Calendar
Network
Feeds
Kimota
Thanks for spinning this Kim. And I agree with you both. It is the herd mentality that can actually damage the internet as an information source. The democratic web is just as distorted as real democracy.
Damn - been spruiking this post elsewhere for weeks, but didn't submit it here. Bad Kimota. Bad.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in theis post. Using loopholes and tricks to achieve results only works until thoe system moves against it.Working the system is harder, but more worthwhile in the long run.
I think we're goiong to see more and more restrictions, algorithm changes and updates over the next few years as 'the system' corrects itself against those who are gaming the system. And people will continue to whinge, even though they will have brought about these changes.
"if you don’t try new and controversial tactics, how will you break out?"
How's about being the best at using the resources available? If an athlete wants to break out, they train their body. It is not acceptable for them to reach for the pills because they don't see how else they will compete.
My view is that if you can't get the results - or break out as you put it - within the regular guidelines, that isn't an excuse to cheat. It just shows you are maybe not as talented as those around you. Talent should be rewarded, not trickery.
I think Matt Cutts put it best when he said at SMX Advanced that people often know before they ask Google what the response will be to a particular tactic. We all know - even if it isn't explicitely stated in the webmaster guidelines whether a tactic is for the good of the end-user or a trick that exploits a loophole. So we shouldn't really need the search engines to tell us what is good for the industry at all.
I think we can all agree that is is incredibly unlikely for eyesterday's sin to ever get tomorrow's blessing. If anything, yesterday's sins will find penalties getting more severe as the algo perfects ways of capturing more.
If you honestly believe Google will turn around tomorrow and say 'write what you want - we don't care" you're bound for a fall.
Having said that, I'm not letting the search engines decide. But as I have said many times, if you want to compete in Google, you need to follow their rules or risk backlash, just like if you want to compete at the Olympics, you gotta stay off them drugs or risk disqualification.
A cheat is a cheat whichever way you look at it, and claiming that it was only intended to help break out is no excuse.
Seth Godin summed this up brilliantly in his recent post, 'The Spirit of the Game'.
Mike, I thing your missing my point, but appreciate you doing so with a smile.
Could I write a story tomorrow that pushes the same buttons as Lyndon's piece? Most probably. I'm after all not only a trained journo but also a scriptwriter with many years of study in how to construct great fiction. So no - the argument that says we are only complaining cause we couldn't do it ourselves is getting very old - cause what Lyndon did was not really that hard. In fact, it is the far easier road than the path I have chosen, although fraught with risk.
To continue with my Olympic analogy, by your argument, if I am competing in the same race as Lyndon and am coming last because I'm not as fast, but then complain because I discover Lyndon was using drugs, I'm somehow less ethical and / or a brown noser? It really isn't a case of 'we would if we could'. I would rather run last than take Lyndon's path - and not because of the risk or because of any inability to do so, but because I think it is wrong.
Also, your assertion that you would "much rather go to Google and search for something and see some funny and targeted result created by a blackhatter than something written for Google that doesn't tell me anything." is rather quaint.
Black hat is about making a piece appear more relevant than it actually is - a search for 'used cars' sending you through a BMW doorway page to something completely different for example. So I think your point has things the wrong way round. If something was 'written for Google' as you say, it was more than likely written for the end-user, meaning it should be more relevant and closer to answering your query.
Also, what's wrong with wanting SEO to be about producing quality content? Shouldn't that be the goal if we want to serve the end-user anyway? Often in these debates, the end-user becomes an after-thought as people seem more concerned with Google or traffic, etc.
Personally, the only real SEO techniques I use on my own website are regular quality (hopefully) content updates, appropriate anchor text where possible and the appropriate use of keywords in headers, etc. I know my urls could be optimised far better and there's half a dozen ways I could try to get more links other than through the usual content channels. I'm certainly not a lapdog to Google, because, to me, Google doesn't even come into it. By focussing on my content, I'm catering for the end-user which means, by default, Google responds well to me. Believe it or not, it works.
