whitehat vs. blackhat, it is all BS [Archive]

projectphp

08-13-2004, 02:45 AM

First let's define SE spam...
Anything action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic.
...
Therefor:
all SEOs are spammers
all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both
you are wearing a blackhat now and don't even know it

Are, definitions that make an entire argument.<sigh> I miss doing philosophy.

"therfor" (sic) is such a wonderful word. Therefore is suppossed to mean "As I have proven", not "from this definition I conclude". IMHO, the definition of spam presented is erroneous and open for debate, as is your (never given and pre-assummed) definition of the "hats". Therefore (and I do mean to use that word), as I do not agree to your definitions of the two most important words in your argument (white-hat and spam), any conclusions drawn from such a definition are not worth anything.

As spam is so difficult to define, lets talk instead about a far more real and tangible issue: deception and deceptive advertising as it relates to search engines. You rightly ask in a later post:
And what is 'deceptive'?
Which leads to a bunch more interesting questions that I am going to number for future reference:
1. Is adding extra key words deceptive?
2. Is using a style sheet to reduce the apparency of an H1 tag deceptive?
3. Is feeding googlebot a meta-keywords tag while hiding them from the end user deceptive?
4. How about rewriting dynamic URLs so that they appear static?
The definition of deception (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deception):
de·cep·tion
n.
1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.
So, if you use a technique that is deceitful, a ruse or a trick, that deception.

Lets relate this back to the questions numbered and raised. IMHO, and we are all free to debate this, neither 2 nor 4 is deception. Number one I don't really understand, so IMHO that makes 2 out of three not deception.

Number three, however, while deception, is ineffective. Showing Google a "meta-keywords" tag will have zero effect. A trick? Yes. Done with the intent to deceive? Yes. Does it acheive anything? No.

It is like all the American 20 year olds that come to Australia and buy alcohol with a fake ID because they think the legal drinking age is 21 (its 18). They may have aimed to deceive people, but the deception has no effect.

Some of your questions are not only not deception, but the right way to do things. The Hippy in me thinks the web should be free for all to use, and clearly defined page elements, headings 1, 2 and 3 are all useful for accessability reasons. Controlling the way they look with CSS is fine. If, however, all text is in H1 tags and made to look like normal text, in teh belief this will influence SE results, this may become deception. The technique of using headings is not in and of itself deceptivem, but it can be. The devil is in the detail.

It may surprise many, but there have actually been complaints (http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php?category_id=1&subcategory_id=24&article_id=33) on this very issue, and an FTC response (http://www.commercialalert.org/PDFs/ftcresponse.pdf) issued.

Alan Perkins, way back when in a bit of too and fro with Danny Sullivan, made the comments below @ IHelpYou (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11014&perpage=10&highlight=sempo&pagenumber=11) that I think are interesting in the context of this debate:
I think it's time we stopped talking about spam and cloaking and started talking about deceptive advertising....
By way of example, let's consider Google's organic SERP for "search engine optimization resources":

#1 www.lilengine.com
#2 www.searchenginewatch.com
#3 www.searchenginestrategies.biz
#4 www.seoconsultants.com
#5 www.pandia.com/optimization/

There we see the home page of www.searchenginewatch.com in the #2 slot. Here are three ways it could get there:

1) On merit - it is one of the most relevant pages on the Web for that phrase
2) By paying Google in some undisclosed way
3) By deceiving Google using cloaking or some other technique
Now, of these three, the later two are not very good.

The second, the labelling of search results, is not the focus of this debate, but if it is up your alley, this is an interesting thread on labelling of search result (warning: 11 pages worth of interesting) (http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4264&hl=sitematch&st=60).

The other deceptive means, "deceiving Google using cloaking or some other technique", is what is really interesting. In terms of spam, these are both well worth reading, but in the end, I think Spam is a ruse that this industry throws up to muddy waters. Spam shouldn't be the issue, the issue should be deceptive advertising.

Under such a debate, whether all SEOs are spammers is irrelevant. The real question is are all SEOs deceptive? To that, my answer is no. I have seen many SEOed sites that I would not define in anyway as deceptive.

The second conclusion drawn, that "all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both", is also not true if the definition of a white-hat SEO I someone that does not use SEO techniques create deceptive results.

My $0.02 on the subject anyway.

projectphp

08-13-2004, 03:04 AM

So, tell me ihelpy, DW and other self proclaimed 'clean SEOs' which of the above is spam and which is not? Do you think Sergey and Larry would agree with you?
littleman, I just don't get it.

Why is spam, in your opinion, a problem? Are / should Search Engines, most specifically Google, be the only definer of what is right or wrong?

I just don't get where you are coming from on this issue at all, and perhaps a little clarrification of your views and perspective will go a long way to helping me understand what you hope to achieve from this debate.

I have another question for you. You originally defined spam as "Anything action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic". Does that make writing an extra page spam? Does any action ever taken in which search engines are even considered a spammy decision? If not, where is the line you personally draw?

Nick W

08-13-2004, 03:11 AM

"therfor" (sic) is such a wonderful word. Therefore is suppossed to mean "As I have proven", not "from this definition I conclude". IMHO, the definition of spam presented is erroneous and open for debate, as is your (never given and pre-assummed) definition of the "hats". Therefore (and I do mean to use that word), as I do not agree to your definitions of the two most important words in your argument (white-hat and spam), any conclusions drawn from such a definition are not worth anything.

You wanna say that in english mate?

>>Alan Perkins

Oh, I do hope old perky turns up, I really do ;-)

Nick

Marcia

08-13-2004, 03:13 AM

The simplest way to put it is that all SEOs try to manipulate the search engine results in their sites' favor in one way or another. If they do work for clients and they don't do that, then they are not delivering for clients and are thereby being deceptive.

How else is "optimization" done, other than by making changes or devising ways to bring sites to advantage for the purpose of influencing the SERPs? IMHO it would be far more honest and ethical for those amongst the vociferous, crusading "white hat" crowd to finally come out and openly admit to manipulating the search engine, or at that they are at least trying to.

Furthermore, IMWCO some of those amongst that crowd are using the stance as a marketing tool for their own personal advantage; their USP, so to speak. By creating artificial divisions where none actually exist, what they're in essence saying is "You can trust me, but you can't trust anyone else unless they fully agree with what I say."

That, to me, is as manipulative and deceptive as it gets - not to mention divisive and destructive for the industry itself.

littleman

08-13-2004, 03:22 AM

Err, sorry about the spelling, I am a terrible speller, dyslexia does that to people.

Projectphp, actually I agree with most of your points.

This is my opinion, and I really wish I could shout this. All manipulation done to/for a site to put it into a better position to rank is spam.

So, yes, making an extra page so that your site to get more traffic is spam too. So is writing KW rich content, cloaking, exchanging links, etc.. It is all spam, because it is done to promote a site.

My issue is with the High Brow 'I am cleaner then thou' BS which has grown to dominate the SE forum landscape. We are all carnivores, we all employ some tactic to increase rank and traffic, if you do not do that then you are not an SEO.

The only true SE 'white hats' are ranking somewhere down below 500.

Nick W

08-13-2004, 03:30 AM

amongst that crowd are using the stance as a marketing tool for their own personal advantage

Ain't that the truth?

Acutally, it's really rather clever. Those that do it are fairly transparent in their motives to me, unfortunately they also suck in a lot of people new to the industry and I fear that's more destructive than the actual percieved divide.

These people hurt the industry far more than they help it, but hey, what do I care? I dont. Go for it White Hat Propagand guys and girls. It's good for a laugh at least.

Nick

ukgimp

08-13-2004, 06:22 AM

Search Engines, most specifically Google, be the only definer of what is right or wrong?

Here is where the freaking problem starts. Who gave them the right.

Go back a while, did any of you Uber clean SEO's ever engage in FFA or the odd meta tag stuffing? Sure you did!

So when the next "RULE" is introduced by whoever, you will be an official spammer, for a short while perhaps, but a spammer none the less.

The history of SEO is riddled with such backpeddling when the rules change.

You are all gaming Google, you know it, I know it :)

4eyes

08-13-2004, 09:08 AM

For all those so-called whitehat SEOs

If your site appearing near the top makes Google's results worse, then you are a spammer - even if all you have done is fix the Title and H tags.

Its not rocket science, the only activity that Google approves of is making your site better than all the rest. The more competitive your market, the more arrogant and misguided you need to be to assume that your site is better then the 5 million competing for the same phrase.

If you are not sure whether your sites are better than those out of the top ten, send me a list of your sites, I'll pass it round 'the lads', take a vote and send you your official spammer T Shirt.

dannysullivan

08-13-2004, 09:44 AM

Here is where the freaking problem starts. Who gave them the right.
Search engines themselves have the right to define whatever they want to be spam because we operate within their boundaries (for more, see Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3344581)). With some limited legal exceptions, they are free to operate their listings as they want -- and thus define whatever they want to be spam. Like it or not, they can throw you out. The SearchKing case in the US even established a legal right to take such action.

I personally see a whole lot of gray in SEO. Search engines set out some rules, but they don't always enforce these -- because in some cases, they may not actually feel a technical violation is a problem.

Even a guideline of "do things for humans, not search engines (which is largely my philosophy; you're free to have your own)" still comes under fire for exactly the reasons littleman and others have said -- there are plenty of "acceptable" changes like title tag alterations that are largely done for search engines.

Sure, all SEO can be seen as manipulation. All PR can be seen as manipulation. But with PR, if you push so far, no one's going to run your story. Same's true with SEO -- push too far, and your manipulation is considered spam, with the exact technical issues of how you pushed perhaps not even coming into play.

I think this leads to a more useful division of the white hat/black hat issue.

The white hat people are trying to push for better rankings in a way they think will be acceptable to search engines. They may feel they are inherently "good," but the core issue is that they don't want to be thrown out of a search engine. They want to push, but not so far that they face that risk.

I know plenty of black hat people who are not evil, nor do they feel they are harming search engine relevancy. You searched for x? I got you to a page about x! What's wrong with that. For them, the issue isn't that they are "bad" but that they may not feel constrained by the rules a search engine wants to set out. They'll push harder, and they'll accept the risks if tossed out.

The divisions are mainly useful I think for those new coming into the field or those seeking to work with a particular firm. If they want to black hat, they need to understand the risks that are involved. If they want to work with a black hat, the black hat ought to disclose the risks involved. Of course, there are issues even with white hats. A white hat doesn't mean you're going to get a worthwhile service. It might be all nice and clean but you don't actually get results (and obviously, the opposite is true. White hatting has, does and can produce great results as well).

