Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 35
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: October 4, 2007 - 1:58 pm
Posted By: theGypsy 278 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchengineland.com)
Category: SEM Industry
From the site - Black hat, white hat, blue hat, new hat... why should anyone care which color hat any search engine optimization (SEO) professional labels him- or herself?
33 Comments
Comments
Nice perspective; i found myself agreeing and pouring a little more concrete on my positions.
Sigh - reminds me of mainstream suburbia squares debating whether their kids should be allowed petting rather than necking. As if anyone gave a shit...
If a "white hat" SEO outfit tricks you into believing they're staying within the SEs' guidelines while in verity they aren't - sure, sue them to oblivion. (Though most clients probably wouldn't do so anyway if and as long they're sucessful, eh? Some point to ponder.)
But if there weren't a market for "black hats", they'd be populating the Museum of Search now. Which they patently aren't.
And yes, most black hats I know are only too happy to work for themselves rather than having to deal with clients of whichever degree of (non-)expertise. Can't really blame them, either.
Good point, fantomaster. Then there are the fence-dwellers. We see so many times the SEs don't enforce their own guidelines, or don't reward sites that verifiably stick to a strict interpretation of the guidelines, it's difficult to be a pure white believer. Of course our clients want to be successful - why else would they hire us? And as long as they don't get banned or drop precipitously in rankings, well... Of course, there are some techniques only slightly gray, and others more obviously shaded.
The Q&A section of a search engine conference session can be a difficult forum to hold a conversation about a topic like this one, that can draw and drive strong emotions.
One of the points I raised in my question(s) at the conference was that in some ways, by using a wild west black hat/white hat analogy, we are keeping the wild west alive. Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and Billy the Kid belong in the movies and the history books, and not in discussions about professionalism.
I do think that it's time to cast off the hats, and focus upon the ethical and moral matters that are important - how one conducts oneself when it comes to laws and regulations, when it comes to interacting with clients that one has a responsibility towards, and how openly and professionally we interact with those clients and others.
I don't want to refer to myself as wearing a particular hat color. I'd much rather refer to myself as a professional. I don't see lawyers or doctors telling their clients that they only follow "white hat" methods. Perhaps that is a step that we need to take to mature as an industry.
@Fanto – I agree most black hats aren’t practicing on client sites rather than auto-generating there own stuff… do I like web spam in the SERPs? Naw… but until it is actually illegal, lumping BHs with criminals is a bit of a reach IMO
@ Bill – yeah, I am not one for putting colors on SEO. I will always be a student, so I look for information from any direction I can find it. As for the ‘criminal’ part, unless web spam becomes illegal (yeah, uh huh), then it doesn’t sit well with me. Certainly a SEO provider doing so on a client’s site without their knowledge is bad ju-ju, I think that is more unethical than anything. --- Oh and like the ‘wild west’ analogy B… very cute :0)
I have seen some major players (remember BMW? How about ePinions and Shopping.com? he he) playing with cloaking and keyword injections, so I don’t want to hear screams at the BH guys. If yer a big enough web property U will likely get no more than a slap on the wrist. Bah humbug!
I was on that panel and remember the discussion in San Jose well.
As Bill says, the point I think he was trying to make was that we need to move past the point of "name-calling" and on to the point of identifying good and bad SEO companies.
By good and bad, I don't mean "white hat" and "black hat" I mean GOOD and BAD.
An SEO company can be "white hat" and be good or bad. An SEO company can be "black hat" and be good or bad. In my mind, it's more about full disclosure and performance. It's not up to me to decide what risks a company is willing to take in their particular marketplace. It's up to me to give them all of their options, the pros and cons of each route and to move forward to do the best job I can do within the boundaries they set.
If someone wants to avoid any tactics that carry risk with them, that's their choice. But being willing to take on those risks in exchange for the potential reward is up to the company doing the hiring and the firm they choose to work with.
If we truly want this industry to mature to the point that it's seen as being equal to any other marketing tactic, we've got to drop the childish finger pointing and move on to playing like grown-ups.
Grown-ups are capable of making their own decisions about risk/reward ratios.
Besides, I've known/dealt with quite a few scumbag "white hats" and quite a few integrity-filled "black-hats." The stereotyping is far from accurate.
