Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Can any SEO company be black hat free? For that matter can any SEO expert (so called) be black hat free?
All claim to wear only white hats (with white shirts, white trousers and white shoes), is it possible?
Thanks
AjiNIMC
SEO = Manipulate Results
Manipulate Results = Black Hat
Any SEO company that says they are purely "white hat" is lying. And how can you tell when a "White Hat" firm is lying? Easy. Their lips are moving. ;-)
Cabo
"Black Hat SEO - Not that there's anything wrong with that."
We conducted a test on one page in the google russia engine, and found that google did index the text found within the <div> element.
Not sure if Google frowns on this or if the SEO community sees it as white or black hat. But with flash-intensive sites, now so dominantly used by big companies and OEMs, we are testing all sorts of ways to add relevance and text to those pages. All pages are html with flash movies added, but the html pages contain little or no text, mostly images.
Your thoughts are comments are appreciated.
or
Search Engine Manipulator ..;-)
would apply to most of us ..
whatever it takes ..;-)
edited to add
the above example ( posted whilst I was typing ) would IMO be akin to "alt text" ..
[edited by: Leosghost at 6:17 pm (utc) on Nov. 1, 2006]
"Yes"
There are many SEOs who focus very largely on design, Quaklity directories, and organic link building.
Granted there are many that don't. But the answer to the question is a very clear "yes".
Does that really surprise you? That's sad. You must be looking in the wrong places.
Interestingly, the last few Google Tweaks have converted many, many people to "White Hat" approaches; not deathbed conversions, but people realising that the risks are increasing with blackheart techniques - and the rewards are smaller - and briefer.
Once upon a time, most of the 'hat' debates were arguments about ethics; unwinnable. No-one ever chnaged their business model by argument. But these days, most of the arguments are about ROI. And for most people, a slower but more certain approach is getting much more attractive than a fast blast followed by a fall in flames.
Plus there's still that buzz from success without ripping people off ... but I digress ;)
There are many SEOs who focus very largely on design, Quaklity directories, and organic link building.
more correct one Search Engines Advisor, which covers both SEO and SEM issues.
Google, in a way, needs SEOs or they would possibly not have the best sites appearing at all.
In my opinion SEO companies can't avoid link building and link building for SERPs is against Google guidelines. SEO companies adding links for traffic is a little hard to digest.
There are an alarming number of people who have no concept that there are "rules" to how a search engine looks at sites.
What do you mean by organic link building? How do they do that?
Fair question.
Many, many webmasters, and an increasing group od SEOs would never, ever ask for a link, or even a link exchange; they would submit their sites to Quality Directories, and allow the site to build its own incoming links by being a site worth linking to.
The only 'active' link building is by being active in forums and perhaps blogs; yes, a signature link is nice - but even a nofollow link will get referrals (if you've been talking sense!) and some of those referreals will end up as links.
Please be clear - I'm not talking about linkdropping - which usually has precisely the opposite effect; readers despise you, and far from linking, you are likely to be abused and reported (speaking as a moderator in several forums where we all abuse and report link spammers). I've had the pleasure of removing links to sites, on the basis of the webmaster's poor forum behaviour.
While being an active webby has its own rewards (keeping you up to speed with visitors and potential visitors), it can also be - in my view - a perfectly white hat SEO activity.
SEO companies are more concern in getting them ranked than teaching them Google guidelines. Do SEO experts follow search engine guidelines, they work on their own theory. ... Google is repeatedly asking people to add "nofollow" tag while buying or selling links but they have their own rules.
Any serious SEO must take note of SE guidelines; not only would it be unethical (sorry!) to sell 'search engine opimization' without diligent adherence to advice, it would be pretty stupid, and asking for clients to be penalized.
SE gudelines are the foundation of site optimization. Quality SEO *STARTS* with the SEO guidelines, then build up from there. Building without foundatons is a novel approach - but history tells us it is unwise. Especially in earthquake zones ;)
Nofollow is a good example; any forum or blog that fails to follow Google's advice is asking to fail. Why bother to build a site that is doomed? can't see the logic :)
Am working on SEO for a big OEM which likes to use a lot of flash on its B2C sites.
This is why IP detection and delivery was created. Take advantage of today's technology instead of relying on old techniques. Old techniques are still around based on tales of "being stoned". They are just that - tales.
Cabo
The key is to turn your normal thinking on its head and serve the non-Flash by default. This approach then requires no IP delivery at all, and it gets high marks on the accessibility and usability scale as well.
However, using Flash as the entire site, rather than as parts of the html pages, requires extreme measures even today. And even with IP delivery, it is not a strong approach to site building for mny many reasons.
If you look over your shoulder to see if visitors or SEs noticed, it's probably 'black hat'.