Chris Boggs

08-13-2004, 10:01 AM

I like to think of myself as a technical aide to search engines. I use methods to ensure certain searchers (oooh a target market!) find a site, and these people are relying on the search engines to provide relevant links (wow providers of products and services!). If search engines are going to hold the black-hatters' occasional misbehavior against the entire industry, then it is up to the SEO/SEM industry to police itself. As most of the posts point out, SEO can be and must be manipulative. Without its existence over the past years, however, how many relevant search results would appear other than in sponsored links? Hmmmm? Maybe it IS in the interest of the big providers to treat SEO as Spamming :confused:

also... take a look at this if you haven't read it...

http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=30117

Nick W

08-13-2004, 10:05 AM

Way ahead of you: http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1071

Nice points Danny, that's a good summary.

Nick

ukgimp

08-13-2004, 10:18 AM

Search engines themselves have the right to define whatever they want to be spam because we operate within their boundaries

Danny

I know this and I have been vocal on such issues. We are 100% at their whim and quite rightly so. Like the SearchKing thing, it was very simple to me, it is their data if they see fit to edit in any way thats their right. OK dont get started on "is it really their data :)"

It is not a right to be inlcuded in a device that provides highly qualified leads, it is priviledge and there is every possibility that it could dry up if you push the boundaries that we al know exist.

Risk assesment is the name of the game.

Cheers

Chris Boggs

08-13-2004, 10:55 AM

sorry nick i see that there is actually an entire thread decdicated to that news article... i guess as a newbie I'm am going to have to take my time and read all recent posts before making more utterances :D

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 11:19 AM

Direct and Actual Example:

I helped this client for over one year. At the start they had two domains. One was a general type website that included all the different "types" of their services. The other one was a website that specialized in ONE type of service.

The one type was featured on "both" sites. The content was the same on both. This client's goal was to achieve multiple ranks for a couple of terms with "both" websites. In order for me to even start to help this client, I insisted that they drop the site that featured one type, and combine it into One big website. I wanted to have a separate folder in the site for this service.

domain.com/folder/

The client agreed to this after fully understanding my stance that doing what they were doing would eventually lead to a penalty. Anyway; The months went on and the site moved up in ranks. When we started, both sites were ranked in the 40's to 60's. I had achieved a second page rank to date on their really good terms. (Not easy terms) The client was very happy about this as their sales had gone up greatly.

Come to find out one day that their one website all the sudden lost it's ranks and had a PageRank 0. Of course I was shocked. Remembering what the client was doing one year ago, I quickly did a search and found that their other site, which they had dropped along time ago, was on page six and the site I had completely redesigned and achieved ranks was no where to be found. I was pissed. I confronted the client about it and was told they had talked to "someone else" and this person told them they had achieved success with multiple domains on the same keyphrases and never had a problem with it. The client went behind my back and uploaded this old site once again and now the site they had paid me to help them with was gone from the SERPS.

You all in this thread seem to be saying it's perfectly fine to "explain" all the risks to a client and let the client decide. That's crap. I fired this client last week because they had listened to the likes of people like you and were now penalized. I walk away from a potential client if they insist on spamming the search engines.

If I had done the same thing and 'made' the client agree with the risks over one year ago, do you honestly believe the client would have brushed it off and simply said it was "their" fault for the penalty? I think not! They would have blamed me anyway, eventhough they had agreed to the risks of having the two websites.

The idea that you are a good SEO and explain the risks to a client, and then proceed to spam on behalf of your client is the biggest problem and reason the SEM industry has the bad reputation that it has. Period. End of story.

This thread is sickening as I know "guests" and other members not realizing the damage this way of thinking can do, will be reading this thread and actually taking your advice in here. That's crap.

I don't agree to help a client if they do not follow my best practices. I walk away. Many of you will "do and say what it takes" to take the money from people. I don't.

Many of you insist it's "business". I don't. Many of you think you have some kind of "right" to be listed in the search engines. I don't. It's a great "priviledge for my clients to have a listing. It is "not" a right. Because of this, my clients and myself follow the "stated" search engine guidelines. It's a common sense thing for me. Actually, I have not read the se guidelines in aloooong time. Don't have to. Before you say "what about competitive terms?", I can assure you we are not talking about 3,4,and 6 word terms.

The education you all are dishing out is "bad" stuff. Period.

withoutwax

08-13-2004, 11:32 AM

If I had done the same thing and 'made' the client agree with the risks over one year ago, do you honestly believe the client would have brushed it off and simply said it was "their" fault for the penalty? I think not! They would have blamed me anyway, eventhough they had agreed to the risks of having the two websites.

When I go to a doctor I expect him to tell me the types of treatment available, the risks and the chances of success. I don't expect him/her to hide treatments because he disapproves of them, thinks they're too expensive or so on but I do want to hear his opinion of them.

When I go to a lawyer I expect him to tell me the courses of action available, the chances of success, the cost and so on.

When I go to an SEO why shouldn't I expect the same?

If I went to a doctor and he said - this is the treatment you're having and I refuse to do anything else...I'd walk out.

If I went to a lawyer and he said - this is the action you're taking and I refuse to do anything else...I'd walk out.

If I was you're client I'd do the same.

People have the right to chose to take whatever risks they want. I find it hard to reconcile providing freedom of choice with something you're implying is evil.

ukgimp

08-13-2004, 11:32 AM

I fired this client last week because they had listened to the likes of people like you and were now penalized.

That is a bit of a sweeping generalisation, you dont even know me :)

The fact that youir client was a big enough muppet to believe the other clown is not really relevant here. The fact that you "optimise" a page makes you a spammer. You may not be "black hat" but you sure as hell aint pure in your approach. :)

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 11:36 AM

Apples and Oranges my friend.

I know exactly what that mindset has done to this industry. It boggles the mind that you all cannot see it. Even SEMPO is now thinking about some type of standard where the SEO and client both agree to the risks involved. That's crap.

None of you has any "right" to a search engine listing, but yet, you think it's perfectly fine to spam for a listing anyway. My goodness.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 11:38 AM

The fact that you "optimise" a page makes you a spammer.
Since when do you all start telling me about who is a spammer? The search engines dictate who is a spammer. It's very clear as to the basic guidelines stated on their websites.

Lex

08-13-2004, 11:45 AM

For all those so-called whitehat SEOs
If your site appearing near the top makes Google's results worse, then you are a spammer - even if all you have done is fix the Title and H tags.

What's being argued here is that even if your site ranking well make's Google's results better, you're still a spammer (as it has been defined in the thread).

I do agree that we're all trying to manipulate the results. I just call that plain ole' SEO. Like projectphp said, it's the definition of spam that is being disagreed on.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 11:45 AM

The fact that youir client was a big enough muppet to believe the other clown is not really relevant here.
Yes indeed, blame this client. That's what you all do daily in forums across the internet. Blame the client for something they know nothing about. "YOU" are suppose to be the "Professional" in this SEM industry. Not the client. "YOU" are suppose to represent this industry as a Professional. Oh sure, a Professional will try to educate the client about why they should not spam, and make sure the client understands what best practices are all about. Yes, I agree with that. But you all want it both ways. Not only do you NOT take responsibility if a penalty is achieved, you also think you are very covered because you explained the risks to the client. "Amazing".

This is your definition of "Professional"?

NFFC

08-13-2004, 11:54 AM

David Wallace

08-13-2004, 11:58 AM

And here is a hypothetical choice. I have a car site and I want to increase it's rank for the term 'car', tell me what of the fallowing choices are spam and what is 'clean'.

Choice #1
I spend $50k on links from roadandtrack.com and cars.com.

This is fine - you have the right to advertise on other sites.

Choice #2
I believe that Google's algo is now wanting specifically 3.5% key word density for a 200 word page so I change a pages content to target those number.

So long as it reads good to the end user, I don't see any problem. Even if it doesn't, then it is not necessarily spam - just poor writing.

Choice #3
I hire a bunch of 'off shore' laborers to drop links in forums all over the internet at $2/hour.

Spam, spam, spam!

Choice #4
I write a bot to logspam links to my site.

Spam, spam, spam!

Choice #5
I build a static alternative to my graphically rich site and make sure it is 'spider friendly'.

Nothing wrong with this. You are actually catering to people that may have images turned off. We see this all the time with Flash sites offering a html version as well.

Choice #6
I feed the SE bots text while I feed the humans graphics.

Borderline spam. Technically it breaks some of the search engines rules of showing them one thing and someone else another. However, if it is all relevant, then they probably are not going to do anything about it. I think the danger with this technique is that someone will tell on you and you then risk someone on the search engine side acting against you. Too much of a risk for me.

The entire basis of spam is that it is either deceitful or intrusive, or both. Choice 3 above is intrusive. Choice 4 is deceptive. Choice 6 can go either way because if someone has text that is completely related to the site but it is hidden with CSS or DIV tags, is it deceptive? Without reading between the lines, it is hiding something but if it still produces a relevant result, I don't really think the SEs care.

So if you see spam as something that is deceptive and/or intrusive, then it is very simple to define it. But when you have the thinking that anything you do to increase one's ranking is spam, then it is like talking to a wall when debating it.

I was a spammer once upon a time and now I am not so I know the difference. What kind of spam did I do? Hidden links. I got busted for it, suffered the penatly, changed my ways and learned a valuable lesson. Anything I do now may be aggressive such as link building or optimizing body copy but it is not deceptive or intrusive. I am not trying to manipulate or game the search engines. I am trying to make people's sites better by making them more spider friendly and making sure they key phrases they want to target are accurately represented in all the areas SEs look at.

So all you "I think everyone is a spammer" viewpoints can go one thinking that. But I guarantee you when a client suffers penalization or even banishment because someone has spammed their site and they then go to a firm that does not spam who restores them and helps them to gain visibility, traffic and conversions, they will know and understand the difference!

Lex

08-13-2004, 12:02 PM

"We use the term spamming (also, spamdexing) to refer to any deliberate human action that is meant to trigger an unjustifiably favorable relevance or importance for some web page, considering the page’s true value. We will use the adjective spam to mark all those web objects (page content items or links) that are the result of some form of spamming. People who perform spamming are called spammers."

I'm confused then. According to this quote, it's only spam if it results in "unjustifiably favorable relevence". I thought you were saying that ALL actions we use are spam, regardless of whether or not they result in justifiable relevence.

"True value" is highly subjective. Again, I say it all comes back to intent.

withoutwax

08-13-2004, 12:07 PM

It is apparent that something can be SPAM without getting a penalty of any form. Therefore it would seem unwise to define SPAM dependent on what you read on search engine guidelines or indeed the risk of getting SPAM.

The argument therefore is that all manipulation is SPAM but that some spam is reacted to by the search engines and some is not. A stance that explains why some search engines respond to some things that others do not.

I am not trying to manipulate or game the search engines. I am trying to make people's sites better by making them more spider friendly and making sure they key phrases they want to target are accurately represented in all the areas SEs look at.

I've seen this phrase in every other thread along these lines. It essentially says I'm not trying to manipulate or game I'm simply targetting key phrases. It's oxymoronic, if you weren't trying to manipulate then keyphrases would have nothing to do with it as you would be targetting users needs. It could very well be that your users need a 100% flash site which does rubbish in the engines. Please, the moment you consider keyphrases you're manipulating.