I completely agree with Jen. However, I'll admit that while I hate the label, it is a part of how I market my services. I make it very clear to potential clients that I don't do anything I consider risky, I keep them fully aware of what I'm doing, and my intention is to provide them with long-term results. If they want to call that "white hat," so be it.
"Black hat" and "white hat" is so damn stupid in the first place. Everyone is doing the same freakin' thing...manipulating search results. Corruption, good vs. evil, call it what you will....but it's always been everywhere...in every industry.
Can't we end our SEO Civil War yet??
Very nice Matt - I have always thought it was;
SEO = Search Engine Oportunist
what a crock.
I think what bothers me most about the White Hat/Black Hat labels is that it tears away at our industry. The damage of in fighting over who is right and who is wrong seems to be a waste of time, time that could be put to better use. I agree with Jenn and Bill about the importance of the quality of work provided by SEM companies. I don't think it is a difficult choice to do right by the client.
Google is not the government. Google is a distributor, and like any distributor they have the right to determine what products they want to direct their customers to. Google is in the business of providing high quality, relevant content to their customer base and they spend a lot of time and money trying to make sure that's what they do. If you try to trick them into pissing off their customers, they are going to bitch slap you. Can you blame them?
To me, white hat is about generating valuable, relevant content AND preseting it in a way that reflects its value and relevance appropriately. Black hat is all about skipping the value and relevance part and simply trying to game the system to drive traffic. Maybe my definition is unique or wrong but for me it's a no brainer.
The difference between a paid ad and a paid link is that the ad is obviously an ad, with no editorial value, and the link may or may not be. That is a deceptive practice, so again, I don't see why anyone has an issue with Google selling ads. They are a media company that doesn't charge for their content, just like a magazine or TV network, and like them they clearly differentiate between editorial and revenue generating material.
Oh it's October... must be time for the yearly name calling, self-righteous, black-white hat articles.... As Bert said over on the Search Engine Journal article: Microsoft Joins Google in Offering SEO Services, Is This Ethical? (http://www.searchenginejournal.com/microsoft-joins-google-in-offering-seo-services-is-this-ethical/5766/)
"I mean, who cares about Whitehat or Blackhat practices if a Google or MSN joins the SEO business?"
And if I read ONE more article where Shari tells us about her being a Microsoft Search Champ or being in the graduate program of Library and Information Sciences I'm gonna.... There, I said it... and yes I am in a cranky mood... I'm wearing cute but painful heels...
Disclosure and transparency are the keys. Now, if the search engines will be so kind as to clearly define the rules, I will be definitely provide transparency. What sucks is being gray with your clients because you really don't know if the rules are being broken or not.
But Shari, I really enjoyed the article. And I'm happy that you are a Search Champ and in that graduate program.
As long as people abide by an essentially manichean world view dividing things, people, processess and situations into white/black, good/bad (or, even worse: evil), ethical/unethical, what we're dealing with is theology, not technology. You're free to do it as much as you like, just don't confuse the two - and don't confuse your clients with this crap, either. If you do, and if it comes back to haunt you, good riddance: go find another industry, you're in the wrong job, period.
And if you continue to uphold this fundamental confusion, this particular debate will remain as inane as it has always been forever and a day. Pointless and time wasting.
@sniehaus: Agreed - but don't subscribe to the erroneous view that "white" by default equates with "risk free", please. Where would all those SEO forums be if not for thousands of "white hats" whining about losing all their rankings anyway?
Else, you're in a logical conundrum like the Catholic church when trying to explain away magic: If "God" is the causal agent, it's a "miracle" - if Satan is the operator, it's "black magic". Uhuh, sure...
@Bill: Your Wild West analogy is spot on. As any depth psychologist will point out, demonizing things, people, processes etc. will only nurture and stabilize the very factors you're hoping or believing to weed out.
@MattWa: "Adding value"/"gaming the system" is an exceedingly subjective taxonomy - one man's content is another's spam, and all that. The amount of squeaky white "content spam" on some of the more sophisticated MFA you see these days beggars all description. Just because you pay some third world hack to write harebrained articles on subjects they don't know squat about, doesn't "add value" in my book, and I'm saying this as a confessed industrial-strength cloaker, heh. (No, of course I don't mean "you" personally - this is a generic "you" only.)
