights Approach

The property rights approach to the question of black hat SEO believes
that anything you do with your own property is acceptable, but that you
should leave other peoples property alone.

By this standard, most on-page SEO techniques are acceptable, but off-page
SEO techniques like guestbook spamming should be considered black hat SEO.

This is probably the most reasonable and fair guideline for determining
acceptable SEO practices, but it does have some limitations. It does not,
for example, address keyword spamming or cloaking.

The Visitor Value Approach

This school of thought believes that SEO techniques which do not add value
to the visitors experience belong to the school of black hat SEO.

This approach labels on-page techniques such as hidden text, micro-text,
and ALT text spamming as black hat SEO.

The visitor value approach has benefits not only in defining black hat
SEO, but also in promoting general practices for good web site design.
Black hat SEO practices which violate this guideline may result in a boost
to your SERPs, but they will not lead to return visitors or natural
incoming links.

The Unnatural Rankings Approach

This school of thought believes that anything which causes a web page to
rank unnaturally highly for it's keywords is black hat SEO.

Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition for "unnaturally
highly"!

If followed to it's logical conclusion, this school of though considers
all SEO to be black hat SEO.

Under this approach, even the use of proper heading tags (H1, H2, H3) can
be considered black hat SEO.

[Neal]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:44:11 GMT, Will Spencer

Post by Will Spencer
I wrote this up for the FAQ.
Constructive criticism anyone?
What is black hat SEO?
----------------------
Within the SEO comunity, some optimization tactics are considered Black
Hat SEO. These are tactics which are not considered to be good or fair by
search engine operators, search engine optimizers, or web site visitors.
There is no generally accepted definition for black hat SEO. What may be
considered appropriate by one webmaster may not be considered approriate
by another webmaster. In addition to personal differences, guidelines for
appropriate conduct vary across web site categories. What might be
considered acceptable for a web site in the gambling industry may not be
equally acceptable for a health care web site.
Here are several guidelines for determining if a technique should be
considered Black Hat SEO.
Search Engine Operator Policies
Many search engine operators, such as Google, MSN, and Yahoo, publish
policies and guidelines which document what they feel are appropriate and
inappropriate SEO techniques.
One school of thought believes that if you stay within these guidelines,
you are not practicing black hat SEO.
One difficulty with this model is that the search engine operator
guidelines tend to be extremely vague and non-technical. Another
difficulty is that the guidelines differ between search engines. For
example, Google prefers 301 redirects, while Yahoo prefers doorway pages
which inform the user of the new URL.
The Property Rights Approach
The property rights approach to the question of black hat SEO believes
that anything you do with your own property is acceptable, but that you
should leave other peoples property alone.
By this standard, most on-page SEO techniques are acceptable, but off-page
SEO techniques like guestbook spamming should be considered black hat SEO.
This is probably the most reasonable and fair guideline for determining
acceptable SEO practices, but it does have some limitations. It does not,
for example, address keyword spamming or cloaking.
The Visitor Value Approach
This school of thought believes that SEO techniques which do not add value
to the visitors experience belong to the school of black hat SEO.
This approach labels on-page techniques such as hidden text, micro-text,
and ALT text spamming as black hat SEO.
The visitor value approach has benefits not only in defining black hat
SEO, but also in promoting general practices for good web site design.
Black hat SEO practices which violate this guideline may result in a boost
to your SERPs, but they will not lead to return visitors or natural
incoming links.
The Unnatural Rankings Approach
This school of thought believes that anything which causes a web page to
rank unnaturally highly for it's keywords is black hat SEO.
Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition for "unnaturally
highly"!
If followed to it's logical conclusion, this school of though considers
all SEO to be black hat SEO.
Under this approach, even the use of proper heading tags (H1, H2, H3) can
be considered black hat SEO.

It's OK to do things in SEO if in doing so the benefit also goes to the
user. Choosing the enhancements for your user's experience based in part
on what's good for SEO is no more deceptive and wrong than showering and
wearing a nice tie to a job interview.

The real question for whether a SEO tactic is right or wrong, though, is
whether it will backfire. Either it results in search engines dropping
you, or it interferes with the visitor's use of the site, or in some way
degrades the ability of the website to do its job, which is to communicate
information from one human to another, as well as possible.

[David Off]

Post by Neal
It's OK to do things in SEO if in doing so the benefit also goes to the
user.

A good point. If you have a web page or site which perfectly describes
its subject area (you may even be considered an expert in this field)
then it enhances the user experience to find your site. Given that there
are so many dud sites, for example these strange generated search
results or reviews, out there then using some some tactics to get around
the SE's defective algorithms is reasonable, IMHO.

David

[unknown]

Post by Will Spencer
Constructive criticism anyone?
This is probably the most reasonable and fair guideline for determining
acceptable SEO practices,

I would drop this and all other editorializing, and would merely
describe each point of view (and arguments for/against) without
saying which one you like better.

Post by Will Spencer
If followed to it's logical conclusion, this school of though considers
all SEO to be black hat SEO.

You didn't take the other points of views to "logical conclusions"
(reductio ad absurdium argument, actually), so why do so in this case?

You could keep the criticisms but put them in the voice of "critics of
this viewpoint" rather than in your own voice.

[catherine yronwode]

Post by Will Spencer
I wrote this up for the FAQ.
Constructive criticism anyone?
rank unnaturally highly for it's keywords is black hat SEO.

Should be < its keywords >

Post by Will Spencer
If followed to it's logical conclusion

Should be < its logical conclusion >

"It's" is a contraction of "it is" -- it's not the possessive form of
"it."

cat yronwode

[PeterMcC]

catherine yronwode wrote in

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Will Spencer
I wrote this up for the FAQ.
Constructive criticism anyone?
rank unnaturally highly for it's keywords is black hat SEO.

Should be < its keywords >

Post by Will Spencer
If followed to it's logical conclusion

Should be < its logical conclusion >
"It's" is a contraction of "it is" -- it's not the possessive form of
"it."

And, for the real obsessives:

alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe

[David Off]

Post by catherine yronwode
Should be < its logical conclusion >
"It's" is a contraction of "it is" -- it's not the possessive form of
"it."

He's probably just trying to attract all those people who type it's into
search engines instead of its :-)

[Sam]

Who gives a rat's ass what people in 'the seo community' think. SEO is
all about winning and nothing else. SEO is not about being ethical.
There are winners and losers and the losers sit around all day thinking
about how unethical the winners are because they don't know how to win
themselves. You want to be ethical in life then don't bother with seo or
anything else that makes money for that matter. Money itself and the
whole concept is unethical. Do I sound cynical to you? Well maybe I am.
I didn't make the world I barely live in it.

[Isofarro]

Post by Sam
Who gives a rat's ass what people in 'the seo community' think. SEO is
all about winning and nothing else.

Winning what?

[PeterMcC]

Isofarro wrote in

Post by Isofarro

Post by Sam
Who gives a rat's ass what people in 'the seo community' think. SEO
is all about winning and nothing else.

Winning what?

Winning the prize of eliciting your first a.i.s-e post of 2004!

Hello there.

[Isofarro]

Post by PeterMcC
Isofarro wrote in

Post by Isofarro

Post by Sam
Who gives a rat's ass what people in 'the seo community' think. SEO
is all about winning and nothing else.

Winning what?

Winning the prize of eliciting your first a.i.s-e post of 2004!

Not much of a reward for such an effort.

Post by PeterMcC
Hello there.

Greetings!

[David Off]

Post by Isofarro

Post by Sam
Who gives a rat's ass what people in 'the seo community' think. SEO is
all about winning and nothing else.

Winning what?

Life is a game, whoever has the most money at the end wins - Danny Devito.

[RFI Admin]

At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!

Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point. I can see some logic in balancing the
risk of getting banned against the relative gain in SERPs when
considering dirty tricks, but it still is not a question of morals or
ethics. That then is more a question of if a throw-away domain should
be created.

I have participated in threads in this NG where new (and perhaps
dirty) ideas have been suggested, and many participants laughed out
their sleeves at the ideas, and even claimed to be above using such
techniques.