NFFC

08-13-2004, 12:09 PM

And I quote...

"At the same time, many SEOs endorse and practice techniques that have an impact on importance scores to achieve what they call “ethical” web page positioning or optimization. Please note that according to our definition, all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming."

Same source.

4eyes

08-13-2004, 12:11 PM

And I quote...

"We use the term spamming (also, spamdexing) to refer to any deliberate human action that is meant to trigger an unjustifiably favorable relevance or importance for some web page, considering the page’s true value. We will use the adjective spam to mark all those web objects (page content items or links) that are the result of some form of spamming. People who perform spamming are called spammers."

http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=2004-25&format=pdf&compression=

Well said NFFC

It boggles the mind that Ihelpyou cannot see this.

Ihelpyou - we all admire your stance, very honorable..but you are just following the search engines cluetrain - they have pulled you in and made you their servant. They are businesses and in many cases perform far more unethical practices than a bit of SEO. Google have 'played' SEOs from the first moment they started to use their official mouthpiece on the forums. Its been nothing but a stream of FUD designed to pull SEOs round to 'playing nice'. All very clever, but not particularly honest.

Sure, Google have this 'do no evil' thing that sets them apart - but frankly I just don't buy that, and more importantly, how long will that last once they are at the mercy of shareholder decisions?

I generally don't practice blackhat on client sites - but I do advise them of the possibilities and risk - not to do so is highly unethical. We work for the client, not the search engines, and our advice should be that which is best for the client. Usually this is whitehat-ish, but not always.

I have NEVER had a client banned in 6 years of business - every client has a positive return on investment over that period, we have great client retention as a result.

THAT is what ethical SEO is about, not helping Google to improve the quality of their index.

When Google pay me a salary, I'll start agreeing with you - until then we will have to just stick to our positions, being that you think I am unethical, and I think you are unethical.

ukgimp

08-13-2004, 12:26 PM

From a paper by two Stanford people (not Bryn and Page)

Using Semantic Analysis to Classify Search Engine Spam

A webpage is spam if it or a portion of it was created with the purpose of increasing its rank through use of content that does not add to the user experience”

Lets pass your pages over to an English teacher and see how quickly they say “my got you have used the term “unga munga” quite a lot” etc etc

So by that rational, your loading of keywords is not in keeping with natural language usage and is therefore not useful to the user and is therefore …..SPAM CITY. But it did bump you up the rankings :)

Nick W

08-13-2004, 12:43 PM

This thread is sickening as I know "guests" and other members not realizing the damage this way of thinking can do, will be reading this thread and actually taking your advice in here. That's crap.

You've got to hand it to Doug: That's one hell of an agressive marketing spin you got going their boy!

Doug and his ilk make their money by their USP (as Marcia said earlier). That USP is that everyone except Doug and his cohorts are bad, bad people. And they are good people.

How funny ;-)

On a side note though Doug, you might like to work on your posts a little more mate, although I can see, and admire what you're trying to acheive, it just comes across as sanctamonious drivel for the most part :(

Still, fair play to you m8, if you can make sweeping generalizations, assumptions and insult everyone on this board and make money at it, good for you!

Nick

dannysullivan

08-13-2004, 12:49 PM

Actually, I was just about to PM Doug a message about perhaps backing off the "you all" if he wanted his ideas to have a better reception. But since Nick W put it out there already, and said it well, I'll just chime in to reinforce. It's best not for anyone to assume someone's in a particular camp.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 12:59 PM

With all the posts above except for a very few in this thread, what camp might that be Danny?

It's very obvious to anyone reading in here who "all" might be. I don't have to spell it out and say "this" post is a spammer and that post is not a spammer. It's pretty clear what "you all" means.

This lumping together of the sem industry as one big happy family has got to stop. I'm not a part of that type of industry. Any industry that accepts that deceiving a search engine on behalf of your client is just dandy as long as you don't get caught is not something I wish to be apart of. I never will be apart of it.

The joking and ridiculing is fine for some. It isn't for me. I take this industry seriously, and I also take my clients seriously. I would never do harm to a client's website, even if that client understood SEO completely.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 01:04 PM

btw, My name is actually being used in here and I'm told directly that I am a spammer.

I have not pointed out any post or called anyone a name in here. I have said "you all".

So now; I'm being scolded for saying "you all", while other posts are simply just dandy and can call ihelpyou or Doug a spammer anytime they choose to do so.

hmmm

Nick W

08-13-2004, 01:09 PM

You're missing the point by an astonishing margin Dougy boy....

I've seen your photo, you're a grown up right? - You should know full well that people mean that "all" SEO's are spammers. You just happen to have an opposing view, so we tell you that you are in that group also.

And I'll tell you one more time: If you manipulate search results, you're a spammer.

No amount of wishing, hoping or (in some deluded cases) sucking up to GoogleGuy will make it any different. Google does not like you, does not like me, does not like SEO's in general. It's all smoke and mirrors but if you look closely, you can see that a 12yr old could follow the PR pattern.

We are all spammers. That includes you.

Nick

dannysullivan

08-13-2004, 01:14 PM

With all the posts above except for a very few in this thread, what camp might that be Danny?
Doug, I'm going to give this a very limited run. I don't want the thread to devolve off the topic.

The point is, there are plenty of people who read threads without posting. When you say things like:

Yes indeed, blame this client. That's what you all do daily in forums across the internet
It's simply not fair. Everyone absolutely does not say this. Some people do. If you'd simply qualify your statement such as:

Yes indeed, blame this client. That's what some do daily in forums across the internet
You'll completely change the tone -- and likely get a more receptive audience. That's sort of the point, isn't it? You're posting to express your opinion and perhaps change some minds.

This lumping together of the sem industry as one big happy family has got to stop.
I don't know anyone who thinks we're one happy family. Oh, we're a family, but a pretty dysfunctional one. But if I disagree with my sister or brother, I'll try to do it in a constructive way that doesn't make them feeling all accused.
I take this industry seriously, and I also take my clients seriously. I would never do harm to a client's website, even if that client understood SEO completely.
Fair to say, there are plenty of people who take the industry seriously, regardless of what hat they wear.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 01:20 PM

hiero

08-13-2004, 01:21 PM

How to define "deceptive"?

Being premeditative in doing something that you know compromises the proper code of ethics.

David Wallace

08-13-2004, 01:23 PM

Google does not like you, does not like me, does not like SEO's in general. It's all smoke and mirrors but if you look closely, you can see that a 12yr old could follow the PR pattern.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean it is true.

We are all spammers. That includes you.
Again your opinion only - doesn't mean it has any truth to it. Where do you have the authority to say every search engine marketer is a spammer?

Nick W

08-13-2004, 01:30 PM

>>the proper code of ethics

Hiero, can you clarify that? - Im not aware of any such a thing?

Nick

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 01:38 PM

all SEOs are spammers
all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both
you are wearing a blackhat now and don't even know it
You are a spammer, LM is a spammer, one of you is man enough to admit it.
Thank you IHY.

This is about concepts not practice. I can nearly guaranty you that NFFC's sites would pass for what you would call clean. Yet I would call him an SE spammer, and I would call you an SE spammer and anybody who does anything to increase their 'natural rank'. To the search engines it is all the same thing, you manipulate your results and you are tampering with their algo which makes you a spammer.
The fact that you "optimise" a page makes you a spammer. You may not be "black hat" but you sure as hell aint pure in your approach.
You've got to hand it to Doug: That's one hell of an agressive marketing spin you got going their boy!

Doug and his ilk make their money by their USP (as Marcia said earlier). That USP is that everyone except Doug and his cohorts are bad, bad people. And they are good people.

How funny ;-)

On a side note though Doug, you might like to work on your posts a little more mate, although I can see, and admire what you're trying to acheive, it just comes across as sanctamonious drivel for the most part

Still, fair play to you m8, if you can make sweeping generalizations, assumptions and insult everyone on this board and make money at it, good for you!
You're missing the point by an astonishing margin Dougy boy....

I've seen your photo, you're a grown up right? - You should know full well that people mean that "all" SEO's are spammers. You just happen to have an opposing view, so we tell you that you are in that group also.

And I'll tell you one more time: If you manipulate search results, you're a spammer.

No amount of wishing, hoping or (in some deluded cases) sucking up to GoogleGuy will make it any different. Google does not like you, does not like me, does not like SEO's in general. It's all smoke and mirrors but if you look closely, you can see that a 12yr old could follow the PR pattern.

We are all spammers. That includes you.
Hi Danny, I'm sorry that I used this:

"you all"

instead of:

"some of you"

I will be careful in the future.

I'd appreciate a little balance on this issue however. As you can see from the above quotes, I don't recall calling any particular poster in here a name. I will be careful how I "word" my posts in the future though. Nor do I think I made my post in a "personal" way.

yellowwing

08-13-2004, 01:41 PM

The generalization that all SEO are spammers is a narrow argument. It's like calling all people of a particular religous belief, "murderers". Or calling all women who wear makeup, "strumpets".

I don't think that this thread does any irreputable harm to the industry. People not prone to predjudice can see and judge for themselves who is spamming.

The search engines have published guidelines on what they want to index. They are committed to delivering relevant content to their users. No, they may not deliver the best content. The best content may be a really informative flash site.

The SEO Clients want the the search engines users to get to their site. We help them develop relevant web content to get in front of those search engine users.

There is definately a way all four of these elements can work together without deception and spam. That is what we do, it's not about the nit-pick details of density, CSS, or header tags.

hiero

08-13-2004, 01:43 PM

Sure Nick,

Google says it best: http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

NFFC

08-13-2004, 01:44 PM

>That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean it is true.

And I quote...

"Sergey Brin, cofounder of Google, was once quoted as saying he regarded SEOs about the same way that a mother bear regarded someone poking at her cub with a stick"

http://www.seotoday.com/browse.php/category/articles/id/235/index.php

>Again your opinion only - doesn't mean it has any truth to it. Where do you have the authority to say every search engine marketer is a spammer?

Once again...

"This paper is the result of many interesting discussions with one of our collaborators at a major search engine company, who wishes to remain anonymous. We would like to thank this person for the explanations and examples that helped us shape the presented taxonomy of web spam."

http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=2004-25&format=pdf&compression=

dannysullivan

08-13-2004, 02:01 PM

I'd appreciate a little balance on this issue however. As you can see from the above quotes, I don't recall calling any particular poster in here a name.
Yes, some of the posts you put up raise a good point. Plenty of "yous" in them, as well. We should all watch it.

This thread is particularly difficult because of the core argument. Perhaps keeping the argument focused around whether all SEO is spam, rather than all SEOs themselves are spammers, might help. I know, by extension to say all SEO is spam implies all SEOs are spammers -- but at least the You word may not get hackles going up.

DrCool

08-13-2004, 02:52 PM

Let's say the speed limit on the freeway is posted at 65. If you start cruising down the freeway at 130 it is pretty obvious you are breaking the law. Now, let's say you only decide to go 70. Is that still breaking the law? Yes. It doesn't matter how much over the speed limit you go. If you go over 65 you are breaking the law.