If you look at SERPs, traffic, page views, and other 'are my visitors happy, are my rankings better' indicators (ave. over a period of time) to see if visitors or SEs noticed, it's probably 'white hat'.
Justin
ADDED: Maybe another verbiage would be: Do you want SEs and/or visitors to notice what you did, or are you afraid they might?
BTW: Sandbox OR Filters? I always get confused on these seemingly 'black' and 'white' questions.
- Those who deploy SEO methods to achieve results within the frame of search engines guidelines complience.
- Those who deploy SEO methods without taking into account the importance of search engines guidelines complience.
However both groups are seeking to achieve the best possible ranking for their clients sites.
In fact its this part of the question which search engines need to clearify, especially to the webmasters communities.
At present, every attempt to improve a site ranking mightbe regarded as manipulation of the serps of the search engines, which is a very wrong assumption.
However both groups are seeking to achieve the best possible ranking for their clients sites.
In fact its this part of the question which search engines need to clearify, especially to the webmasters communities.At present, every attempt to improve a site ranking might be regarded as manipulation of the serps of the search engines, which is a very wrong assumption.
I 2nd.
Justin
IMO SEO company means 'spammer' for Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.
- Those who deploy SEO methods to achieve results within the frame of search engines guidelines compliance.- Those who deploy SEO methods without taking into account the importance of search engines guidelines compliance.
However both groups are seeking to achieve the best possible ranking for their clients sites. In fact its this part of the question which search engines need to clarify, especially to the webmasters' communities.
What is 'unclear'?
If you deploy SEO methods to achieve results within the frame of search engines guidelines compliance, then the SEs will smile at your site; your efforts would not be regarded as manipulation of the serps.
If you deploy SEO methods without taking into account the importance of search engines guidelines compliance, then the SEs are quite likely to regard your efforts as manipulation of the serps.
That is exactly why the guidelines exist - to help webmasters 'fairly' optimize their sites; and to help SEs identify those seeking unfair advantage.
Again, nofollow is a beautiful example, both of 'fair use' - or not - and of how easily SEs can separate the sheep from the goats.
Nofollow is also a beautiful example of how you can spot the difference between the two approaches; compliers use nofollow. They don't always like it, but they understand why it exists, and know that no better system is currently available. Non-compliers do not use nofollow appropriately, and blame the SEs when they reap the consequences.
There used to be a mantra: "White Hats define SEO by intention, Black Hearts define SEO by technique. Either way, using - or not using - nofollow as per guidelines, speaks volumes ;)
what they call Search Engine Optimization is making sites and pages crawlable.
Are you saying this is good or bad?
If I am Google and my mission is to organize the information on the web, I jump up and down every time a site becomes easier to crawl, because you use less of my resources, I find what I am looking for more quickly, and I can more easily determine what your site is about so I know if it is a 'good' destination for my visitors to find in my results.
Search Engines are charged with defining and attributing values to characteristics and patterns exibited by each individual web page, site, domain. Anything making the determination of these values more easily identifiable, including links, text, tags, code, etc. should be regarded as a positive from a SEs perspective.
(My Opinion Ony)
Justin
everyone who does SEO in our meaning is SEs enemy.
what they call Search Engine Optimization is making sites and pages crawlable.
what we call SEO is manipulation of the SERPs in a way our sites are at the top.
Hmmm. I prefer:
What they call SEO is making pages crawlable and useful to visitors searching for the topics they contain.
What I call SEO is making the best site possible, in design, content and construction, so that the SEs can direct visitors who are searching for the topics they contain.
SEO is not about manipulation; it's about making the best of what you have; if someone shows me a **** site, my first advice is NEVER "Do this to manipulate Google", it is "First, go build a unique and useful site"
(And I can back that up with evidence, too!)
Lets make a list ;-)
Justin
What I call SEO is making the best site possible, in design, content and construction, so that the SEs can direct visitors who are searching for the topics they contain.
I think I should write another post to sumarize the thread.
Personally, I try to think of SEO as communication...I also think that web site optimisation is about communication.
When I see "seo's" communicating in ways that are lazy, hidden and deceptive it amazes me - because often times an upfront approach and clear (visible) communication can be easily acheived. Often there is NO need to resort to "tricks" or deceptive methods.
I believe there is a clean "white hat" way to approach optimisation, it fits within the search engine guidelines, it produces lasting results, has little risk and complies with established standards.
It might take some hard work, it might take some time, but it is out there and it is worth it.
The whole web is about communication - forget about the search engines, they may come and go. If you cannot *position* a website within the web in a logical location (accessible from many points) then why use the web? or why not use it advertise on - just pay for where you want to be and forget about being good and meaningful...