But in the absence of any other online code of conduct, the only set of guidelines I can use to illustrate my points are those from Google.
Who else can decide? Are you saying that, because I believe my florist has better service, that justifies me using black hat technisues to appear at #1 instead of #3?
Google can only assess relevance by the content on the page - which is limiting but faira. If everyone tried to decide their own worth, everyone is going to say they deserve #1. Sure, more entrenched sites appear stronger in Google, but that only reflects the every day reality that people trust established brands more than untested ones. You may think your business is brilliant, but you still need to prove yourself. Black hat techniques are just a way of cheating around this 'proving' of worth.
And yes, if you are #3 and you decide to trick the system to get to #1, of course that is black hat, because the #1 directory has lost their spot earned legitimately through their content.
I resent webmasters telling me that their site is the most relevant for my search by using black hat techniques to get to the top - which is basically what you are suggesting with your florist example. How can the florist decide how relevant they are amongst the competition? That's not an objective view. And going dopwn that path is what leads us to corruption, manipulation and exploitation. Black hat.
I've got to agree that it is one of Patrick's less inspiring blog posts. Sorry Patrick, love your blog, but then you already knew we were both on opposite sides on this one. I just don't think this approach adds any value to what has already been discussed. As a result, it seems more like a one-sided puff-piece for a mate than any true analysis of the question posed by the title. ;-)
Many of Lyndon's answers provoke obvious follow up questions that are never asked because to do so would put Lyndon on the spot.
Lyndon's technique is to linkbait, what steroids are to competitive athletics. It isn't linkbait, it is a trick, and all of Lyndon's attempts to say he has somehow provided us a service because he "tapped into some kind of online social consciousness and raised an issue that people wanted to address," is just retrospective bluster in the face of criticism.
I loved the line... "I haven’t time or space here to deconstruct the pychological motivators of the piece but it managed to reach into parts of the mind that other linkbait does not reach." This line demonstrates very clearly that Lyndon is prepared to analyse his technique only in the most basic of ways - in a 'see no evil' self-delusion. The moment you do psychoanalyse why people responded to the piece, there would be some uncomfortable conclusions about people's expectations of news and truth versus fiction, which would paint him into a corner.
Money.co.uk may well have known the piece was fiction (I notice Patrick, from your last comment, that you still can't say this for certain even after discussing the with Lyndon - another obvious and key question in the debate missed) and any black-hat technique or online trickery carries a degree of risk. But by assuming the failure was only due to Lyndon's disclosure is worrying. There are other risks in play. A key part of Lyndon's strategy was submitting the piece as 'news' to Digg. When sopmeone submits a piece in this manner in an attempt to dupe readers, it isn't their client's reputation they are risking, but also the websites of the services other people use to source news. If Digg's news became known as no more reliable than Digg's comedy section, all value for that part of their website is lost.
Yes, stable doors and bolted horses spring to mind, but where do we say 'enough'? Wikipedia was a noble idea that is now treated as a joke because of people manipulating the 'truth' in the pages to serve their own ends. The ability of the internet to serve quality and accurate information is challenged every time someone uses a technique like this and spreads it through other websites under a facade of fact.
it is scary to me that those of us with more influence over the shaping of the internet than most treat such issues so lightly.
Jill, I think the negative response may be the implication made in your comment that if money.co.uk knew it was fake, the responsibility is solely their's. But if I hire a hitman to murder my ex-wife, even though I know it's illegal, it doesn't mean the hitman is off the hook. (Sorry, was enjoying a fantasy there...)
I think that may be why some are reacting the way they did to your comment.
You are right that it is an important distinction, and the point needed to be made. IMHO though. it merely spreads the blame rather than transdfers it.
Could have, but wasn't.
Another analogy. If I send you an email claiming to be a Nigerian Princess with millions of dollars I need to get out of the country and only need you to send me a few thousand for me to put a commission into your bank account, does the responsibility for falling for the con rest solely with you? You would be a fool, but the responsibility is still mine. I would still be arrested and charged and can't use the defense "well, he should have checked".