And I quote...

"We use the term spamming (also, spamdexing) to refer to any deliberate human action that is meant to trigger an unjustifiably favorable relevance or importance for some web page, considering the page’s true value. We will use the adjective spam to mark all those web objects (page content items or links) that are the result of some form of spamming. People who perform spamming are called spammers."

http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=2004-25&format=pdf&compression=

If Google says don't deliberately do anything to manipulate your site's rankings and you do it does that mean you are a spammer? Yes. It doesn't matter if you are blog spamming 500,000 sites, buying links for PR purposes, setting up link farms, adding an H1 tag, putting in a few more keywords, or whatever.

Also, for some reason there seems to be a negative connotation to being labled a spammer. I feel no shame in being called a spammer. I have relegated myself to the fact that if I do anything to manipulate a sites rankings I am a spammer. Not feeling any shame about it either.

massa

08-13-2004, 03:59 PM

>shakes own head in disbelief<
I can't believe I'm once again getting involved in this discussion after swearing to myself so many times I wouldn't.

Anyway --- I want to help. I too would like to see this industry promoted better and believe that will not happen until this pointless, circular debate is put to bed for good. I'm not smart enough to know how to do that so I only offer my comments as a person who may be able to bring a somewhat unique perspective to the table in the hope that it empowers someone who is smart enough.

I happen to be one person who has been seen as being at one extreme of this debate to the exact opposite extreme over the last 7+ years.

In 1998, I started serving as a moderator at the Search Engine Forums. I was personally invited by Jim Wilson who said he had read many of my posts and liked my approach. I was vigilant in promoting the idea of working with search engines on their terms. I was seen by many as the epitome of white hat, even though the term did not even exist yet. I’m willing to bet some reading this now remember some of the posts I had made there. Then I sued Google. Talk about perceptions changing.

Jill the other day replied to a post I had made trying to give some public relations advice to the SEMPO people. Her post said something along the lines of,
"it's all about PR with you isn't it Bob?"

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. I'm assuming it was a jab although I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to slight another for focusing on public relations in a marketing forum. I said that to the SEMPO people in an effort to help because Jill is basically right. I would use the term marketing instead of PR but yes, I'm guilty. I do spend a great deal of my time focusing on marketing and public relations. You caught me.

My point is -- is PR bad or just me?

I'm just a guy trying to make payroll. I have my good points and my bad but all in all I'm just a guy. I think anyone that's ever met me would have to admit that I'm nothing special. Not special good. Not special bad. Some girls don't like guys like me --- but some girls do. The same as I would think of just about anyone else.

None of us are white hat or black hat. We are people. Human beings. Those hat terms are just used to describe techniques, not people. The techniques we use, the policies we develop and the procedures we instruct our employees in does not define us as a person. It may define our business model, but surely we could at least agree that we are all targeting the same market which makes us all pretty much in the same business.

So if we're all just people, why does this topic always get so heated? What is it that gets people calling other people names and making "over the top" harsh statements? Why is it so difficult for us to find some common ground as a group all engaged in the same business or at least going after the same customers?

I'll give my unasked for opinion hoping it will give someone smarter than me some insight into a different approach.

I believe the primary objective for all living things, (including human beings), is to survive.

I believe that the definition of survival is the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

To be right is pleasure. To be wrong is pain. And THAT is the problem. In a weird way, it is about survival. To take one side of the issue and then switch sides would be admitting that statements you had made or actions you had taken prior to changing your mind would have been wrong. OUCH ! That is what makes the argument so heated. Regardless of which side you take, it is a VERY strong human drive to get others to see your side so you can “know” that you were right.

If this argument is ever going to end, or at least take a new positive direction, a way must be found to alter the perception of the crux of the debate. A way must be found that no one is forced to either be right or wrong.

There are those in the industry who have made a name for themselves as defenders of the truth trying to save the planet from a black art that threatens to destroy the world. If that person were to admit that maybe that approach has been just a little over the top, their entire empire could crumble. Admitting having made a mistake would put them in the position of NOT being some kind of hero, they would be faced with having to accept they were just a person. The scenario is false of course. The entire situation is not that important to anyone other than themselves. It is perception.

Then there are those in the industry who have made money using techniques that are not search engine guideline compliant. They have broken no laws and they do not wish to go back to being retail salespeople or auto mechanics or whatever career they had before they became SEO’s, (whatever that is). To admit that they had been doing wrong would reduce themselves to little more than a thief. As humans, only the mentally disturbed can view themselves as a “bad” person. We all believe we are good and justify our actions to prove it to ourselves. So, when faced with a black and white decision of are you good or are you bad, both parties must argue to the death that they are good. That is survival. Hence the name calling which eventually erodes into hatred and the inability to see the other person as a person. You start to see them as an idiot or a thief. De-humanizing is the first step towards hatred. Very bad mojo happenin' there.

I’m sure we could all agree that we have seen dozens and dozens of post where someone makes some kind of statement like, “ I’ve bought links BUT, I only buy the ones that can send me traffic” . Or, my favorite of course is, “yes, I do sell text links with the price based on google’s PR but only if it’s on-theme”. That boggles the mind, how one person can do the exact same thing as another yet see themselves as completely different from the other but of course, some minds are much more easily boggled than others. That is justification. That is survival.

We make judgments in our mind and then want to feel that we are right in our assumptions so we make public comments looking for acceptance or approval. The more drastic the statement, the greater the desire to be right. The greater the desire for approval. Of course the greater the desire for approval, the more violent the defense if the position is threatened.

When in our own minds, the inevitable truth becomes that we see a personal benefit in doing something we spoke out against before, we mentally twist events around so that we can continue to see the other person as bad, (instead of admitting that we may have been wrong in the first place or that we are now doing the same thing), but we are good. Once this happens it becomes even more important that we find distinctions between them and us and then convince others that WE are right. Ironically, when the bare fact is that both them and us are doing the same basic things for the same basic reasons, the situation becomes even more heated, more violent and more bizarre.

I’m pretty sure some of my statements will step on some toes. There will be some who see themselves in these comments and some of those people will become defensive. I’m also sure I’ve done little to change anything. In fact, I am probably just throwing dry wood on the flame. I hope not. That is not my intention. Still, I fully expect to have to read more stuff about how I’m an idiot and a filthy spammer who should be killed. I’m much more used to it now days. My skin has gotten a lot thicker over the past two years and to me, it would be worth it if I’ve done anything to help even one of my colleagues find a way to stop this particular debate.

I truly believe it is going to take looking at this thing differently. Bruce Clay may have put forth a valiant effort to solidify the industry but anytime you try to save the world by providing links to your own $2,000 “be a good guy like me” training course, surely you would have to expect some accusing you of having an ulterior motive. Offering courses, starting clubs with a $5,000 membership and all of us choosing up sides is not going to have a chance of working until we can all find some kind of common ground that allows half of us to stop accusing the other half of being bad and just accept that we are people and it is not my place to judge another.

I’ve publicly mentioned some of the things I’m about to say in my very next post before, so I doubt this time will have any more impact than any other time, but I would like to try pointing out just a few concepts as an example that may indicate a possible direction that could be taken to shift focus away from the whole, “ I’m a white hat and you’re a black hat thing”. I truly hope I can be of some help.
************************

massa

08-13-2004, 04:00 PM

I believe if a person is not breaking the law, paying his hosting fees and domain registration, that person has the right to use any text, script or technique he wishes for whatever reason he see fit on his own website. That is not a privilege, it is a right.

I believe every search engine on the planet has the right to index whatever they want anyway they want. That right was even granted by a federal judge. By the same token, they do not have the right to index whatever they want and then blame their poor choices on a third party. In today’s SEM environment, no one who has the slightest knowledge of search engines is still submitting their sites. Their sites are being auto-spidered by computer programs. If a search engine does not want certain data, don‘t go get it. If search engines have a right to control their own site, then like all rights, that right comes with responsibility. Control your data but accept the responsibility that goes hand in hand with the rights.

I believe there is no such thing as search engine spam. There are only indexing and algorithm programs that need improving. If those programs are delivering content the search engine does not want delivered, then it is the search engines' job to fix it and the search engines' fault it doesn't work the way they want it to. If eyeballs move away, the search engine can't sell ads. It's the ads that make the whole thing work and they could change guidelines all day long but if their results are poor, it is their problem and blaming the results on bad webmasters is not going to get advertisers to pay more. You can argue the point all day long but there can be but one bottom line. Results are bad, the search engine loses, not the webmasters. If they don't want bad stuff and only they can define bad stuff, they need to stop trying to change what people do and focus on changing what they do.

>This is the touchy one. If you are an anti-spammer, (whatever that is), your survival depends on convincing others there is such a thing as spam and you would likely feel you MUST defend your opposing position or cease to exist. You'd feel a little silly if it turned out you had been fighting for something that had never really existed in the first place huh? I wish I knew the answer to this dilemma<

I believe search engines promote the perception of spam to obscure the fact they have weaknesses that can be exploited.

I believe computers and programs are machines and I believe you can not spam a machine. It only does what it was told to do. It would be akin to saying the man holding the hammer backwards was spamming the hammer. If you don't like what a machine does, stop telling it to do it.

I believe no one can spam a human who cares enough to look.

I believe a search engine, as a business, has the right to establish what it considers guidelines. When those guidelines are self-serving, I believe those guidelines MUST be questioned.

I believe I have as much right to operate a legal, profitable business as the search engine does.

I believe no man has the right to judge another or try to force his view of morals onto others.

I believe if you knowingly break the law you should be prosecuted.

I believe if you lie, you are a liar.

I believe no search engine has ever asked for the “help” of any web master or web site promoter.

I believe people who post that they believe their job is to “help” search engines, are delusional at worst, grasping at straws trying to find a way to justify their actions at best.

I believe nothing sells itself.

I believe in dressing up and wearing a tie when appropriate.

I believe you should always wear clean underwear because you never know when you might get hit by a bus.

But that’s just me.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 04:14 PM

This is the touchy one. If you are an anti-spammer, (whatever that is), your survival depends on convincing others there is such a thing as spam and you would likely feel you MUST defend your opposing position or cease to exist.
Some of us don't have to convince anyone of anything. Our record stands on it's own.
I believe no search engine has ever asked for the “help” of any web master or web site promoter.
I believe that is not correct. I know Google gets 'help' from WMW quite often. Other avenues as well. They do a good job of 'engaging'.
I believe people who post that they believe their job is to “help” search engines, are delusional at worst, grasping at straws trying to find a way to justify their actions at best.
Google specifically asks for help on their website:

"References are a good start, but they don't tell the whole story. You should ask how long a company has been in business and how many full time staffers it employs. If you feel pressured or uneasy, go with your gut feeling and play it safe: hold off until you find a firm that you can trust. Ask your SEO firm if it reports every spam abuse that it finds to Google using our spam complaint form at http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html. Ethical SEO firms report deceptive sites that violate Google's spam guidelines."
But that’s just me.
Yes, that's a good thing as I would not like the idea of many holding your same opinions. :) You are entitled to your opinions however, just like I am.