As fpr Google being a "distributor", I beg to differ - Google (as any crawl bases search engine) is a scraper racket, monetizing content they never created or never asked permission to refurbish. The biological term for this life form is: "parasite". The appropriate legal term depends on the jurisdiction you're referring to, in mine it happens to be "copyright violator".
So please let's not wax all understanding "it's their money" and "it's a no brainer" about what's essentially a highly complex state of affairs.
And an entire can of worms in its own right...
@fantomaster: It's subjective, but I wouldn't go so far as to say exceedingly so. Harebrained articles from the third world prove that the algorithms are still too literal, but the underlying principle works even though computers are stupid. Maybe they need to spend some of their billions on human editors :)
Parasite works, but they are a parasite we need and so we need to meet their needs... you know what I mean. They monetize our content and in return give us a greater opportunity to monetize it ourselves. I don't see it as complex - the market chooses Google as their preferred mechanism for accessing our content, so we have to deal with Google. Just like the market at one point chose Sears as their preferred mechanism for procuring blue jeans, so Levi Strauss had to deal with Sears. And when Sears told Levis they needed to make eleventy different kinds of jeans to be in their stores they did it, just like we have to comply with whatever Google requires for them to give us a good location.
There has to be a middleman for anyone to find our stuff, that middleman is going to face competitive pressure to provide the best possible search results, and so they are going to force us to do what they think is best for them to stay on top. Could be Google or MSN or Yahoo, somebody is going to do exactly what Google does, and in pretty much the same way.
In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along". This back in forth garbage of SEOs ripping on each others just makes the whole industry look bad to outsiders. I can't tell you how many times I have had to deal with a person who is scared becuase of discussions like this. Black Hat, Green Hat, Yellow Hat no one willl gain any clients trust after reading these kind of discussions again and again!
erm.... I don't think we should simply sweep it under the rug either (like G would let us anyways - he he)... I also have a web design firm and the fact that there are hackers out there doesn't scare clients off having from having a site built?
I am not a fan of an SEO provider that uses such techniques without the clients knowledge.... but the BH filling the web with Spam doesn't irk me as much. He's monetizing things in a way that is, at this point, legal. THe ethics or morality of web spam? What I think about that doesn't really matter much.
This is still a healthy conversation for SEO folks or all shapes and sizes to have....
@rcjordan nice to see you here!
y'all can stand around debating hats all night and not get anywhere, me I'm just busy cranking work out. I wear whatever color hat ya want me to, I'll tell my black one is white and my white one is black if that will make you feel any better as long as your check clears I really don't care what color anybody thinks my hat is ...
At the risk of boring everyone who reads this to death I'll reiterate my favorite quote defining the underpinning of all SEO, namely Humpty Dumpty's "It's a question of who is to be master, that's all."
Being pragmatic and thinking in terms of ROI I'm fine with - but where I beg to differ once again is the prevailing view that "black hat" SEO is always equivalent to "high risk" strategies. Yes, many of them are, but every black hat operator worth his or her salt will have tons of contingency plans and redudancy infrastructures in place anyway. Which is something most white hats plain don't - now how smart is that for a business model?
An SEO outfit that doesn't wisen up their clients as to what they're doing in terms of violating the SEs' TOS and the risks they'll be taking with their money sites isn't "black hat" - they're scamsters. Entirely different thing, and lots of criminal and civil laws in place to deal with this kind of situation. Equating them with the entire black hat SEO industry is merely one thing: stoopid. Period. (And no, I'm not worried about "salvaging" the black hats' "reputation" - they couldn't care less anyway, as well they shouldn't.)
Such great comments. Fantomaster is one of my favorite people.
Before you get into too much mud slinging and assumptions, I did not come up with the article title. I had a writing block; someone else came up with it. But I got a kick out of it and said to go with it. :-)
I agree with so many of your comments. I know of some very ethical "black hats" and some very unethical "white hats." And, with all due respect Fantomaster, I do not lump in all "black hats" as being high risk.