The media were fools and bear some blame, but Lyndon and money.co.uk are still not blameless.
(And, before someone attacks me, this is an analogy, people - not a claim that Lyndon is a Nigerian conman! Last time I used this analogy, that is what I was accused of saying! Go figure...)
It is so true that clients see SEO as a one-off deal and not a never-ending continuous struggle against the competition and every trick in the book.
I think I have to pop my $0.02 in here.
In saying that the trust lies with the linkers rather than the linkbait, a lot is assumed. If lazy journalists link to a fake story, their links are not given less weight than a reputable librarian - following the example given. In fact, as newspaper websites often have higher PR and authority, the opposite is often the case. The average Google user is not looking at the 'trustworthiness' of the links leading to a site when they click on a Google result - they click on it because it ranks high.
Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, there is a big difference between marketing spin and fake news. Although marketers may choose careful wording to present the most positive view, there are very strict laws about truth in advertising that clearly prohibits wilfull deceit or misleading behaviour.
"Goolge asskissing seems to be THE way to make it in SEO. Skill is secundary."
Spelling comes third. ;-)
Anyone else think the last three comments on this thread are merely spam from boigus accounts in an attempt to trump up extra sphinns? The first comment is correct- it's a poorly written post on a blog with 2 posts, both on the same subject and may well be purely an exercise in reputation management. The thext three comments are made by people with no sphinn history, no submissions and only comments here. For that reason - consider this desphinned for obviously bogus behaviour.
A couple of people have already posted video of Matt's answer elsewhere which may be why this isn't getting the Sphinns it deserves. But it is by far the best quality and clearest video of the answer.
Matt says what Jill, I and a few others have said all along; that Google aren't about to fact check or review every site on the net, that The Onion is safe (please can people stop comparing linkbait-gate to The Onion or satire cause it just shows how little you understand either), April Fools are safe (ditto) and they took action here because it invited a response. Lyndon and money.co.uk basically ran up and tweaked Google on the nose and then jumped up and down in front of them daring them to do something. So they did. Qu'ell surprise!
Excellent points, so often overlooked by the clients I work with who also focus solely on rankings and not on conversions.
Excellent post that adds to the debate quite clearly.
My view on 'ethics' and morals in SEO has primarily been the question of how we work with clients so SSS made an important distinction by removing that aspect first. When taking the decision to be black hat on your own site, the risks etc are all your own which is where they should be. It's then up to Google to find you.
But my issue with 'ethics' recently has been more to do with the wider issue of producing content to trick Google that has far worse consequences than merely humbing the nose at the webmaster guidelines. Where the effects go way beyond Google. That's why I was glad to agree with some others that the recent linkbait hoax didn't count as black hat as it falls into a different category entirely. Now that's a question of ethics far moreso than white or black hats.
Brian I was about to make more or less exactly the same analogy - Olympic doping.
Neyne, developing a faster bike isn't against the rules of the sport though so can't be called black hat. Sporting rules are not rules that apply to all bikes, but merely rules that apply to people wanting to compete in that particular race, just like websites want to compete in Google.
In fact, let's improve the analogy by removing the bike entirely. It's now the 100 metre sprint. Marion Jones was the champ, but was found to have achieved her performance through methods not endorsed by the Olympic body.
Is she fastest? Of course. Can she still go out running whenever she wants and take whatever she wants? Of course. Will she still beat you and me in a race? Definitely. Can she run in the Olympics again? Absolutely not.
Black hat is the same. You take your risk of getting caught and penalised or banned from the sport.
this is why I don't agree with the argument that all SEOs manipulate SERPS so shouldn't whinge about black hat tactics. White hats are merely training their body and optimising their running technique. If all websites did this, it would be a far more relevant collection of results and a far leveller playing field.