OK, some may claim to be above using those techniques, maybe also
claiming that their ethical techniques get just as good results as the
dirty tricks. Maybe or maybe not, but would they be comfortable saying
to a client, "Sorry your sales have dropped-off to the point where you
can't stay in blusness, but I'm above using the highly effective
techniques your competitors use." Would you say that to a client? I
think not!

What is an 'ethical' technique anyway? I suppose it is a known
technique that has not caused a page to be banned by a SE in the past.
Who is to say that technique won't cause a page to be banned, or drop
completely off the radar, in the future? You can't say that for sure,
because you have seen that kind of thing happen in the past and no
one, not even people employed by the SEs, know what the future holds.

[Isofarro]

Post by RFI Admin
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point.

Only point? How does good content fit into all of this (if at all)?

[Sam]

Post by Isofarro

Post by RFI Admin
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point.

Only point? How does good content fit into all of this (if at all)?

It fits in if yo're yahoo, aol, google, microsoft, ect ect and I could
go on and on listing the famous websites on the net. Those sites never
have to trade links, post links or do anything to SEO their sites
because they are so well know and so large. But the average website no
matter how great their content is is not going to get much of a SEO
boost from their content. You may have a really great site about
something and there may even be a lot of people that like it a lot but
chances are not enough of them will stick a link to your site on their
site without asking for one in return to their site back. At least not
enough to make enough of a difference to boost your site much in its
serp. If you wait around for that to happen you'll be dead first of old
age.

[Isofarro]

Post by Sam

Post by Isofarro

Post by RFI Admin
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point.

Only point? How does good content fit into all of this (if at all)?

It fits in if yo're yahoo, aol, google, microsoft, ect ect and I could
go on and on listing the famous websites on the net. Those sites never
have to trade links, post links or do anything to SEO their sites
because they are so well know and so large.

Recognition is a function of credibility, not size. Good content is linked
to by interested readers, regardless of the company backing. The
ultramarine nigritude competition demonstrated that quite succinctly.

Post by Sam
But the average website no
matter how great their content is is not going to get much of a SEO
boost from their content.

An SEO boost is merely a means to an end, not the end itself - the actual
end is connecting with the visitor. And that end I see happen almost every
single day. Good content gets talked about, mentioned, analysed, referred,
improved, critiqued.

Post by Sam
You may have a really great site about
something and there may even be a lot of people that like it a lot but
chances are not enough of them will stick a link to your site on their
site without asking for one in return to their site back.

Sounds like the content isn't up to scratch! Content needs to be good enough
to be the reason to link to it.

Do you not bookmark websites in your browser?

Post by Sam
At least not
enough to make enough of a difference to boost your site much in its
serp.

You make it sound like the search engine placement is the objective, rather
than the means to an objective. That's puzzling.

[catherine yronwode]

Post by Isofarro

Post by RFI Admin
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point.

Only point? How does good content fit into all of this (if at all)?

Content is what the surfing public wants, and therefore content is
what google wants to serve to the surfing public.

Trying to "win" rankings without supplying content may bring in short
term results, but in the end, it merely activates more programmers at
google to come up with more work-arounds that will nullify what the
short-cut designers did. That's why last year's serps-shortcuts don't
work this year, and this year's won't work next year.

Google will always be trying to serve content, long after individual
spamming techniques, tricks, and short-cuts are nullified by google's
refining of the google algo.

The only long-range success -- the only success that will not need to
be rewritten every time google's programmers tweak the google algo to
dump off another parasitic crew of seo cheaters and spammers -- lies
in giving google exactly what it wants to serve to the public:
content.

Serving content is the goal at google. Everything the folks at google
find useful today -- from parsing domain-names-with-hyphens to giving
points for inbound links from legitimate natural sites at other IP
addresses than your own -- is just fodder for the ever-shifting algo
that the programmers at google use in ranking content. When and if
those portions of the algo stop being useful in helping google serve
content, they too will fade away, just like meta tags did.

The only rock, the only secure center of success, is content. Period.
End of story.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Hoodoo in Theory and Practice - http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html

[Neal]

Post by RFI Admin
At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point.

It may be the only goal of SEO, but what if it rons afoul of the goal of
web design, which is to communicate information? If your SEO technique
gets you listed but makes the site less usable by the visitors who now can
find you, has any good been done?

I'd like to see clients stop wanting SEO so much and focus more on UO -
user optimization. While getting lots of hits from Googlers is great, it
won't benefit you unless you make the sale.

[www.seo-highrankings.com]

Post by Neal

Post by RFI Admin
At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point.

It may be the only goal of SEO, but what if it rons afoul of the goal of
web design, which is to communicate information? If your SEO technique
gets you listed but makes the site less usable by the visitors who now can
find you, has any good been done?
I'd like to see clients stop wanting SEO so much and focus more on UO -
user optimization. While getting lots of hits from Googlers is great, it
won't benefit you unless you make the sale.

Only the inexperienced separate the two in th eprofessional realm. But you
are right, many don't pay enough attention to UI.

It is relatively easy to do good SEO AND UI at the same time, provided you
have control over both....sometimes the clients have two different shops do
the jobs and that can complicate matters.

[PeterMcC]

www.seo-highrankings.com wrote in

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
It is relatively easy to do good SEO AND UI at the same time,
provided you have control over both....sometimes the clients have two
different shops do the jobs and that can complicate matters.

I whole-heartedly agree, to the extent that we won't take on clients purely
for SEO anymore because of the difficulties that too often arise.

[David Off]

Post by Neal
If your SEO technique
gets you listed but makes the site less usable by the visitors who now
can find you, has any good been done?

Well it is a balance is it not? There is no point creating a site that
no-one can find but if your SEO causes the site to be hard to navigate
you will see more traffic from SE but less internal traffic... the site
will be less sticky.

[Neal]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:54:13 +0200, David Off

Post by David Off

If your SEO technique gets you listed but makes the site less usable by
the visitors who now can find you, has any good been done?

Well it is a balance is it not? There is no point creating a site that
no-one can find but if your SEO causes the site to be hard to navigate
you will see more traffic from SE but less internal traffic... the site
will be less sticky.

If you HAD to choose between pleasing a search engine and pleasing a user,
which would you choose? The user is number one, clearly. So, any SEO
approach that diminishes usability should be discarded.

Look at it this way. Why do we SEO anyway? Answer: to let people discover
the document we want them to find. Stress on "people". Being spidered
isn't the end-all. Getting a high SERP isn't enough. The person still has
to go to the site to seal the deal. And ostensibly we want them at the
site to do some commerce or join some list or something active, so loading
the page still isn't the goal.

SEO is far too often seen as a goal in itself, which it is not. It is a
means toward the end of making your content more accessible and usable for
the public. THAT should be the focus of each webpage, and SEO is one small
part of it. Therefore, SEO which interferes with the user experience
negatively is worthless.

[Isofarro]

Post by Neal
If you HAD to choose between pleasing a search engine and pleasing a user,
which would you choose? The user is number one, clearly. So, any SEO
approach that diminishes usability should be discarded.

Quite.

Post by Neal
Look at it this way. Why do we SEO anyway? Answer: to let people discover
the document we want them to find.

I get the feeling a significant percentage of SEO work is done to get people
into a page littered with adverts - in an effort to generate money. Any
truth in that?

Post by Neal
SEO is far too often seen as a goal in itself, which it is not. It is a
means toward the end of making your content more accessible and usable for
the public.

Actually, it is the other way around. Accessible websites, and accessible
content is better food for search engines, even though its designed with
people with disabilities in mind. In effect, Google is the most well-known
blind surfer on the web - and he has lots of friends. The performance boost
in search engines is a side-effect of accessible content.

Post by Neal
THAT should be the focus of each webpage, and SEO is one small
part of it. Therefore, SEO which interferes with the user experience
negatively is worthless.

Well said.

[www.seo-highrankings.com]

Post by RFI Admin
At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!