Quoting from my previous article [webmasterworld.com],
f (ranking) = a1 x f (onpage) + a2 x f (offpage) ,Where f (ranking) = function for Ranking,
f (onpage) = function calculating onpage factor value,
f (offpage) = function calculating offpage factor value and
a1 and a2 are approx weights.For major keyphrase f (offpage) plays major role as f (onpage) can’t be improved beyond a limit.
I am sure no one will hire a SEO company for smaller competition. For tougher competition f(offpage) is the key. f(offpage) is links and linking strategy.
Now can we say that 80% of SEO is building links? How you build it is important to watch.
Now can we say that 80% of SEO is building links?
No. because it is not true. Except, perhaps for spammers
I, and others, have argued with reasons, why linkbuilding is far from a major part of SEO.
Simply asserting that it is changes nothing.
And to claim 80% with no evidence rather undermines everything else you've said. It also suggests that you've read neither SE guidelines, nor SE staff blogs, for the best part of a year. :)
High Risk:
Look for and exploit loopholes in the way Google measures relevance-trust-authority, causing Google to rank a url higher than the actual intention when Google put the algo together.
[webmasterworld.com...] (still waiting for approval)
According to many (almost all), one of the white hat seo is directory submission. Do we really do it for traffic? How many directories give us traffic, we know the answers (IMO Dmoz.org can give some traffic. May be hedir.com is the only one which is working towards casual visitors with feature additions and community review system targetting casual visitors)? The ones which gives the traffic starts asking for money like business.com (but I am not sure for $99 per annum is a worth investment or not). Is Yahoo directory worth $275 from traffic point of view, isn't that white hat SEO? Do we visit directories to find best sites, how many do we do? Will google ever submit to a directory under search engine category? What sites we will find under "search engine" category, will we find google, yahoo or msn, if not then what is the use of visiting the directory?
What is your opinion on that?
And to claim 80% with no evidence rather undermines everything else you've said. It also suggests that you've read neither SE guidelines, nor SE staff blogs, for the best part of a year. :)
My previous post on directory might answer few things. Then again its all opinions. Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use with SEO forums and SEO discussions :).
If you can tell me what all anyone do for SEO I can try a shot on it.
1. Start with:
A Successful Site in 12 Months [webmasterworld.com].
2. Continue to:
Google's Patent Application [appft1.uspto.gov]
3. From there get a basic knowledge of:
Google PageRank Technology [infolab.stanford.edu]
Google TrustRank Technology [dbpubs.stanford.edu]
Latent Semantic Indexing [cs.utk.edu]
4. It also helps to understand:
HTTP Status Codes [w3.org]
5. Some people like to be able to:
W3C Validation [validator.w3.org]
6. If you are running a dynamic site, you might need:
Mod Rewrite [httpd.apache.org]
AND/OR
MySql Reference Manual [dev.mysql.com]
You might be on the 'dark side of grey' and 'very, very nearly black' in the SEO hat color discussion, if you are looking for a 'one solution fits all sites' answer to the SEO question. (My Opinion Only)
Justin
Sorry about all the links out. I understand if they need to be removed.
Years ago there was a quote that one of "The Founders" viewed SEOs much like a mother Grizzly would view a hunter poking her cub with a stick.
It had the ring of truth, and I doubt if much has changed despite recent apparent rapprochements...
W3C Validation - These days we work with temlates and in our company the guys who have no big knowledge can also do that. Have you seen the latest log analyzer based W3C validation tool, I use that and it doesn't need SEO company.
Mod Rewrite - This is done once and most of the time available with the cms you are using else a programmer can do it. I do not think people charge heavy money for it. I have worked on it for over an year and for me most of the mod rewrites is not that difficult.
People read Google patent stuff and trust rank to see the loopholes to exploit it. How do I get a link from a gov page or an .edu page? I have a friend in university who get 2 visits every day lets get a link from there and say that he recommended me, just all explotations as google is 90% automation.
If you say that SEO companies write content for you then I pity on the business. Content is the main thing and I am not talking about SEs I am talking about customers. Do you think SEs experts can write a good article on chapter 13 bankruptcy? People study the laws for years to write those articles and thats value for the site. I do not think I will agree that SEO companies does content writing. Then a SEO company must be optimizing the content with LSI and sh**, thats the worst to do. "CONTENT MANIPULATED OR IMPROVED FOR THE SE IS THE CHEAPEST SEO WORK IMO".
We all know SEO companies charge good money and if you say we are online business consultant then I would have agreed to all those documents. A customer approaches a SE company that he can spend some thousand dollars and get some ranking and traffic from SEs. Isn't that?
From logic to logs of mysql analysis, not a cup of SEO companies. We have experienced programmers who dream only about faster queries and they charge much more than the whole SEO contract.