Nick W

08-13-2004, 04:20 PM

How do you follow that? - You dont! You quote your favorite bit:

We make judgments in our mind and then want to feel that we are right in our assumptions so we make public comments looking for acceptance or approval. The more drastic the statement, the greater the desire to be right. The greater the desire for approval. Of course the greater the desire for approval, the more violent the defense if the position is threatened.

Glad you broke your promise to yourself massa!

Nick

littleman

08-13-2004, 07:26 PM

Off Topic:
The longer the post, the fewer the readers. My advice to all -- get to the point!

mivox

08-13-2004, 08:04 PM

What the SEs want:

A bunch of websites built by earnest amateurs who's aim is nothing more than to educate and entertain the world regarding their pet topic, and retailers who's aim is nothing more than to increase conversion rates after customers arrive at their site. The SEs would like nothing more than for everyone building or maintaining a site to just forget the SERPs exist.

They do NOT want people out tinkering with sites to make them rank better. They want people tinkering with sites to make them more informative and beneficial to the end user, because deciding/calculating which sites are most relevant to any particular query is -- in their mind -- THEIR JOB ONLY!

What SEOs do: Try to alter a website to acheive a higher position in the search engine. SEOs try to interfere with what the SEs see as THEIR job: deciding which sites 'deserve' to be at the top of the results.

The ONLY way an SEO could do their job without directly contravening the SEs idea of how it "should" be -- the ONLY way you can do your job and actually be helping the SEs achieve their goals -- is if you analyze a client site in comparison to all their competitors, decide (for instance) they are really only the 10th or 11th best site on their target subject, and do everything you can to make sure they show up in the 10th or 11th spot in the SERPs.

If you found your client in the #2 spot, when they really only had the 50th 'best' site on their target subject, would you work to reduce their rank until they turned up 50th? If not, you are -- in the SE's eyes -- interfering with their ranking algorithms.

Whether or not you want to say "interfering with an SE's algorithm" is the same as "spamming" is up to you... but I feel pretty confident in saying the SEs probably think it is. If you are, in Sergey's words, poking a mother bear's cubs with a stick, I don't think she's inclined to look the other way depending on what type of stick you're using.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 08:17 PM

LOL Too funny.

Amazing how the way life is looked at and the way we think and feel, can be soooooo darn different from here to there.

I stay in a state of shock, astonishment, amazement, disappointment, dismay, despair, and frankly, quite disgusted at our industry.

I think another problem is all the different backgrounds we have and how we were brought up. Anything I've received for free, I have truly appreciated that product or service that was free. I always feel a need to "give back" to that person, entity, or whatever it is.

Anyone who actually will knowingly disregard stated guidelines from an "entity", or company, or website, or whatever; and do so knowing full well that "company" is giving them something for free, AND would not have to do so, is living in a whole another reality from myself.

seobook

08-13-2004, 08:22 PM

If they don't want bad stuff and only they can define bad stuff, they need to stop trying to change what people do and focus on changing what they do.
some of the best spam control techniques are through manipulating the opinions and actions of others.

manipulation of others for own self gain is a large part of the world in which we live. it sucks. but its true. and its what many marketers do.

>This is the touchy one. If you are an anti-spammer, (whatever that is), your survival depends on convincing others there is such a thing as spam and you would likely feel you MUST defend your opposing position or cease to exist. You'd feel a little silly if it turned out you had been fighting for something that had never really existed in the first place huh? I wish I knew the answer to this dilemma<
funny, sad, & true.

DrCool

08-13-2004, 08:25 PM

I stay in a state of shock, astonishment, amazement, disappointment, dismay, despair, and frankly, quite disgusted at our industry.

We must be in different industries

I think another problem is all the different backgrounds we have and how we were brought up. Anything I've received for free, I have truly appreciated that product or service that was free. I always feel a need to "give back" to that person, entity, or whatever it is.

I am giving back. Google freely takes my content.

Anyone who actually will knowingly disregard stated guidelines from an "entity", or company, or website, or whatever; and do so knowing full well that "company" is giving them something for free, AND would not have to do so, is living in a whole another reality from myself.

Google is taking my content for free. I never ask them to come and spider. They do so on their own volition. They take my content for free and in return give me traffic. What is wrong with that?

mivox

08-13-2004, 08:26 PM

Excerpted from NFFC's earlier quote (page 3 of this thread), in Google's words:

"...according to our definition, all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming."

So if you work to improve your clients' ranking by doing anything beyond validating their code and improving their content, it seems that you are knowingly disregarding stated guidelines from an "entity" that is giving you something for free.

And they say quite clearly right there, in their own words, they consider it "spamming"...

<added>
However, I'm with DrCool on the "something for free" angle... Google isn't giving me anything for free. My sites contribute content to their index, and their index contributes traffic to my sites.
</added>

agerhart

08-13-2004, 08:52 PM

Mivox,

ihelpyou has conveniently ignored those posts and quotes repeatedly. Selective hearding....selective reading...whatever.

This thread is horrendous.

mivox

08-13-2004, 09:00 PM

Horrendous? I find it terribly entertaining. :rolleyes:

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 09:03 PM

Yes I have because none of it is worth commenting about.

"Many" with views like mine about this thread are "not" going to post in here. They don't feel it's worth it. I'm alone with all of you for the most part. I feel a great need to make sure new people and owners reading this thread get the 'other' side of the debate.

Your world is much different from mine. If you don't want Google to index your content, then why do you allow it to be indexed for free? If you don't believe you get a free listing from Google, then why do you manipulate for position when your sites are indexed?

You see, you can easily "disallow" Google from crawling your sites if you wish. You simply stick in a disallow all in your robots.txt file. That way you would not feel that Google is "taking" something from you without your permission.

agerhart

08-13-2004, 09:07 PM

Not worth commenting about? Why, because it destroys your entire argument?

Oh, and thanks for the hot tip on the robots.txt.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 09:11 PM

You are welcome. :)

I thought that sentence was funny. I had to post it. I think you may have chuckled at the robots.txt thing as well. Come on... admit it. :D

mivox

08-13-2004, 09:11 PM

That way you would not feel that Google is "taking" something from you without your permission.
Who said Google was taking anything without their permission? I think what everyone was saying is that they consider it a pretty fair trade for Google to 'use' their content in exchange for the traffic they provide.

If you don't believe you get a free listing from Google, then why do you manipulate for position when your sites are indexed?
What in heaven's name are you talking about? SEOs try to manipulate for position whether their sites were indexed for free or not. That's their job.

DrCool

08-13-2004, 09:13 PM

I never said I didn't want Google taking anything from my site. I am not bitter or mad at Google for doing it. They even have my permission to do so. Like you mentioned before if someone gets something for free they should give something back as well. Google is taking my content for free (and I have no problem at all with this) and they are giving me traffic (and I have no problem with that either). If they don't like my site they can choose to not spider it.

Also since they are freely taking my content and my site they have the right to do whatever they want to with it. They are under no obligation to list it anywhere, but they usually do. I, also, am under no obligation to follow their guidelines. Do you freely check out a book from the library and then complain to the author or publisher when it doesn't fit on your shelf? No, since it is for free you generally have no recourse and shoud be thankful that you even have the book at all.

Google is freely taking what I have built and should be in no position to tell me what to do with it. On the flip side they are also under no compulsion to list it either.... but they do.

littleman

08-13-2004, 09:13 PM

Mar.tian ( P ) (ma"rshn)
adj.

Of or relating to the planet Mars or its hypothetical inhabitants.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 09:21 PM

I think what everyone was saying is that they consider it a pretty fair trade for Google to 'use' their content in exchange for the traffic they provide.
So that equates to you thinking you can simply ignore the Google guidelines?

The thing is, if 'your' content was not listed in "any" search engine, why have a website to begin with? It's a "privilege" and not a "right" to have your content listed. How can you possibly say that because you are "giving" your content to Google, that gives you the right to spam Google as well? Does Google think that is a good trade off? I don't think so. Deception could never be a good trade off for a major search engine.

Google has said many times that spammers are what can ruin a search engine SERPS more than anything else. If the serps are bad, the users will search elsewhere. Spammers don't care about anything other than that their client's website "must" be better and more relevant than anyone else's. They do anything and everything to get it to the top with no regard to what may happen to a client's domain/site if it is penalized. Let alone what it does to the search results across the board.

Deceiving a search engine of which "your" content is indexed for free is almost on the verge of fraudulent. It's deceptive advertising in the end. I know the day will come when it truly will be deceptive advertising and punishable by law. Just wait and see.

NFFC

08-13-2004, 09:24 PM

I flipped you off ignore just for this one, glad I did.

>I know the day will come when it truly will be deceptive advertising and punishable by law. Just wait and see.

Then you sir will be going to jail, for a very long time.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 09:28 PM

Thanks for not ignoring that post. :)

Well, many of "us" know some of you have nothing you could ever teach us or show us, and that is a reason we don't hang out at other places and a reason others are not posting in this thread.

My thing is "education".

mivox

08-13-2004, 09:29 PM

...you can simply ignore the Google guidelines?

Of course I can ignore their guidelines! It's my site, and I can build it any way I want, whether Google likes it or not. So can you. So can anyone else.

And, as a previous post stated, Google can choose whether or not to list my site, whether I like it or not.

I give them content for their index. They give me traffic for my sites. Fair.

I can choose to ignore their guidelines if I like. They can choose to remove my sites from their index if they like. Fair.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 09:31 PM

And you call that being a Professional, right?

Oh, and of course as long as you explain the risks to your client, that makes you a Professional also.

I'm happy that is all cleared up.

I'm done in here for tonight as Hurricane Charley is getting too close for my comfort level. I may have to drive inland to Columbia as being on the ocean is kinda scary from where I sit. :)

NFFC

08-13-2004, 09:34 PM

>Well, many of "us" know some of you have nothing you could ever teach us or show us

I could teach you how to make a web site work in browsers other than IE.

That may not be high up on your list of prorities but if I were you I would move it up the list.

To claim:

"Website Design and Search Engine Optimization

Those two go hand in hand. It's not enough to get a good rank on your keyword phrases. That rank does you no good if your visitors leave your site without doing anything. We are a full service search engine marketing company with emphasis on search engine optimization.

We can take your current site and make it very appealing to your visitors. You want a website that not only looks good, but also achieves good results in the search engines. We can help you."

I consider that deceptive on a site that doesn't even work in firefox.

littleman

08-13-2004, 09:35 PM

ba.bel also Ba.bel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bbl, bbl)
n.

1. A confusion of sounds or voices. See Synonyms at noise.
2. A scene of noise and confusion.

mivox

08-13-2004, 09:38 PM

And you call that being a Professional, right?