<SNIP>

Areed, but this debate opens a whole can of worms. BTW, there is nothing
wrong with agreeing with Sam when he is right :-)

The #1 goal in professional SEO is to bring your client greater profits.
The more profitable you make them, the more they share with you...period.

When it comes to "ethical" SEO, you really need to think about WHO says what
is ethical. The Search Engines don't want you messing with their algos so
they will lay out some rules...their opinions, not necessarily ethical or
not...just their opinions.

For instance, on our site, www.seo-highrankings.com, we hit the Google
server (and many others) to gather SERPS. We use the Google API and other
engines' software to access their servers, per their "rules". We do this to
stay out of trouble, but I would have no problem hitting their servers on my
own either....they are part of the public domain when they offer their
search services, no matter what they "want" you to believe.

The same thing with SEO. We will do whatever it takes to get our customers
good rankings...as long as the risk of being banned does not outweigh the
potential for success. In 7 years, we have never had to cloak or do doorway
pages or any really sneaky moves in part because we spend a lot of time
trying new things and communicating in this NG and other forums.

"Ethical" SEO is in the eyes of the beholder. The less you tread in that
area, the better you sleep at night with regard to being banned...but if you
are a business person you can build other sites and get them ranked well
pretty quick and circumvent the whole thing anyway.

I have to move towards the slant Sam appears to have in that SEO is really
about winning...and what they means to your client or your own site. Is
ethical what someone asks of you or is it more attuned to your own moral
guidepost? For instance, if someone asked you to change your keyword
density to suite a particular phrase, would you not do it because they asked
you not to or because it is intrinsically "bad" to optimize?

NO SEARCH ENGINE WANTS YOU TO OPTIMIZE FOR IT...that is a fundamental fact.
They want you to build whatever you are going to build and THEY will decide
what is good and what is not.

:-)

[David Off]

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
NO SEARCH ENGINE WANTS YOU TO OPTIMIZE FOR IT...that is a fundamental fact.

Lets turn this on its head a bit. Lets assume that a SE designers have
implemented a set of algorithms that represent what an ideal page should
look like in terms of user experience. Optimum linking, headers, keyword
density.

Designing a page to fit that view is surely a good thing for the user.
As a recent case in point is anchor text. If Google's preference of
relevant anchor text encourages web page designers to get rid of those
dreadful 'click here' hyperlinks (how many years have I been telling
clients not to?) then it has been a benefit all round.

[www.seo-highrankings.com]

Post by David Off

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
NO SEARCH ENGINE WANTS YOU TO OPTIMIZE FOR IT...that is a fundamental fact.

Lets turn this on its head a bit. Lets assume that a SE designers have
implemented a set of algorithms that represent what an ideal page should
look like in terms of user experience. Optimum linking, headers, keyword
density.
Designing a page to fit that view is surely a good thing for the user.
As a recent case in point is anchor text. If Google's preference of
relevant anchor text encourages web page designers to get rid of those
dreadful 'click here' hyperlinks (how many years have I been telling
clients not to?) then it has been a benefit all round.

Absolutely....the thing is the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally".

The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

[RFI Admin]

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
Absolutely....the thing is the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally".
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

Is that really the SEO's problem? The SEO's job is to get high rankings for
himself or his client, not to help keep the SE's algos effective.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004

[Isofarro]

Post by RFI Admin

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
Absolutely....the thing is the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally".
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

Is that really the SEO's problem?

Probably not, but also, it isn't Google's problem when an SEO optimised site
disappears from its index.

Typically it is the visitor who suffers in the end.

Taken to the extreme, when SEOers managed to play the system to the extent
that all top entries are basically SEO-sharpened shams of a website, will
they then take responsibility for making the web unusable? Its a tragedy of
the commons. SEOers make tiny short term gains, but everyone eventually
loses.

Shouldn't an SEOer not defeat the system that feeds him - where do you want
to draw the line?

[seo-highrankings.com]

Post by Isofarro

Post by RFI Admin

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
Absolutely....the thing is the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally".
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

Is that really the SEO's problem?

Probably not, but also, it isn't Google's problem when an SEO optimised site
disappears from its index.
Typically it is the visitor who suffers in the end.
Taken to the extreme, when SEOers managed to play the system to the extent
that all top entries are basically SEO-sharpened shams of a website, will
they then take responsibility for making the web unusable? Its a tragedy of
the commons. SEOers make tiny short term gains, but everyone eventually
loses.
Shouldn't an SEOer not defeat the system that feeds him - where do you want
to draw the line?
--
Isofarro.
FAQ: http://www.html-faq.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
isolani: http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/

Carol wraps this up nicely but I did want to interject something that is
missing from this thread.

Good SEO does not result in "junk" sites ranking at the top. It results in
profitable sites ranking at the top.

The basic assumption in this thread appears to be that SEO results in junk
sites rising,....nothing could be further from the truth. Good SEO ensures
that good sites get their just desserts.

1.) Many people feel their site is "the best" when at most, they are
delusional. MOST sites should not be in the search engines at all! Google
et al is doing them a huge favor by allowing them in.

2.) Any web designer who builds a site and does not take into consideration
SEO is not worth paying....period. You could get away with it a few years
ago but today, this is head-in-the-sand mentality. I know this is harsh,
but we make a killing picking up where these experts leave off...pure
observation.

3.) SEO, when done right, will result in the best site being ranked first,
second one second, etc. (Yes, I recognize there are shady characters out
there but they are there for everything, not just SEO).

4.) It is very difficult to get a site to #1 in ALL engines without good SEO
AND good, linkable content. Very few have done it.

5.) One must take a good HONEST look at whether their product is really of
value to anyone B4 passing stones (ok, throwing stones). Most sites that
people want to rank well are not very good from a commercial perspective.
While I can appreciate sites that exist for their intrinsic value (these
rise by themselves in their categories), most sites that rank well do so for
a purpose $$.

The signal to noise ratio on the web now is probably about 10% / 90% meaning
about 90% of sites out right now are not well designed for humans and
certainly not well SEO'd.

That is the game, how it is played and the rules are not apt to change
anytime soon. We often tell clients that unless you can see an increase of
around $1000 per month in long-term SEO efforts, you are probably wasting
your time and money (unless you have an easy SERP).

The questions we need to be asking are not whether SEO techniques will
degrade the search results (although paid search ALWAYS Does...it is an
unfortunate joke that not enough people get!) but how do we do the best job
we can, to communicate our message to others?

[www.seo-highrankings.com]

Post by RFI Admin

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
Absolutely....the thing is the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally".
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

Is that really the SEO's problem? The SEO's job is to get high rankings for
himself or his client, not to help keep the SE's algos effective.

That was my point exactly.

It becomes a "silly cycle" where SE programmers try hard to stay one step
ahead of us while trying to deliver what they feel are "relevant" results.

Most fail. Google has failed at the moment.

[Neal]

Post by RFI Admin
The SEO's job is to get high rankings for
himself or his client, not to help keep the SE's algos effective.

As a separate and dedicated contractor to the site, I fully agree. To
whatever extent your suggestions are turned down by the client.

However, if you were part of a website team, or if you were hired by a
client who has more than just a clue about the WWW, you'll find that you
won't get away with what are being called black-hat tactics. You can
suggest it, and I think it's important that you do. But 99% of the time
those techniques which do not benefit the user as well as the SE (or at
least benefit both equally) will be rejected.

Now, if many websites went to more user- AND SE-friendly sites, it would
change the way the search engines worked, hmm? They'd be more likely to
recognize "black-hat tactics" on pages and not list them. I really do
believe that is the direction in which the WWW is moving.

Wouldn't you want your client's sites ahead of the curve? As a client, I
would. It simply makes good business sense to be sure all SEO you do is
not in any way detrimental to the user.

[Isofarro]

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
Absolutely....the thing is the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally".
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

A less effective algorithm would be one that reduces that quality of links
returns to a visitor on a particular search term. If building a page
according to an SEO specification results in reduces effectiveness, isn't
that then indicative that SEO techniques reduce the quality of the content?

I see the importance of Google changing its algorithm once it is known - its
psychohistory all over again - that points to another conclusion - isn't
SEO a self-defeating methodology? Or is there a deeper / or shallower
purpose?