But just as in sport, my refusal to 'dope up' my websites doesn't mean others won't continue to do so and it's not up to me to test them and expose them. The Olympic body will instead. Yet, just as weight lifting now has an unshakeable reputation of steroid abuse, despite rigourous testing, back hat techniques become associated with the wider 'sport' of SEO.
SSS - I see your point. As I've said before, if your intention is not to appear in Google, then everything is cushty, as they say, and Google's guidelines are not relevant to you. But if your intention IS to appear strongly in Google, then your agreement is implicit. You've not been forced into the race, you chose to be part of it, knowing the rules were in place, just as Marion Jones knew the rules were in place when she chose to run.
And it is Google's right to set the rules in their own house. They don't tell people how to present their websites to appear in Yahoo or prescribe any other kind of webmaster behaviour except for that which has a direct relevance on the Google 'race'. It's their race, therefore their rules. If you don't agree, no one is forcing you into their race and you can choose to rely on getting traffic through other means.
If your argument is that somehow Google is forcing you to be part of their race, I would have to disagree. Just because they are now the biggest race in town (just like the Olympics) doesn't mean they should abandon rules. That would be like saying that Microsoft should remove all restrictions on their software purely because they are a near monopoly.
I see what you are saying, but Google doesn't force anyone to do anything.
Actually, thse debates do happen in the Olympics. There was that controversy not long ago about certain swimmers receiving scientifically designed new swimsuits by their sponsors that put them at a distinct advantage over those swimmers without.
So yes, the Olympics and Google both have problems in the way they regulate their respective races that impact on the level playing field and yes, both bodies profit off the achievements of others, but that wouldn't convince me that I should then start doping up.
I guess this is the cringeworthy moment coming up here, so reach for a bucket now.
Many athletes compete at the Olympics knowing that it isn't perfect. They know the ice-skating judges can be swayed by politics or rivalries. They know sponsorships can provide better equipment to one athlete over another. But they still compete and fiercely defend their belief that they should do so without drugs or cheating because they believe in the Olympic 'ideal'. They know it's not perfect, but perfection is never going to happen. Therefore, they try to maintain pride and honesty in their own corner to at least preserve an aspiration to that ideal. Google also has an aspirational ideal - to serve users with the best and most relevant content in the quickest and easiest way. We all know that Google is sometimes the problem in this just as much as webmasters, but some of us still want to believe in the ideal even if it may not be entirely true in practice because of the overriding reality of running a business and making money, just like the Olympics. To take that ideal away removes one of the staple values on which the internet was founded - equal access to information for all. If the Olympic ideal were to disappear, every race would lose any value to the spectators and the athletes. What's the point of racing if you cannot say with certainty that you were the fastest when you win?
And, as I can sense my arguments getting more long winded and nonsensical the more tired I become, I'm off to bed.
Matt has said repeatedly that they aren't going out and try to verify everyone's content, but this one jumped up and down in front of them and fell in their lap. It created links through proven deception so they penalised it. Not much else they could do.
Doesn't mean they will now try and police truth on the web - only when it is brought to their attention as an attempt to game Google as this one was.
Matt clarified this yet again at SMX yesterday.
I think Matt has a fair point. We often know or predict what Google's response is before we ask the question so it was no surprise that Matt took a dim view of linkbait-gate. This illustrates that we should know the difference between what is good for the search engines and what is good for the user and that is the main issue that should be discussed - not what Google thinks.
"...crap in our collective corn flakes to get it."
And I was just about to have breakfast... ;-)
I can't even excape from you when I listen to the radio now. ;-)
The Ralph Hardy story was read out on Radio 4 on the News Quiz last Friday. I nearly choked.
Like it or not, I think your adventures in storytelling are going to be used as a popular case study for a long time yet as a readily identifiable example for any number of social media topics - both good and bad. Most of us are well over talking about it, but I still find new forums and blogs raising the topic for the first time in all manner of contexts.
Story: Misinformation In the Blogosphere