Who said I was a professional? My "title" here clearly says "shameless dilettante"...

dilettante \Dil`et*tan"te\, n.; pl. Dilettanti.
An admirer or lover of the fine arts; popularly, [i]an amateur; especially, one who follows an art or a branch of knowledge, desultorily, or for amusement only.

I have my own sites that I play around with, and I have my employer's site which I do nothing risky with whatsoever... but not because I have such reverence for Google's guidelines. I play it safe at work because I'd lose my job if we were ever removed from the index. ;)

Good luck with the hurricane, BTW. I'm glad we don't have any weather phenomena like that where I live. Be safe!

<added>Love the definitions, littleman! hehe</added>

DanThies

08-13-2004, 10:25 PM

Wow, this thread could really use some moderation. :eek: Not moderators, moderation. We can't have a reasonable 'debate' if we can't agree on definitions. We can't have a reasonable debate if we make it personal.

It's not hard to understand what search engines see as "spam." From their perspective, if everyone just put relevant search terms in the right places on the page, then nobody would be spamming. If everyone sought links from relevant pages, and links were only given out of pure love, then nobody would be spamming.

Where the search engines have a problem, because they are incapable of filtering it out, is when visitors don't get the same on page content as the spider. Likewise, they have a problem with all kinds of linking schemes, because they are incapable of deciphering the real meaning of the linking relationships.

Some folks think it's right to take advantage of the search engines' deficiencies. I believe that nearly every "spammer" thinks that what they're doing is right. The "black hat" camp should wear their hats proudly, if they believe they're doing the right thing.

I don't think it's reasonable for either camp to question the others' motives. What we rarely see from either camp, in this thread or any of the thousands like it over the years, is a willingness to understand the other's perspective and understand that for the most part, neither thinks of what they are doing as immoral or even amoral. Personal attacks accomplish nothing.

I have my own opinions of course. Call it whatever you like, but there are two types of SEO. You are either doing things that the search engines would like to be able to filter out, or you aren't. I prefer to stick with methods that the search engines aren't trying to stop. You can take a contrary position if you like, and I won't call you evil, but you're operating on borrowed time.

Six months ago, I knew people who were happy clients of Traffic Power and the other TP. None of them are happy today. The search engines didn't "change the rules," they just caught on to some spam techniques and found a way to stop them. The rules haven't changed in years, the only thing that's changed is the effectiveness of the implementations.

I also know people who are happy clients of IHelpYou and other (less infamous) "white hat" firms. They'll still be happy in six months, and I don't need some sort of magic insight into the search engines' engineering departments to see that.

4eyes

08-13-2004, 11:16 PM

Is there anyone in Dougs camp prepared to actually read the Google guidelines - every time we mention them, they just ignore them.

One more time then, more in hope than expectation.

Anything designed to improve your ranking is spam (other than just improving the content ).

So, if a potential client has produced a site naturally and found that it is not performing well, you are limited to improving the quality of the content and nothing more!

I see you offer a Link Popularity campaign on your site, Doug - care to explain why that is not against Google guidelines?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume its naivety, but surely you must be aware that to Guests and Newbies reading this thread, this must look like awfully like hypocrisy.

ihelpyou

08-13-2004, 11:35 PM

hmm. I see some of you wish to turn this into a 'personal" thing. I don't.

Actually, I could not turn it personal on some of you as you don't have 'your' site in your profile. Funny that. Actually, some of you have never ever revealed 'who' you are in public at all. Funny that. Is that because you might be looking over your shoulder? yeah, thought so.

I'm proud to say I've 'never' had to look over mine. I'm proud to say I've never had to watch my client's backs either. I'm also more than willing to put up my clients anytime against some of you who we never see or know. We could easily see who is doing what and how that way. I truly doubt some of you is willing to post, hmmm let's say a small number of ten client's websites for scrutiny. Let's compare positions and competitiveness of keyphrases for each and even rip apart the design if you wish.

"Some" of you insist on getting personal with me regarding this thread. I actually like it, if you want to know the truth.

One thing is for darn sure; My branding campaign over the years is truly working to perfection. You can match up my username with my business name "and" with my first name...... I'd even go so far as say with even my last name.

Thanks for keeping me in the spotlight. I do owe some of you credit for that. :)

DanThies

08-13-2004, 11:43 PM

Anything designed to improve your ranking is spam (other than just improving the content ).

I've read their guidelines. They're sitting above my desk. They say:
"Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings." (note the word tricks)
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. (note the word schemes)
They don't say:
"Don't build well structured pages with relevant keywords in the title, headings, and body text." (because that's exactly what they want)
"Don't pursue links from relevant pages." (because that's exactly what they want)

4eyes

08-13-2004, 11:54 PM

Scheme: A systematic plan of action

So you do your linking in a haphazard and unplanned manner then? Wow - interesting strategy.

Maybe it would be more ethical for whitehats to state:
"we do not break any of the search engine guidelines (by our interpretation)"

Do you really think that Google approve of ANY link building which is done to improve ranking?

4eyes

08-14-2004, 12:03 AM

hmm. I see some of you wish to turn this into a 'personal" thing. I don't.

Classic rhetoric, Doug

Insult us, and then claim we are being personal when we defend ourselves.

Boy, you got some flexible ethics there, boyo.

Thanks for fessing up to the whole thing being a brand-building exercise - that will certainly clear things up for a few of the undecided on this issue.

littleman

08-14-2004, 12:06 AM

nar·cis·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm)
n.

1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits.

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 12:10 AM

Thanks a bunch!

I'd rather be sitting where I am and build and help sites to be the best they can be "without" worrying about competitors or anyone else turning me in for spam, than where 'some' of you are right now. My shoes are comfortable.

Well, maybe not at this point in time. I am getting concerned about Charley as we are in the target area.

seobook

08-14-2004, 12:24 AM

I have my own opinions of course. Call it whatever you like, but there are two types of SEO. You are either doing things that the search engines would like to be able to filter out, or you aren't. I prefer to stick with methods that the search engines aren't trying to stop. You can take a contrary position if you like, and I won't call you evil, but you're operating on borrowed time.

Many people hand out information which works well for those who recycle sites every few weeks or whatever. This is not usually good information to hand out because most people trying to promote their sites are not trying to buy a new site every day.

We cross way over to the other side and we see reductionism of the good vs evil type stuff, which is equally bad information.

There is a bunch of stuff that is neither good nor bad, just smart marketing. There is a whole middle ground. You can do well by staying clear of the middle ground and working from one of the edges. Most business operate somewhere in the middle although for some reason want to claim a polar edge.

The most efficient way to do longterm SEO on a site is to be somewhere in the middle, while perhaps leaning on the conservative side a bit. As you are more aggressive you are taking more risk. So long as you understand the risk vs reward balance and clearly communicate that then what else really matters?

DanThies

08-14-2004, 12:30 AM

Scheme: A systematic plan of action
Keep reading past the first entry in that dictionary, and you will find:
A secret or devious plan; a plot.

The use of semantic quibbling, as I alluded to in my first post, is one of the biggest problems with these "debates."

Example:
Google knows what they mean by cloaking - in fact, I think we all do. That doesn't stop folks from trying to cloud the issue by referring to Google's geographic targeting (users in Australia are redirected to google.com.au when they go to google.com) as cloaking.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 12:38 AM

So long as you understand the risk vs reward balance and clearly communicate that then what else really matters?
An excellent contribution, Aaron, and I will only quote a small piece which needs clarity. Not that we're likely to disagree on this point.

If Alan Perkins is right about spam being false advertising, and regulatory bodies like the FTC come around to that point of view, then a lot of the "risk" you speak of becomes *legal* risk as opposed to the risk of turning a domain into an SEO Chernobyl.

I think it's highly unlikely that search engine spam will ever be interpreted as false advertising, because it would first need to be interpreted as advertising. In most cases, the search engines receive no consideration for crawling/listing our sites. Yahoo's paid inclusion program is pay per click, so maybe spamming Yahoo could be false advertising, but I don't see how spamming Google could be, in a legal sense.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 12:42 AM

Hope you get through Charley OK (honestly)

Is there any reason you are dodging my link popularity question?

And, for reference, your comment about 'looking over shoulders' is just more rhetoric. I am not looking over my shoulder for any of my own sites or my clients.

I adopt a policy of COMPLETE honesty with my clients.

I advise them of the guidelines and the risks involved in breaking them, particularly when it comes to grey nature of link pop campaigns.

I strive to avoid hypocrisy, don't mislead my clients and assure them that my duty is to their site's success and not to improving Google's index quality.

Clearly we have very different ideas on what is honest and ethical, but I am quite happy that any of my current, or future clients, can be pointed to this thread and make their own decision over who occupies the moral high ground.

I am sure that you are happy to do the same.

You've made your marketing pitch, lets just let the clients decide, eh.

mcanerin

08-14-2004, 12:43 AM

I posted something similar in another thread, so I won't belabor everyone with a clone, but let me present this anlaogy for discussion:

Knowing everything already and therefore passing the test = natural rankings
Studying for the test = "white hat" SEO
Cheating on the test = "black hat" SEO

Ian

mivox

08-14-2004, 12:48 AM

* Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank.

Let's instead switch the emphasis from "schemes" (which really only means "plans" - not a bad thing), and put it on "designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank."

Doug, if your link development services are not "designed to increase your [clients'] site's ranking or PageRank," what in heaven's name are you offering it for? Your entire business centers around increasing your clients' search engine ranking, correct?

If your linking services are not intended to do that, why are you charging your clients for a service that does not help them achieve the goal they hired you to pursue (increasing their ranking)? Isn't that kind of like an auto mechanic charging a client extra to 'fix' something that wasn't broken?

4eyes

08-14-2004, 12:49 AM

Keep reading past the first entry in that dictionary, and you will find:
A secret or devious plan; a plot.

Don't be so silly.

The first meaning is first for a reason.

If Google wanted to more specific, they would be.

I just looked it up in Chambers - couldn't find any of the 10 or so meanings listed that supported your case - they all worked pretty well for mine.

Stop digging, the hole is getting bigger.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 01:03 AM

"schemes" (which really only means "plans" - not a bad thing)
Keep reading past the first entry in that dictionary, and you will find:
A secret or devious plan; a plot.

Scheme means more than just "plans."

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:06 AM

Repeating an error doesn't make it any less eroneous.

Go look it up in Chambers dictionary.

That hole is still getting bigger, Dan - time to stop digging.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 01:12 AM

I've never heard of Chambers, but I'll take your word for it that it contains an oversight.

Since we're trying to interpret Google, I used the dictionary that they use. Go search Google for "scheme." At the top, they're kind enough to put a hyperlink next to that word, pointing to a definition at Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scheme&r=67

There you have it, the official Google-endorsed dictionary definition. In addition to what I already quoted, it includes this for the verb scheme: " To make plans, especially secret or devious ones."