[catherine yronwode]

Post by Isofarro

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
the SE's don't want you to build to that spec,
they want it to occur "naturally". The more SEO's
out there building to a known spec, the less
effective the algo really becomes.

I see the importance of Google changing its algorithm once it is known
[...] that points to another conclusionz: isn't SEO a self-defeating
methodology? Or is there a deeper / or shallower purpose?

The problem is that the algo, especially when viewed as a series of
changing "specs," is only the effect, not the cause.

In google's case, the cause of these changing specs or algo effects is
a long-term campaign for google's *own* economic survival.

It is obvious from a quick survey of statements by google's directors
that they believe google will remain economically viable as long as
google is the most *popular* search engine and is *profitable*, and
that they believe this (popularity + profitability) will result by
serving google's users pages filled with content relevant to their
search terms on a very quick-loading page with ads on the side, not
front and center.

So, as google sees it:

(serving relevant content) + (quick loading results) = satisfied users
= short term popularity of google

and

(satisfied users = short term popularity of google) + (making money
off of ads while not disrupting (relevant content + quick loading)) =
long term economic survival of google.

Anything that any SEO person does to interfere with google's
accomplishment of its own mission of long-term economic survival is
going to result in economic retaliation. In particular, messing with
the "satisfied users" and "relevant content" portions of google's own
formula for economic survival will be viewed as a hostile act worthy
of economic retaliation.

Google is a company just like our own companies, only bigger. If you
work in harmony with its underlying economic mission by becoming a de
facto partner in the "serving relevant content" and "satisfied users"
portions of its formula for success, it will let you share in its
profitability by essentially providing free 24/7 advertisements for
your site/business. If you oppose it (especially by undermining the
"serving relevant content" and "satisfied users" portion of its
mission), it will swat you off its back like a fly.

cat yronwode

Karezza and Sacred Sex ----- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html

[David Off]

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective the
algo really becomes.

Of course the spec isn't known, there are just opinions and reverse
engineering on what the spec is. Personally I take a more positive
attitude. I think that SEOs have caused google and other engines to
raise their game to produce better results. If the SE could really tell
what a relevant page was, just as a human could then designing to the SE
spec would result in loads of good, relevant, content rich pages and you
could pretty much present the top ten in any kind of order.

The fact is, search engine algo designers wanted to take shortcuts and
were naive about people's capacity to subvert those shortcuts.

Still a search engine that has some kind of semantic idea of what a page
is about will use a lot of CPU cycles and may not be economically viable
without shortcuts. That's the challenge for Google and co.

[catherine yronwode]

Post by David Off

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective
the algo really becomes.

Of course the spec isn't known, there are just opinions and reverse
engineering on what the spec is. Personally I take a more positive
attitude. I think that SEOs have caused google and other engines to
raise their game to produce better results. If the SE could really tell
what a relevant page was, just as a human could then designing to the
SE spec would result in loads of good, relevant, content rich pages and
you could pretty much present the top ten in any kind of order.
The fact is, search engine algo designers wanted to take shortcuts and
were naive about people's capacity to subvert those shortcuts.
Still a search engine that has some kind of semantic idea of what a
page is about will use a lot of CPU cycles and may not be economically
viable without shortcuts. That's the challenge for Google and co.

If i recall correctly, there was some talk early on of an idealized SE
working along AI principles -- or what you call "a semantic idea of
what a page is about."

The shortcuts google originated in the interest of coming up with fast
loading results emulated human decision making, but if this is AI, it
is rather stupid, for the algo has proven to be easily fooled -- by
simple things like link colour/background hidden text, keyword
stuffing, link farming, and so forth. All of these failures
demonstrate the limitations of the shortcuts.

When google decided to give "points" (for lack of a better term)
toward Page Rank to pages listed at DMOZ, i saw that as an admission
of a complete failure of the AI model -- the programmers were going to
rely on humans after all -- Deep Blue with a Dwarf inside the box.

And even that presented problems -- for instance, the
Religion_and_Spirituality cat at DMOZ is controlled from the top by a
rabid Christian whose motto (and screen name in Greek characters) is
"Christ Triumphant" and who regularly "prunes" off non-Christian pages
to make it look like other religions are not as popular as
Christianity. And that's just in one NON-commercial cat. The stories
told of editorial abuse at DMOZ in the commercial sectors are legion.
So that was no real help for google.

The Florida update which, among other things, gave more "points" to
.edu sites, resulted in bizarre search results, such as the one where
when you searched for < shelving > you got the main library at the
University of Iowa. (Nice try, google-buddies, but i was looking for a
building materials store or a shop display manufacturer. I mean, yep,
i guess there is a whole lot of shelving at the University of Iowa,
but somehow that wasn't what i had in mind.)

In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to abandon
shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse engineers, but it doesn't
change google's prime directive. That's why i prefer white hat SEO --
working *with* google to build a better web for all humanity (cue
triumphant John Williams score as camera pulls up and away to reveal
Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

[Big Bill]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:42:06 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by David Off

Post by www.seo-highrankings.com
The more SEO's out there building to a known spec, the less effective
the algo really becomes.

Of course the spec isn't known, there are just opinions and reverse
engineering on what the spec is. Personally I take a more positive
attitude. I think that SEOs have caused google and other engines to
raise their game to produce better results. If the SE could really tell
what a relevant page was, just as a human could then designing to the
SE spec would result in loads of good, relevant, content rich pages and
you could pretty much present the top ten in any kind of order.
The fact is, search engine algo designers wanted to take shortcuts and
were naive about people's capacity to subvert those shortcuts.
Still a search engine that has some kind of semantic idea of what a
page is about will use a lot of CPU cycles and may not be economically
viable without shortcuts. That's the challenge for Google and co.

If i recall correctly, there was some talk early on of an idealized SE
working along AI principles -- or what you call "a semantic idea of
what a page is about."
The shortcuts google originated in the interest of coming up with fast
loading results emulated human decision making, but if this is AI, it
is rather stupid, for the algo has proven to be easily fooled -- by
simple things like link colour/background hidden text, keyword
stuffing, link farming, and so forth. All of these failures
demonstrate the limitations of the shortcuts.
When google decided to give "points" (for lack of a better term)
toward Page Rank to pages listed at DMOZ, i saw that as an admission
of a complete failure of the AI model -- the programmers were going to
rely on humans after all -- Deep Blue with a Dwarf inside the box.

More Yellow Brick Road if you think about it Cat.

Post by catherine yronwode
And even that presented problems -- for instance, the
Religion_and_Spirituality cat at DMOZ is controlled from the top by a
rabid Christian whose motto (and screen name in Greek characters) is
"Christ Triumphant" and who regularly "prunes" off non-Christian pages
to make it look like other religions are not as popular as
Christianity. And that's just in one NON-commercial cat. The stories
told of editorial abuse at DMOZ in the commercial sectors are legion.
So that was no real help for google.
The Florida update which, among other things, gave more "points" to
.edu sites, resulted in bizarre search results, such as the one where
when you searched for < shelving > you got the main library at the
University of Iowa. (Nice try, google-buddies, but i was looking for a
building materials store or a shop display manufacturer. I mean, yep,
i guess there is a whole lot of shelving at the University of Iowa,
but somehow that wasn't what i had in mind.)
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to abandon
shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse engineers, but it doesn't
change google's prime directive. That's why i prefer white hat SEO --
working *with* google to build a better web for all humanity (cue
triumphant John Williams score as camera pulls up and away to reveal
Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of the forest?

BB

Post by catherine yronwode
cat yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

[catherine yronwode]

Post by Big Bill

Post by catherine yronwode
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to abandon
shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse engineers, but it doesn't
change google's prime directive. That's why i prefer white hat SEO --
working *with* google to build a better web for all humanity (cue
triumphant John Williams score as camera pulls up and away to reveal
Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of the forest?

Yes ... slowly and shyly at first, and then, as they all gather in a
circle, finally the littlest, cutest, tiniest one one of all emerges
-- and google takes it in her arms and giggles and it kinda giggles
back and then it nuzzles her right on the nose and wiggles its little
hiney.