This happens all of the time when I write. I have a limited amount of words and space, and people take a lot of things out of context. Just ask me to elaborate if something seems awry. I don't mind, and probably a good thing to make me clarify.
Believe me, Bill (Slawski), I echo your sentiments. I wish this "hat" thing would go away and we focus on the things that matter. Maybe I use this terminology out of laziness. I probably do. Your comments inspired this article. I was making observations during the conference and wrote things down. The observations evolved into an article.
Sorry, Natasha, if my life offends you. Actually, I'm not sorry at all. Take off your damn heels. Not everyone who listens to me speak at conferences knows or understands my credentials and background, which provide a frame of reference. I learned a tremendous amount about information retrieval in graduate school, and it helped me communicate with software engineers more effectively as well as usability professionals. It makes me better at my job and makes me present better scientific information at conferences, among other places. So no apologies.
Conferences can be difficult because the attendees are so different. If I speak in too many technical terms, I lose the non-techies. I can see it in their facial expressions. If I don't speak technical enough, I see many technical/IT people look bored: the folded arms, etc. It's a balancing act.
Instead of berating me, how about taking a library/info science class? I'm saying that to everyone, not only one person. My favorite one, so far, is about the organization of information. I take a lot of classes and seminars and training. I just finished one on software development usability and modeling, which was another big eye opener. I have been able to apply all of these classes/seminars/training to the jobs I do, often within 24 hours of learning something.
Everyone has his or her own approach to SEO. My approach involves a lot of education and training in a wide variety of fields. It's my approach. It's not for everyone. My approach works for me and my clients. I've been able to make a comfortable living with this approach for years. I'm sticking to it because I enjoy it so much.
As I am sure others' approaches work for them. Some approaches? I have issues with them because, unfortunately, as Fantomaster said, some approaches are scam.
These comments are great. I enjoyed reading them.
Shari, you specifically made an association between blackhats and fraud - and act hurt that you were construed in this way?
There is no any good reason for selling SEO services to anyone. It is much easier to monetize traffic than to get it in any market/niche. So SEO firms that sells services are shady and wothless and they usually claim to be snow whites. :)
*** There is no any good reason for selling SEO services to anyone. ***
Huh? I see a huge amount of sites with sub-optimal structure, code, navigation, information, content, and in need of a few weeks of care and attention to make them a better place to vist while allowing search engines to more easily find the content, and rate that content as "better" than the older version.
Very many sites can beneift from that sort of SEO.
Maybe it is time we stopped calling the "Black Hat" people, SEOs? They don't offer SEO services; they offer spamming and cheating services.
I mean to say that here in the UK, we don't call a "fake plumber" a "plumber" we call them a "cowboy" or "rogue trader" or "thief" or "conman" or "con artist" or "cheat", or "wide boy". Likewise with the dodgy builders, and the tinkers offering to "tarmac your drive cheap". They aren't called builders by the masses.
The industry will forever have a bad reputation if it cannot sort out exactly what it is that real SEOs do; and define that people who do something else aren't actually SEOs.
Hi everyone-
Context is everything. First, the "worthless, shady criminals" thing originated from another person who made the assumption that all SEOs practice the same methodologies.
I reiterate, I did not come up with that article title. Someone else did. Of course, I take responsibility for cracking up and saying to go with it. I remember what it felt like to be labeled as such. Though I think it is interesting to see the current reactions to it compared to the reactions a few years ago.
I did not say all black hats (for lack of a better term) are frauds. I said that the court cases I've been involved with for fraud involved black hat SEOs lying to clients.
The one thing I am very grateful for? A place where we can present multiple opinions. I was blocked from posting to the other blog.
I understand many of you are not in the academic arena as I am. Nevertheless, it is a big portion of my life. And it is very, very frustrating to deal with the incredible misconceptions. I've read scholarly journal articles that present information that is not accurate about our industry. I would rather spend my time learning something new than defending our industry.
As for all SEOs gaming the system? I do not know if I completely agree with that. Search usability applies to Web sites whether or not Google, Yahoo, etc. exists. Making products, services, and information easy to find on a Web site, software, or any interface is search usability, in practice and implementation.