Quibble away.

oilman

08-14-2004, 01:26 AM

You say tomato I say tomato, you say potato I say potato...

wow - that really doesn't work in type does it?

you can all throw out dictionary definitions all night and it won't change the fact that it is ALL spam - read that folks: ALL SPAM

Most of us here make a living from promoting our clients sites online. Part of that includes organic listings. G has clearly stated that if we try to manipulate the serps we're spamming - yes Doug - that even means you but don't worry dude- it's ok. It's just a little speck of dust on that shiney white cowboy hat of yours - Google can't see it ;)

Point is it's a matter of degrees. A proper on topic link building campaign isn't going to raise any eyebrows here or at G but it is still spam. They don't care. I big black off topic link building SCHEME will get you in the deep end of the pool sooner or later. Either because the caught you or some self described spampolice reported you. The longevity of your online campaign is directly proportional to the level of spam you choose to employ (generally speaking - I know some really good spammer that have never been caught).

Also, and I know this to be true, if you are big ass brand name travel site you can get away with alot because at the end of the day it is more valuable to have you in the index than not. However if you tiny little travel affiliate and employ the same tactics the big boys do and you get caught, you are out right now.

Black hat? White hat? It's all just shades of grey.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:28 AM

I've never heard of Chambers

Don't worry Dan, nobody is perfect.
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/catalogue/055014210x.php

You can buy a copy from Amazon - it one of the most important works on the English Language - it probably passed you by.

You know I tried your suggestion, and the No.1 Google approved defintion is still "A systematic plan of action"

If you want a hand getting out of that hole, give us a shout, we will throw down a rope (if we can find one long enough)

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:30 AM

Well said, Oilman

It seems so obvious to some, yet others seem to find it really difficult to grasp.

[added]
Lets shoot your semantic dog once and for all, eh.

The exact phrase is 'link schemes'

Go ask Joe Public what he thinks that means:

"systematic plan of action concerning links"
or
"secret or devious plans concerning links"

...way I see it, unless 100% agree with you, then we are just talking about 'the guidelines as we interpret them'

My bet is that more than 50% would take my view, but regardless, I am pretty sure it owuld not be 0%.

You want that rope now?

DanThies

08-14-2004, 01:34 AM

I won't link to Webmaster World because they wouldn't allow a poster to link to this forum, but there's an excellent document over there that describes how to optimize a site, build content, form link strategies etc. The title is something like "how to build your business with Google."

WM poster "Googleguy," a Google employee, has cited that more than once as good advice. If all SEO is spam, is Googleguy advising us to spam?

But again, this is really just a debate about semantics, isn't it?

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:40 AM

Ever read the Cluetrain Manifesto, Dan?

Google do, they have it on the shelf, Googleguy said so.

Go buy a copy, read it, and then read all of Googleguy's posts again.

It will help, honest.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 02:03 AM

Ever read the Cluetrain Manifesto, Dan?

Google do, they have it on the shelf, Googleguy said so.
Yes, I have read the Cluetrain Manifesto (http://www.cluetrain.com/). The book, too. I'm sure that a lot of folks at Google have read it. They might even have a Chambers dictionary on a shelf somewhere, too. Please explain what this has to do with anything, so we can all appreciate it.

If Google had meant to say "don't ask anyone for links" they could have. It would have been much more concise. That's not what it says, though, is it? You might enjoy reading some other pages on their site, such as
Google Facts & Fiction (http://www.google.com/webmasters/facts.html). It puts the idea of "linking schemes'" into context again:Fiction: Joining a link exchange or "free-for-all" link program will boost my rankings.
Fact: Linking schemes do not increase a given site's PageRank, and will often do a site more harm than good. ...
They apparently don't feel the need to debunk the "myth" that relevant links are a good thing.
from the 'original' Cluetrain Manifesto
Most marketing programs are based on the fear that the market might see what's really going on inside the company.
As many SEOs live in fear that the search engine might figure out what they're doing, and how to filter it out.

mivox

08-14-2004, 02:04 AM

Hm. I wonder why it is that everyone keeps TOTALLY ignoring the one Google statement that both myself and NFFC posted, which very VERY clearly said that ANYTHING (including "ethical" techniques) done to manipulate a site's position in the search results is spamming. Instead you choose to nitpick the particular degree of premeditation implied by the word scheme, trying to lead us off on a wild semantic goose-chase.

We could go in circles about semantics all day (and night) long, but Google quite clearly laid it out. Allow me to quote again (and we'll see how many times this direct quote can go ignored):

"At the same time, many SEOs endorse and practice techniques that have an impact on importance scores to achieve what they call “ethical” web page positioning or optimization. Please note that according to our definition, all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming."

So, if you are doing ANYTHING outside developing quality on-page content, with the intent of improving the site's position in the SERPs, you are spamming. Not according to me, NFFC, 4eyes, littleman, oilman, et. al., but according to Google themselves, the very people who's guidelines you say should be sacrosanct.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 02:10 AM

Seems odd, doesn't it.

That seems to be so very specific that it is hard to twist with semantics, no matter how much you might 'scheme'.

Remind me never to argue with you, Mivox - you should be a lawyer.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 02:32 AM

I didn't see that on Google's site, but update me if it's been posted there. The source is, I believe, an academic paper (http://www.marketingconsultancy.be/images/se-spamming.pdf) by a couple folks at Stanford, who are providing a definition within the context of that paper. Inferring that this is an official position of Google, then passing that inference off as fact, doesn't serve your argument well.

Anyway, I would contend that improving the hypertext structure, clarity, and usability of a page does improve the "true value" of that page substantially. That's what I would call optimization.

I doubt we'll be able to settle this by finding a Google-approved definition of "true value." When I did a search with the "I'm feeling lucky" button, they send me to a hardware store.

Google would do well to caution site owners about trusting claims of "ethical" SEO, that's for sure. "Ethical methods" are a major selling point for weasels like Traffic Power.

mivox

08-14-2004, 02:36 AM

That seems to be so very specific that it is hard to twist with semantics, no matter how much you might 'scheme'.

Indeed... When Dan said: "If Google wanted to more specific, they would be," perhaps he just missed the previous two posts where that was quoted. Seems as specific as they could possibly get without parenthetically noting their preferred dictionary definitions.

(And again, just for giggles: "...all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming.")

...you should be a lawyer.
Nah. If I argued for a living, I'm afraid all the fun would go out of it.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 02:38 AM

Wow, Google caught out lying - whatever next

Fact: Linking schemes do not increase a given site's PageRank

Anyone believe that?

Personally, I have completed linking schemes and seen the PageRank soar as a result. I thought many of us had done the same. I must have been mistaken.

It must have been a really strange conincidence, otherwise we would have to accept that Google had been a little economical with the truth, and that would throw some of their other statements into doubt, which would, of course, be unthinkable, no?

DanThies

08-14-2004, 02:45 AM

(And again, just for giggles: "...all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming.")
And again, you are repeatedly claiming that this quote comes from Google, when that's simply not true.
Linking schemes do not increase a given site's PageRank
Yeah, that is a laugher, isn't it? If linking schemes can't increase a site's PageRank, Google wouldn't have to penalize you for it, would they?

Marcia

08-14-2004, 04:44 AM

Instructing students at Stanford:

We use the word spamming to refer to any deliberate human action that is used to trigger an unjustifiably favorable relevance or importance for some web page, considering the page's true value.

Please note that according to our definition, all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spam.
In particular, from 3.1:

Term spamming refers to techniques that tailor the contents of those text fields to make spam pages relevant for some queries.
In 3.1 the specific text fields are mentioned that are commonly used by *everyone* in search engine optimization - and are also tailored specifically to return the pages for certain queries, or search terms.

That's inclusive of anchor text, H1, etc. - all the text fields that are modified by all optimizers so that pages will appear to be relevant to search engines. Plain Vanilla SEO 101 - it just doesn't get simpler than that.

Also please note that a couple of specific names are mentioned in section 3, and that the statement following served to disagree with the allegations being referred by those parties regarding "ethical" SEO.

Source: Stanford Document Server

Web Spam Taxonomy (http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2004-25)

http://www-db.stanford.edu/db_pages/members.html

<sidebar>
Keyword stuffing, even when done by a "white hat" does not improve the value of a page. Nor does using keywords in anchor text rather than Acme Corp. - even when done by a "white hat."
</sidebar>

Case closed. Good enough for me, until such time as it's contradicted by a higher authority.

Nick W

08-14-2004, 04:52 AM

So, I got up, had a coffee and sat down to a good chuckle over the very entertaining posts made while I slept. Great stuff, thanks!

I find it astonishing that you're quibbling over dictionary definitions and in what context a quote was made. If you guys backpeddle any harder you'll fall over! Amazing stuff!

All the "we're really not spamming" posts really do strike me as a little self serving dellusionment. A little imaginative, selective, and wholely self serving interpretation of the argument if you will. Awsome stuff, keep it coming, I haven't chuckeled so much in ages ;)

As far as I see, your entire argument was sunk when NFFC posted that quote. The fact that you all chose to utterly ignore it till mivox MADE YOU LISTEN is so telling, and so typical of the kind of short sightedness some people make a living from. The same short sightedness and self serving moralistic fabrications that some people base their marketing strategies on.

A very shakey foundation for any brand in my book.

I have somthing else to add, but i'll post it seperately, wouldnt want it to get overlooked ;-)

Nick

Nick W

08-14-2004, 05:03 AM

Ok, no one else has mentioned this, but im sure it hasn't gone entirely unnoticed....

Where is GoogleGuy?

Where are any of the SE reps? - It's always the same when this topic comes up, and like Doug, 4eyes, mivox, NFFC, littleman etc etc Im a veteran of such debate ;) ---------> I have NEVER seen an industry rep get involved.

Why is this do you think? eh? hmmmmmm......? Why would Google not make a comment on such an issue, why would that be eh?

If you dont know why, then you really, really have done a neat job convincing yourselves of your stance on the issue. A really good job.

Google love this stuff, believe me.

Nick

Marcia

08-14-2004, 05:07 AM

body spam
title spam
meta tag spam
anchor text spam
URL spam
All "white hat" spam.

seobook

08-14-2004, 05:26 AM

I doubt we'll be able to settle this by finding a Google-approved definition of "true value." When I did a search with the "I'm feeling lucky" button, they send me to a hardware store.
thats funny

Google love this stuff, believe me.
yup, random nonprofessional arguements = bad marketing for all seo.

Brad

08-14-2004, 08:19 AM

I don't think anybody is going to convert someone from the other camp.

As awall said way back at the beginning, some folks use the finger pointing part of identifying themselves as 'white hat' as an SEO services marketing tactic. Others view it with a ferver akin to religious zeal.

Frankly I think certain search engines love this rift and work to exploit it.

As far as the 'spammer' label goes it is all a matter of where you stand. I actually happen to work with hobby webmasters that have their non-commercial sites on Angelfire and Geocities. (You know those darn Geocities guys that get in the way of your doorway pages.) ;) Most of these folks have absolutely no idea what we are talking about or what SEO is. To them getting traffic is learning about webrings.