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

[Big Bill]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:28:05 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill

Post by catherine yronwode
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to abandon
shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse engineers, but it doesn't
change google's prime directive. That's why i prefer white hat SEO --
working *with* google to build a better web for all humanity (cue
triumphant John Williams score as camera pulls up and away to reveal
Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of the forest?

Yes ... slowly and shyly at first, and then, as they all gather in a
circle, finally the littlest, cutest, tiniest one one of all emerges
-- and google takes it in her arms and giggles and it kinda giggles
back and then it nuzzles her right on the nose and wiggles its little
hiney.
cat yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

I was only joking there, Cat.

BB

[catherine yronwode]

Post by Big Bill
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:28:05 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill

Post by catherine yronwode
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to abandon
shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse engineers, but it
doesn't change google's prime directive. That's why i prefer white
hat SEO -- working *with* google to build a better web for all
humanity (cue triumphant John Williams score as camera pulls up and
away to reveal Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of the forest?

Yes ... slowly and shyly at first, and then, as they all gather in a
circle, finally the littlest, cutest, tiniest one of all emerges
-- and google takes it in her arms and giggles and it kinda giggles
back and then it nuzzles her right on the nose and wiggles its little
hiney.

I was only joking there, Cat.

Me too. Kinda. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs meets My Friend Totoro.
;-)

cat yronwode

Free Magick Spells Archive ---- http://www.luckymojo.com/spells.html

[PeterMcC]

catherine yronwode wrote in

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:28:05 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill

Post by catherine yronwode
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to abandon
shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse engineers, but it
doesn't change google's prime directive. That's why i prefer white
hat SEO -- working *with* google to build a better web for all
humanity (cue triumphant John Williams score as camera pulls up
and away to reveal Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of the forest?

Yes ... slowly and shyly at first, and then, as they all gather in a
circle, finally the littlest, cutest, tiniest one of all emerges
-- and google takes it in her arms and giggles and it kinda giggles
back and then it nuzzles her right on the nose and wiggles its
little hiney.

I was only joking there, Cat.

Me too. Kinda. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs meets My Friend Totoro.
;-)

<sob> I believed you - and now you've spoilt it :(

[catherine yronwode]

Post by PeterMcC
catherine yronwode wrote in

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:28:05 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill

Post by catherine yronwode
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to
abandon shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse
engineers, but it doesn't change google's prime directive.
That's why i prefer white hat SEO -- working *with* google to
build a better web for all humanity (cue triumphant John
Williams score as camera pulls up and away to reveal
Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of
the forest?

Yes ... slowly and shyly at first, and then, as they all gather
in a circle, finally the littlest, cutest, tiniest one of all
emerges -- and google takes it in her arms and giggles and it
kinda giggles back and then it nuzzles her right on the nose
and wiggles its little hiney.

I was only joking there, Cat.

Me too. Kinda. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs meets My
Friend Totoro. ;-)

<sob> I believed you - and now you've spoilt it :(

Aw, Peter, i'm sorry. Look, it *is* really real, but in a
akind of *storybook* way. Come on now, there's a good boy.

Here, let me explain.

Sometimes stories like this are about the way we *want* the
world to be, but the world isn't really *like* that right
*now*, so we tell each other what it would be like if
everything *were* really wonderful all the time. And then we
work *really hard* to make the world as nice as the story.

I know that right now things are looking pretty messy to you
-- google is out on the Street prostituting herself for 1
point 7 billion dollars, and all our little animal friends
are huddled together in the dark scary woods, hoping that
when morning comes again -- which we hope it *does* come
again -- that she will still be our own sweet darling
google-girl and nuzzle our little noses again ... so it
isn't a hoax or a dream or even an imaginary story -- it is
a *real* story. That's why, if we all *clap our hands* and
work *real hard* on our content and our keywords, then the
White Hat SEO Prince will come, and google will smile again,
and she will feed seeds and nuts to all the little animal
friends.

Okay?

There, there. It's okay. Really.

And in the meantime, if you want to *help* make it *really*
real, you can write a letter to your gvernment asking them
to stop killing the baby seals. Google would like that, very
very much.

Love ya,

cat yronwode
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html

[Big Bill]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:15:31 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by PeterMcC
catherine yronwode wrote in

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:28:05 GMT, catherine yronwode

Post by catherine yronwode

Post by Big Bill

Post by catherine yronwode
In the end, black hat SEO abusers simply force google to
abandon shortcuts as they are sussed out by reverse
engineers, but it doesn't change google's prime directive.
That's why i prefer white hat SEO -- working *with* google to
build a better web for all humanity (cue triumphant John
Williams score as camera pulls up and away to reveal
Sunrise All Over the World). :-)

Is that the bit where all the baby animals come out of
the forest?

Yes ... slowly and shyly at first, and then, as they all gather
in a circle, finally the littlest, cutest, tiniest one of all
emerges -- and google takes it in her arms and giggles and it
kinda giggles back and then it nuzzles her right on the nose
and wiggles its little hiney.

I was only joking there, Cat.

Me too. Kinda. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs meets My
Friend Totoro. ;-)

<sob> I believed you - and now you've spoilt it :(

Aw, Peter, i'm sorry. Look, it *is* really real, but in a
akind of *storybook* way. Come on now, there's a good boy.
Here, let me explain.
Sometimes stories like this are about the way we *want* the
world to be, but the world isn't really *like* that right
*now*, so we tell each other what it would be like if
everything *were* really wonderful all the time. And then we
work *really hard* to make the world as nice as the story.
I know that right now things are looking pretty messy to you
-- google is out on the Street prostituting herself for 1
point 7 billion dollars, and all our little animal friends
are huddled together in the dark scary woods, hoping that
when morning comes again -- which we hope it *does* come
again -- that she will still be our own sweet darling
google-girl and nuzzle our little noses again ... so it
isn't a hoax or a dream or even an imaginary story -- it is
a *real* story. That's why, if we all *clap our hands* and
work *real hard* on our content and our keywords, then the
White Hat SEO Prince will come, and google will smile again,
and she will feed seeds and nuts to all the little animal
friends.
Okay?
There, there. It's okay. Really.
And in the meantime, if you want to *help* make it *really*
real, you can write a letter to your gvernment asking them
to stop killing the baby seals. Google would like that, very
very much.
Love ya,
cat yronwode
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html

Um, no really, I was just joking.

BB

[PeterMcC]

catherine yronwode wrote in
<***@luckymojo.com>
<snip>

Post by catherine yronwode
Sometimes stories like this are about the way we *want* the
world to be, but the world isn't really *like* that right
*now*, so we tell each other what it would be like if
everything *were* really wonderful all the time. And then we
work *really hard* to make the world as nice as the story.

'preciated <g>

[C.W.]

Post by RFI Admin
At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!
Winning (i.e., getting higher SERPs that your competitors) is the
point -- and the ONLY point. I can see some logic in balancing the
risk of getting banned against the relative gain in SERPs when
considering dirty tricks, but it still is not a question of morals or
ethics. That then is more a question of if a throw-away domain should
be created.
I have participated in threads in this NG where new (and perhaps
dirty) ideas have been suggested, and many participants laughed out
their sleeves at the ideas, and even claimed to be above using such
techniques.
OK, some may claim to be above using those techniques, maybe also
claiming that their ethical techniques get just as good results as the
dirty tricks. Maybe or maybe not, but would they be comfortable saying
to a client, "Sorry your sales have dropped-off to the point where you
can't stay in blusness, but I'm above using the highly effective
techniques your competitors use." Would you say that to a client? I
think not!
What is an 'ethical' technique anyway? I suppose it is a known
technique that has not caused a page to be banned by a SE in the past.
Who is to say that technique won't cause a page to be banned, or drop
completely off the radar, in the future? You can't say that for sure,
because you have seen that kind of thing happen in the past and no
one, not even people employed by the SEs, know what the future holds.