Search behavior is not only querying behavior. And search does not only mean Google. Maybe it does to others, but not to me. I respectfully disagree, then. We could debate this topic to death, I know.
There's always been a disconnect between academia and industry, each eyeing the other with a hint of disdain, and perhaps suspiscion. That'll likely never change.
As for the BH/WH debate, most WH proponents would likely be happy to discuss the basis of their methodoligies in public, or with a search-engine rep within earshot, whilst many BH operatives would most likely not want any such exposure for their "techniques".
Anyway, you know my view on things. I don't consider BH tactics to be SEO; I consider that they're mostly spams and scams.
I think the big problem with the article is that it two two related issues: SEO methodolgy, and good business practice, and easily gave the impression of confusing the two.
The following statement is quite agreeable:
"I know of some very ethical "black hats" and some very unethical "white hats.""
but that didn't come across as the meaning of the article.
"Instead of berating me, how about taking a library/info science class?"
You forget, though - SEL is a library of sorts, and a highly respected one at that. So someone in your position obfuscating and confusing important issues in the minds of readers comes across as a serious faux pas.
Here in the UK the most common examples of bad SEO practice are companies who cold call their way to a client base, salespeople promising the earth, then only basic on-page SEO being performed. Not a way to gain competitive rankings for most. Utterly white hat, but probably quite easy to class as bad business practice if the client can be perceived to be misled.
That would in no way justify my stating that from experience, white hat is misleading, therefore whitehat SEO is a scam.
The shame is, there are real issues that could be have been addressed, and SEL readers educated on the pitfalls of bad practice in client terms. I don;t think we saw that happen.
2c.
What Fantomaster said.
A few have touched on this already. I think the point is that like any other industry, there are people with integrity and people without it. We never want to be lumped in with those without it. I think if you went to the average client looking to market his or her web site and started using terms such as white hat and black hat, you may not get the job because they want to talk about marketing thier site,not some made up industrry terms; and no I dont think it is a good use of time to educate them on our "insider" terminology.
@Shari - I think you missed Natasha's point. It's always touting your credentials among your colleagues and making statements like "I understand many of you are not in the academic arena as I am" that makes you come across as arrogant. Whether you meant it that way or not that could be read as an "I am better than you" statement if someone doesn't know you (or even if they do). I think that was her point. I don't think anyone who has been in the industry doubts that you know SEO and usability (I first heard you speak at SES 2000 in NYC). On a positive closing note, I sincerely wish you the best with your business and your educational pursuits. I think we would agree that education is a great thing and more people should seek to better themselves, so congrats on finding time to make it happen in the form of an advanced degree.
Hi again-
Regarding ibrian's statement:
>" I know of some very ethical "black hats" and some very unethical "white hats.""
> but that didn't come across as the meaning of the article.
I believe you are correct. It did not come across enough.
And oldschool? Me being in academia - it's a fact. People are going to think I am arrogant whether I state it in a different way, or the way I stated it. I live with the mud slinging. I do know that being in my chosen field of study has made me a better SEO, a better Web developer, and a better usability professional. I don't read much about people insulting search engine software engineers because they pursued higher education. People ask me where I learn things. I learn a lot in school. I suggest taking classes that really helped me to other SEOs. Don't believe me? Then take the class. Maybe you'll see what I mean. Then again, it's not for everyone.
I think this whole debate has been very interesting to read because, personally, I haven't read so many diverse opinions in one place in a long time. So many misconceptions. People believing that others don't practice [color]-hat methodologies because they don't know how -- that mud sling goes both ways.
And that really was the gist of my article, even though I might have communicated it better. It goes both ways. And whether anyone likes it or not, SEO has a very bad reputation among many industries, not only academia.
No one likes being unfairly stereotyped. Back to the original quote: I know of some very ethical "black hats" and some very unethical "white hats."
A lot of people took things personally when they shouldn't have.
I don't think the white/black hat labels are going to disappear any time soon, unfortunately.
Thanks man. I have nothing to add to this.
Highly relevant/targeted and distributed internet marketing engine using global human processing power combined with propriatery computer software algorithms and systems to deliver high amounts of internet traffic to your website and help with SEO process by using direct links. http://widecircles.com