Ok, here's my 2 cents, while reiterating I do not do SEO for a living:

You feel that getting to the top of the heap at any/all costs is the
primary goal. Cool, I can go along with that thought.

But a person going out and creating a lame site, throwaway domain or
not, does not necessarily deserve being on top of the heap. No matter
how interested s/he is in making a buck off that site - their site
doesn't deserve top placement.

To get around this hurdle some [notice I said "some"] try to invent
excuses or loopholes. You know the "this other site does it so I maybe
I can too" thinking ... not building up their site to make it more
deserving to being on the top but resorting to conning or tricking the
search engine into thinking it is more relevant.

Hence you have the primary reason why many people resort to hidden
text/links method - even if their site has plenty of elbow room for
them to creatively insert optimized, keyword rich text - they will opt
to go the hiding route instead. Even if they read about other people
getting their sites banned for it - they think they will be cleverer
or more under the radar than "their competitor" or "that no one will
look at my view source ..."

Now if working on someone else's site - I don't know how the client
would like it if you did something to their site to cause it becoming
banned or whatever. Traffic-Power charged folks a pretty penny - and
also got many, if not all, their client's sites banned off both Google
and Yahoo.

Some people/places do not use throwaway domain names [and it may cost
them money to change the domain name - more than just plopping down $8
or so at a registrar site] and you have effectively screwed up their
site and business. Now what do you say to that client when they call
up asking what the heck happened? "I did anything and everything that
I noticed your competitors doing - even the ones that may eventually
backfire or cause your site to get banned. Oh well. Was fun while it
lasted. Give me a call when you get a new domain name and I will start
working on the SEO again for you."?? Have you read about some folks
trying to get their sites unbanned on Yahoo Search - and that, for
some, they have been waiting for 5 to 6 months now? Google isn't the
only search engine some people care about.

To me - in doing SEO - one doesn't want to do what they already know
has gotten other sites booted out of Google and Yahoo. There is
manipulation involved - yes; but when you take try to over-manipulate
or make it "more than what it really is" then maybe it is time to sit
back and relook at what you really have to work with.

SEO isn't just about getting to #1 - it's about the end benefit to you
and the people/clients your site wants to attract in [in a commercial
site instance - attracting in people then converting a good percentage
of those people into clients/sales].

If you get to #1, through SEO techniques and/or tricks, but your
content sucks or people feel it is lacking - then sure you may have
more hits on your counter but may be, inadvertently, sending part of
those hits to your competitor's site [who aren't listed as #1 on the
search engine] ... all because your own site was lacking in providing
information, content, or a reasons for them to prefer your
site/business over the others outside of "getting top placement on a
search engine".

But once your site hits #1 then you may be leery of changing anything
cause you are at #1 ... so this can become a bit of quandry also for
some sites. [Now you have why I don't advise people to use hidden text
but to create the visible text and optimize that over time instead -
this way they can add-remove a bit more easily than if they had
limited themselves to a paragraph and a half of visible text, 8 or so
images, and hidden string that is a listing of keywords or trying to
share "secret links" with "longer than usual anchor text shared" to
other sites.]

Some people know what is risky and still do it anyway. *shrug* Their
choice - their site - doesn't affect me as they are the one now trying
to think of a new domain name, paying for it, working on getting IBLs
to their new site, and et al - just to put up the same content they
had before. Some don't even change methods used and just wait it out
until that site gets banned or penalized - then start over the cycle
again. I am sure their competitors don't mind watching that site get
booted out or penalized either - as they now advance up in the SERPs.

I suppose if one uses throwaway URLs then it is easier to do what one
would debate doing on a site/URL they truly cared about [long term
thoughts?]. *shrug*

That's just my 2 cents - without getting into splitting hairs of what
is ethical or what is not.

Carol

[mark | r]

thats crap.

most sites are designed for beans, sites that are rich in great content cost
mucho spondies... customers dont pay but we still have to do our best - i
dont work for free but uf the budget is low and my the site ive designed
deserves a slice of the SE pie then im gonna use some dirty tricks to get it
up there

Mark

[Sam Beats Dave]

Post by mark | r
thats crap.
most sites are designed for beans, sites that are rich in great content cost
mucho spondies... customers dont pay but we still have to do our best - i
dont work for free but uf the budget is low and my the site ive designed
deserves a slice of the SE pie then im gonna use some dirty tricks to get it
up there
Mark

It's not a question of money. Money can't buy great content just like it
can't buy love like the song. Great content means totally fascinating
sites that you regularly go to all the time to use. In a sense this
newsgroup has great content but since it's not a website it doesn't
count. If this were a website we'd all have a link to it on our sites
and actually many of us do even though it's a newsgroup. When a site has
the kind of content this newsgroup and just newsgroups in general have
as just one example of what I mean by great content then the backlinks
come to them without having to do anything and the pr follows.

But this is not what your average run of the mill or nicely design
better than normal website is like. The average website is either Sam'd
Homepage or Sam's Phone Sex Emporium or Sam's Online Hardware Store and
let's face none of those 3 type of sites are going to get the public
that rivited that will will be constantly visting it and certainly not
giving a free back link to it. Nobody adds a backlink to Sam's Online
Hardware store no way. Sharper Image, Amazon.com, microsoft yes, sam's
hardware never! And you just can not get enough backlinks by simply
trading with other sites nor can you get high enough pr by doing that
for most commercial sites. So it basically only leaves the black hat
option if you want your sites to show up anyway and to make a living
from them.

By the way if anybody is wondering about my new handle Sam Beats Dave
that will be it for today and maybe for awhile because as far as I'm
concerned by either Dave or one of his buddies here at the ng getting
both my classic literature sites deleted it only prooves that I'm a
million times better an SEO than he is or he or his firend who reported
the two sites wouldn't have had to resort to that measure. Obviously
they were petrified of me and Dvae knew I'd make him look like a fool
but he made himself look like a bigger fool by getting the sites deleted
and removing the competition which he wasn't man enough to handle.
Arnold sumed Dave up great, Dave is a girlie man. But Dave's site will
drop off page one soon and down to page 3 and 4 never to return to page
one ever again. I've personally seen to that already as he will soon
find out no one fucks with me and lives to tell the tale!

[Stacey]

"Sam Beats Dave" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:***@mail.com...

<snip>

Post by Sam Beats Dave
By the way if anybody is wondering about my new handle Sam Beats Dave
that will be it for today and maybe for awhile because as far as I'm
concerned by either Dave or one of his buddies here at the ng getting
both my classic literature sites deleted it only prooves that I'm a
million times better an SEO than he is or he or his firend who reported
the two sites wouldn't have had to resort to that measure.

You are so full of it. It is you who gave up and you are wanting people to
beleive that. The bbs forum still exists and you are making it look deleted
with phone sex links at the bottom. The one pcp page might be deleted but it
could be that you don't have the page worked out so it comes up with a
missing php page. And you could be trying to make it seem this page is gone
also. Don't know, don't care if it is there or not.

Post by Sam Beats Dave
Obviously
they were petrified of me and Dvae knew I'd make him look like a fool
but he made himself look like a bigger fool by getting the sites deleted
and removing the competition which he wasn't man enough to handle.
Arnold sumed Dave up great, Dave is a girlie man. But Dave's site will
drop off page one soon and down to page 3 and 4 never to return to page
one ever again. I've personally seen to that already as he will soon
find out no one fucks with me and lives to tell the tale!

Why would you do that to someone who didn't do anything and that it is you
who are faking for sure one deleted site? You are the person who got
*petrified*!

[Sam Beats Dave]

Post by Stacey
<snip>

Post by Sam Beats Dave
By the way if anybody is wondering about my new handle Sam Beats Dave
that will be it for today and maybe for awhile because as far as I'm
concerned by either Dave or one of his buddies here at the ng getting
both my classic literature sites deleted it only prooves that I'm a
million times better an SEO than he is or he or his firend who reported
the two sites wouldn't have had to resort to that measure.

You are so full of it. It is you who gave up and you are wanting people to
beleive that. The bbs forum still exists and you are making it look deleted
with phone sex links at the bottom. The one pcp page might be deleted but it
could be that you don't have the page worked out so it comes up with a
missing php page. And you could be trying to make it seem this page is gone
also. Don't know, don't care if it is there or not.

Post by Sam Beats Dave
Obviously
they were petrified of me and Dvae knew I'd make him look like a fool
but he made himself look like a bigger fool by getting the sites deleted
and removing the competition which he wasn't man enough to handle.
Arnold sumed Dave up great, Dave is a girlie man. But Dave's site will
drop off page one soon and down to page 3 and 4 never to return to page
one ever again. I've personally seen to that already as he will soon
find out no one fucks with me and lives to tell the tale!

Why would you do that to someone who didn't do anything and that it is you
who are faking for sure one deleted site? You are the person who got
*petrified*!

hmm sounds like you might have been the one who got the pcpages site
deleted doesn't it Stacy?

[C.W.]

Post by Sam Beats Dave

Post by Stacey
<snip>

[snip]

Post by Sam Beats Dave
hmm sounds like you might have been the one who got the pcpages site
deleted doesn't it Stacy?

Or it may _not_ been anyone in this particular NG. One other time you
accused Dave of something then turned around and said it was someone
else, not from this NG, who was spamming your links off some sites -
Semptor or something like that. Not the first time that
accusation-later-apology-for-false-accusation happened either.

But appears that Stacey is right about the forum site not being
deleted.

http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=literature leads to a page sharing about
their guest book, yes.

Compare that to what happens when one tries to go to
http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=liteature - an error page loads in first,
and lasts for about a minute or so, before redirecting to the main URL
of http://bbs.ws which shares the same info as your forum (minus the
bottom banner ad). Your forum site doesn't exhibit similar behavior -
and also has an area set aside for listing of pages and such. Which
would be unusual for a deleted site to still accept posts and such,
isn't it?

Carol

[Stacey]

"C.W." <***@nomail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
<snip>

Post by C.W.
http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=literature leads to a page sharing about
their guest book, yes.

Go to post a new message and click on it. It will load up a form for a
message page to the literature forum page. Truly meaning the page still
exists!

[SEO Dave]

Post by C.W.

Post by Sam Beats Dave

Post by Stacey
<snip>

[snip]

Post by Sam Beats Dave
hmm sounds like you might have been the one who got the pcpages site
deleted doesn't it Stacy?

I wouldn't worry about the above Stacey I'm sure he'll be back to
blaming me soon.

Post by C.W.
Or it may _not_ been anyone in this particular NG. One other time you
accused Dave of something then turned around and said it was someone
else, not from this NG, who was spamming your links off some sites -
Semptor or something like that. Not the first time that
accusation-later-apology-for-false-accusation happened either.

Tel me about it, every time something goes wrong with something of
Sam's I get the blame. To date he's later realised he's been wrong
about them all.


We've had getting his Angelfire sites removed from the Google index
because I work for Google (no kidding, that's what he thought!). It
was a bug at Google that obviously had nothing to do with me.

I sabotaged the places he gets PR from (guestbooks etc...) by posting
the word SEPER over and over again (sepering). Someone called SEPER
who also link spams did the above.

I've contacted all his competitors and taught them how to SEO their
sites which was going to make him go out of business. Clearly his
competition didn't do so well.

And now I've got some of his free sites deleted that aren't really
deleted!

I feel sure there was another one?

I was the one on the grassy knoll :-)

Post by C.W.
But appears that Stacey is right about the forum site not being
deleted.
http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=literature leads to a page sharing about
their guest book, yes.

That is really low of Sam trying to make out he's lost sites just to
discredit me (not that it does, if I want to report a site I will)!

Well spotted on that one Stacey.

Other than Stoma I very much doubt there is a single person reading
this NG that believes a word he says now. What a looser having to
resort to such tactics so he can prematurely say he won at a
competition he made up that I'm not even taking part in!

Seems to me Sam knew he didn't stand a chance with those free sites at
the literature SERP (recall the I'm going to be number 1 is one week
posts, LOL) since will all the blog spamming he's done etc... they
have been slowly slipping down the SERPs. So he found a new use for
them, to make out someone in the NG is out to get all his sites
deleted.

Tell you what Sam post once more I'm trying to get your sites deleted
and I will contact the freehosts and report you for any breaches of
their T&Cs. If I'm going to be stuck with the blame for something I
might as well do it.

Shouldn't Angelfire sites have an Ad on them or something? Don't see
any on your Angelfire sites.

Post by C.W.
Compare that to what happens when one tries to go to
http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=liteature - an error page loads in first,
and lasts for about a minute or so, before redirecting to the main URL
of http://bbs.ws which shares the same info as your forum (minus the
bottom banner ad). Your forum site doesn't exhibit similar behavior -
and also has an area set aside for listing of pages and such. Which
would be unusual for a deleted site to still accept posts and such,
isn't it?

It was a nice try though, so 10 out of 10 for effort and lateral
thinking, shame Sam can't put that sort of effort into making content
for his sites.

Post by C.W.
Carol

David

[Sam]

Post by SEO Dave
Shouldn't Angelfire sites have an Ad on them or something? Don't see
any on your Angelfire sites.
David
--

They have ads now bub. Anyway tired of the present and once again we
take a trip into the future when dave's classic lit site drops to page 3
sometime within the next few weeks.
<a
href=Loading Image...>Here
is how Dave Reacts:</a>

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040822/capt.ny10708221133.norway_museum_theft_ny107.jpg

[SEO Dave]

Post by Sam

Post by SEO Dave
Shouldn't Angelfire sites have an Ad on them or something? Don't see
any on your Angelfire sites.
David
--

They have ads now bub. Anyway tired of the present and once again we
take a trip into the future when dave's classic lit site drops to page 3
sometime within the next few weeks.
<a
href=http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040822/capt.ny10708221133.norway_museum_theft_ny107.jpg>Here
is how Dave Reacts:</a>
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040822/capt.ny10708221133.norway_museum_theft_ny107.jpg

ROFLOL

That was quite funny.

BTW you said a few weeks over a week ago, so shouldn't it be two weeks
now?

David

[Sam]

Post by SEO Dave

Post by Sam

Post by SEO Dave
Shouldn't Angelfire sites have an Ad on them or something? Don't see
any on your Angelfire sites.
David
--

They have ads now bub. Anyway tired of the present and once again we
take a trip into the future when dave's classic lit site drops to page 3
sometime within the next few weeks.
<a
href=http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040822/capt.ny10708221133.norway_museum_theft_ny107.jpg>Here
is how Dave Reacts:</a>
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040822/capt.ny10708221133.norway_museum_theft_ny107.jpg

ROFLOL
That was quite funny.
BTW you said a few weeks over a week ago, so shouldn't it be two weeks
now?
David
--

Perhaps. ~Sam

[Stacey]

<snip>

Post by Sam Beats Dave

Post by Stacey
Why would you do that to someone who didn't do anything and that it is you
who are faking for sure one deleted site? You are the person who got
*petrified*!

hmm sounds like you might have been the one who got the pcpages site
deleted doesn't it Stacy?

My name is spelled *Stacey*. Are you going to accused everyone? Look, you
are faking the bbs page for being deleted. I saw those phone sex links at
the bottom. When I announced it, you deleted the links. But, you can still
tell it isn't deleted or deactivated. So, do go and accuse people Sam!!!!
So, you are going to say it sounds like me just because I announced it was
fake? Why are you faking that the bbs is not up and saying Dave got it
deleted? Look dude, it is you that came and said that they got deleted and
blaming people. Not.. only that you say it was Dave and you win.....when the
bbs page is still active. So, stop blaming people!

[Will Spencer]

If your theory about Dave deleting your site is correct, then your nick
should be "Dave Beats Sam"

More likely, your tin-foil hat is on too tight again.

Will

[C.W.]

Post by mark | r
thats crap.
most sites are designed for beans, sites that are rich in great content cost
mucho spondies... customers dont pay but we still have to do our best - i
dont work for free but uf the budget is low and my the site ive designed
deserves a slice of the SE pie then im gonna use some dirty tricks to get it
up there

Your choice - your decision - and your clients choice and decision
also once they are informed about what is being done on their sites.
As I said - it's not my site nor do I do SEO for a living.

However some sites that people that want to try to get up high
placement thoughts, dirty tricks or not employed, do not necessarily
deserve high placement in comparison to some of the other sites
[designed for beans or mucho spondies]. Nice looking design - whom
they hired to do it or how much they paid for the design - not
necessarily a criteria.

Review my post, I was talking about sites that the site owner [usually
doing the design themself] slaps up a scant paragraph or two and
thinks _their_ site and content of that site should land in the Top 10
on a search engine. I didn't say anything about the content needing to
be "great" - but it has to make an attempt sharing info about one's
business/affliliate to another person. Some people think sharing a
flimsy [but keyword littered] paragraph, 8 or so images, oodles of
hidden text, then a high placement [say in the Top 5 if not #1] will
make up for that lacking of content offered. Does it?

Before saying it does - recall then all the posts shared here in the
past by people griping about sites using hidden text or other
supposedly "dirty tricks"/questionable means to land higher [but their
content lacking in comparison to the other person's site?] or the
oft-shared complaints about directory/Amazon pages. Those people felt
the other pages listed in the SERPs were somehow "lacking" and
therefore didn't deserve the placement received.

Everyone wants to think their site somehow belongs at the top. Makes
no sense to strive to be at the top of the heap if that placement
doesn't benefit your billfold any more so than if your site landed
#10, #21, or even #68 in placement. SEO isn't just about placement
alone but, as Isofarro said, having the ends justify the means.

Carol

[PeterMcC]

RFI Admin wrote in

Post by RFI Admin
At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!

At the risk of sounding rather sanctimonious, we run our business on what I
would like to think is an "ethical" basis - if only because those are the
kinds of companies with which I would want to do business.

In my experience, unethical people tend not to observe boundaries around
their unethical behaviour - it seems unreasonable to think that I can pay
them to cheat in one area of their work and yet expect them to be honest in
their dealings with me.

I'm still not comfy with claiming to be "ethical" - how about "operating out
of enlightened self-interest"?

[seo-highrankings.com]

Post by PeterMcC
RFI Admin wrote in

Post by RFI Admin
At the risk of agreeing with Sam, I have to agree that SEO is not
really as much a question of ethics as it is an exercise in getting
results. After all this is business, not Sunday school!

At the risk of sounding rather sanctimonious, we run our business on what I
would like to think is an "ethical" basis - if only because those are the
kinds of companies with which I would want to do business.
In my experience, unethical people tend not to observe boundaries around
their unethical behaviour - it seems unreasonable to think that I can pay
them to cheat in one area of their work and yet expect them to be honest in
their dealings with me.
I'm still not comfy with claiming to be "ethical" - how about "operating out
of enlightened self-interest"?
--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

You raise a good point Peter.

"Ethical SEO" is again, playing by the SE's rules...and really has little to
do with basic business ethics that you would learn in college or out on the
street.
We believe that being "ethical" in business is critical to longevity and
being around for the last 7 years makes us feel good about what our company
does and how we do it.

Having said that, we let our own moral/ethical compass guide us. In our
case, we use the Bible because we believe that to be the most fundamental
source for ethics and morals. Others can use whatever guidepost they
believe in, as long as they stick to it. That is usually where the problems
pop up.

Without a guidepost, we are nothing more than leaves in the wind...and that
is usually where people get into trouble. We see nothing wrong with
figuring out what an algo is doing and then maximizing our optimization
techniques accordingly. We do see an issue with using techniques that could
get our clients banned because we don't believe it is our place to put our
clients at risk in that manner. Not "ethical" or "non-ethical", just what
we feel comfortable with....based upon our values.

We have to draw the lien new each morhing...but based upon our foundation,
it isn't all that dificult.

[catherine yronwode]

Post by seo-highrankings.com

Post by PeterMcC
At the risk of sounding rather sanctimonious, we run our business on
what I would like to think is an "ethical" basis - if only because
those are the kinds of companies with which I would want to do
.
In my experience, unethical people tend not to observe boundaries
around their unethical behaviour - it seems unreasonable to think
that I can pay them to cheat in one area of their work and yet expect
them to be honest in their dealings with me.

"Ethical SEO" is again, playing by the SE's rules...and really has
little to do with basic business ethics that you would learn in college
or out on the street.

I think it does. As above, so below.

A man who kicks his dog doesn't usually make a good husband.

A woman who cheats on her income taxes is a poor choice to hire as a
bookkeeper.

A search engine optimizer who says that he can take my site to #1 for
a keyword term that i know i honestly don't have enough content to
rank in the top 100 is a poor choice for an SEO.

Post by seo-highrankings.com
We believe that being "ethical" in business is critical to longevity
and being around for the last 7 years makes us feel good about what our
company does and how we do it.

Longevity is also at the heart of many business decisions made by the
customers of SEO professionals.

I am currently hiring someone to do some web work for me and i hired
her on the basis of long-time even-tempered personal friendship and
the understanding that she shares my personal ethical values. I am not
wealthy, so i plan for the changes she will implement to serve my site
through at least 5 years' worth of google's shifting algorithms, on
the basis that what google is ultimately trying to serve is CONTENT
and that all things being equal, all changes to the google algo will
be made in favour of serving content.

Can those who practice tricky serps-manipulation or black-hat SEO
guarantee their work that long, knowing that the google programmers
seem intent on shaking out the tricksters and serving only content?

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Will Spencer
I wrote this up for the FAQ.
Constructive criticism anyone?
What is black hat SEO?
----------------------
Within the SEO comunity, some optimization tactics are considered Black
Hat SEO. These are tactics which are not considered to be good or fair by
search engine operators, search engine optimizers, or web site visitors.
There is no generally accepted definition for black hat SEO. What may be
considered appropriate by one webmaster may not be considered approriate
by another webmaster. In addition to personal differences, guidelines for
appropriate conduct vary across web site categories. What might be
considered acceptable for a web site in the gambling industry may not be
equally acceptable for a health care web site.
Here are several guidelines for determining if a technique should be
considered Black Hat SEO.
Search Engine Operator Policies
Many search engine operators, such as Google, MSN, and Yahoo, publish
policies and guidelines which document what they feel are appropriate and
inappropriate SEO techniques.
One school of thought believes that if you stay within these guidelines,
you are not practicing black hat SEO.
One difficulty with this model is that the search engine operator
guidelines tend to be extremely vague and non-technical. Another
difficulty is that the guidelines differ between search engines. For
example, Google prefers 301 redirects, while Yahoo prefers doorway pages
which inform the user of the new URL.
The Property Rights Approach
The property rights approach to the question of black hat SEO believes
that anything you do with your own property is acceptable, but that you
should leave other peoples property alone.
By this standard, most on-page SEO techniques are acceptable, but off-page
SEO techniques like guestbook spamming should be considered black hat SEO.
This is probably the most reasonable and fair guideline for determining
acceptable SEO practices, but it does have some limitations. It does not,
for example, address keyword spamming or cloaking.
The Visitor Value Approach
This school of thought believes that SEO techniques which do not add value
to the visitors experience belong to the school of black hat SEO.
This approach labels on-page techniques such as hidden text, micro-text,
and ALT text spamming as black hat SEO.
The visitor value approach has benefits not only in defining black hat
SEO, but also in promoting general practices for good web site design.
Black hat SEO practices which violate this guideline may result in a boost
to your SERPs, but they will not lead to return visitors or natural
incoming links.
The Unnatural Rankings Approach
This school of thought believes that anything which causes a web page to
rank unnaturally highly for it's keywords is black hat SEO.
Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition for "unnaturally
highly"!
If followed to it's logical conclusion, this school of though considers
all SEO to be black hat SEO.
Under this approach, even the use of proper heading tags (H1, H2, H3) can
be considered black hat SEO.
--
Will
Webmaster: http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com

There are still many websites using all these Black Hat seo techniques and are still on rank. Google need to be more active.