From their perspective, we are all 'spammers'.

They don't understand what we do, only that they have little or no chance of ranking well against any commercial site in Google SERP's.

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistingushable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

To them what white hats and black hats do - its all magic.

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 08:36 AM

I wake this morning to a couple of different types of news.

First; Looks like we are very lucky as Charley is just scraping us with a little wind as it passes right on by Charleston. Great news!

Second; I see that some members are justifying this thing that "all" SEO is spam by pointing to some paper written by a couple of college students in a dorm, AND then passing it off as some kind of authority on spam.

Are you serious?

While I actually agree with some parts of that paper, as it was put out awhile ago, I don't agree with their assessment that all things you do to a site are spam. Do you honestly think Google refers to this white paper and calls it an authority? LOL ya gotta be kidding me, right? :p

Someone mentioned and asked why Google is not posting to this thread. Well, don't you think it's obvious? Some of your posts are truly so far out there and so far-fetched, that I believe Google will be reading this, but then they would be rolling on the floor with laughter.

Some of you are trying your best to lump the industry all together by saying 'all' SEO is spam. I understand why you want to do that. Truly I do. Jealousy is a powerful thing. But let me give you some advice; Not even Danny Sullivan would be able to appease some of you with the type of posts and this paper from some college students some of you are using as an authority on spam. You are being extremely misleading to the industry as a whole.

This is a very bad thread. It's silly for one thing. It's a joke for another. And finally, it's truly pathetic.

Since Google is really the authority as some of you try to follow and trick their algos on a daily basis, then you should be referring to pages on the Google website, not some paper by 20 yr. olds who probably have not a blot of job experience at all.

If you don't wish to refer to Google, then you can refer to Alan Perkin's white paper on spam, that "IS" referred to by Google from time to time.

I would call this paper an authority:

http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/

Anyway, I suggest you stop confusing people and stop blurring the lines of what a true professional seo is. I also suggest you stop using a paper by a college student as an authority or something to make your points about spam.

And Brad, I agree with you. This thread is trying to say that all SEO is spam as well, just like those geocity sites may think.

Marcia

08-14-2004, 09:01 AM

Apologies, I guess the paper couldn't be seen or read, since the link was posted incorrectly (fixed now)

Written in 2004

Web Spam Taxonomy

http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2004-25

ihelpyou:
...some paper written by a couple of college students in a dorm

...not some paper by 20 yr. olds who probably have not a blot of job experience at all.
Hector Garcia-Molina

...Chairman of Stanford Computer Science Department since 2001

...PhD in computer science in 1979

... Garcia-Molina is a Fellow of the Association for Computing...

... received the 1999 ACM SIGMOD Innovations Award;

...is a member of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (National Research Council);

...is on the Technical Advisory Board of eGuanxi, Kintera, Metreo Markets,
Morhsoft, TimesTen, Verity, Yahoo Search & Marketplace

...and is a member of the Board of Directors of Oracle and Kintera.
More complete biography here:

http://www-db.stanford.edu/people/hector.html

Also seems that Hector goes back a way with Sergey Brin back in his student days in 1995, having been on staff at the time. Again, Mr. Garcia-Molina

>>>From August 1994 to December 1997 he was the Director of the Computer Systems Laboratory at Stanford.<<<

Worked together:

I worked on a project with Hector Garcia-Molina involving automated detection of copyright violations. Together with James Davis (another Ph.D. student here), we developed COPS , the COpyright Protection System.

"Copy Detection Mechanisms for Digital Documents"
by Sergey Brin, James Davis, and Hector Garcia-Molina.

We develop and study a system for detecting copies of documents in large collections which is useful for finding copyright violations.
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/

I would call this paper an authority
And I would call Hector Garcia-Molina an authority.

I'd imagine Sergey would also call him an authority; students generally consider their professors to be such. And Sergey might be a bit cuter, but I seriously doubt that he's softer and an easier touch.

NFFC

08-14-2004, 09:21 AM

A couple of other college students seemed to rate Hector Garcia-Molina quite highly. Check out the acknowledgents.

http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

4eyes

08-14-2004, 09:30 AM

I would call this paper an authority:
http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whi...classification/

Quoting from YOUR chosen authority document:
And what isn't spam?
Not Search Engine Spam
Anything that would still be done if search engines did not exist, or anything that a search engine has given written permission to do.

Which seems pretty clear to me.

excell

08-14-2004, 10:55 AM

I haven't read all this thread - so forgive me if this has been mentioned.

I really do not think that having an understanding of the power of the web and using it correctly is in all cases "spam".

Understanding the web - a bunch of information that is accessed via various methods be it.. paid for advertising, integration & meshing via free means or whatever along with following protocol for usability/accessibilty with quality presentation of content have always been keys to success.

Nothing is different today than it was in the beginning - it is not manipulation or spam to optimise a website to work well within the environment available.

To point to the google guidelines and scream spam because someone has knowledge of what works well in the environment in a way that neglects the broader scope of all of their information for webmasters is ridiculous.

Take links for example... Google understands the web and is looking to index websites that also do...the web is just a bunch of links...

However, if no other site links to yours, it may be difficult for our crawler to find you. Conversely, if many sites link to your page, there is a good chance we will find you without your submitting your URL

Where SPAM comes in (in my opinion) is in the artificial manipulation of any of the elements that are designed to make the web (and web pages) work within the current environment. It is quite ridiculous to say that all SEO is spam. There is a right way to build websites & to integrate into the web at large and there is a wrong way (like bad coding, lack of accessibilty, being an unrelated island etc). Those that optimise a website to perform well without deceptive tactics should NOT be labelled as spammers for offering their knowledge and services to assist others. ;)

Nick W

08-14-2004, 11:12 AM

I think you've just invented the third camp....

NICE!

It's quite a persuasive argument/definition...

Nick

excell

08-14-2004, 11:17 AM

Why would Google not make a comment on such an issue, why would that be eh?
Google love this stuff, believe me.

Nick

Yes - they do love this stuff and without us they have little help to build their engine and understand how they need to relate to the market. Google LOVE to listen, love to be challenged and are very good at responding as needed. I will never forget the first SES conference I went to where the Google rep present started to moan over SEOs in general... A statement as simple as "a good SEO is one that works with the search engines and not against them" got more ear than any talk of tactics to bend them out of shape. Significant change came for our region out of that. (and I got a google t-shirt :))

4eyes

08-14-2004, 11:32 AM

It is quite ridiculous to say that all SEO is spam

Excell, I agree

My concern is that there are people marketing themselves as 'Ethical SEO' because they adhere to the SE Guidelines and implying that those who do not are 'dangerous spammers who will get you banned'. This oversimplification is what really offended many here. In my view, it is an unethical and cynical marketing ploy.

This thread has illustrated that the Google Guidelines and definitions are NOT being adhered to by most of the so-called Ethical SEO companies - not without a significant amount of 'personal interpretation'. Sure, they might be practising low risk SEO (admirable activity - do it myself), but claiming to be working within the Google guidelines is simply not possible unless you selectively re-interpret certain sections.

Of course we are not all spammers - but according to the Google Guidlines we are, although some seem unable to accept that.

The Google Guildelines should not be our standard for what is ethical, moral or spam. They are flawed, applied only when it suits them, and designed to benefit Google not our clients.

excell

08-14-2004, 11:39 AM

The Google information for webmasters and guidelines are in need of serious attention in regards to being updated. It is all very well for Google to be creaming and quoting the likes of Alan Perkins for inclusion to their content, to use scarey stories of abusive and unethical businesses out there and to la-de-da it around... but to let this important area of their website to go unattended for so long is a little silly.

So - google - how about it.. where are you at in your listening now? Can we get some fresh info that will help you & webmasters/marketers?

DanThies

08-14-2004, 11:46 AM

I'll go ahead and give this thing one more shave with Occam's Razor, and leave it there.

Cited as evidence that Google's collective belief (presumably other SEs as well) is that "all SEO is spam," we have a research paper by Stanford students, repeatedly misrepresented as coming from Google.

vs.

An entire page on Google's website dedicated to advising companies on how to hire an SEO firm (http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html). This page includes statements like "many SEOs provide useful services for website owners."

What these guys are shoveling doesn't come "from the horse's mouth," as they claim. It comes out of the other end of the horse.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 11:52 AM

Dan

You are still ignoring all the other points made in the thread.

It was was necessary to redefine the word 'scheme' in order to wriggle out of the fact that Google specifically mention 'link schemes' as a no-no.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the document quoted by Doug as an authority referenced by Google themselves.

Google's views couldn't really be any clearer.

excell

08-14-2004, 12:01 PM

Google's views couldn't really be any clearer.
Yes they could - if they attended to it.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 12:05 PM

Yes they could - if they attended to it.

OK, to clarify, the guidelines COULD be made clearer - and should.

However, I believe the authoritative documents referenced in this thread make Google's VIEWS very clear. More importantly, there are logically consistent reasons for them to hold these views.

Nick W

08-14-2004, 12:08 PM

An entire page on Google's website dedicated to advising companies on how to hire an SEO firm (http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html). This page includes statements like "many SEOs provide useful services for website owners."

Dan, it's a little OT, but would you like to have a friendly game of poker some time?

Nick

excell

08-14-2004, 12:15 PM

Hey, I would love to sit down to a game of poker with peers... hehehhehe :D that would be excellent to say the LEAST.

It's just as well we are all in the padded room and everything is OK to bounce off otherwise a person could got nuts...if they didn't know what we are all on about.

A word for the newbie - don't mind us we are the piano players :cool:

DanThies

08-14-2004, 12:30 PM

You are still ignoring all the other points made in the thread.

It was was necessary to redefine the word 'scheme' in order to wriggle out of the fact that Google specifically mention 'link schemes' as a no-no.

I'm not ignoring the other "points" at all, when there's actually been a point.

It's not about redefining the word "scheme" from this side. Google uses that word repeatedly, and in several contexts; it's quite clear what they mean. They don't mean all hyperlinks.

Citing a third party's opinion (Alan Perkins or the CS chair at Stanford) as authority, as some have done in this thread, isn't helpful. Flat out lying and saying that this Stanford paper came from Google is deceptive.

If anyone wants to take the position that spam is not wrong (bad, evil, unethical, etc.) I won't debate that, because it's a personal choice. If you feel that way, though, just go out and say it, and be proud of it. Get the nicest black hat you can find.

"White hat" or "black hat" isn't about right and wrong, in any kind of absolute sense. (Well, that's my opinion anyway). As long as the search engines are incapable of enforcing their own guidelines, then some folks will see no value in observing those guidelines.

But you are either doing things that the search engines would like to be able to filter out, or you aren't. The gray area just isn't that big, in spite of all your efforts to grow it.

Spurious arguments won't change that. Referring to Google's decision to index text transcripts of NPR's audio interviews as "approved cloaking" is a good example. If they ask you to do it, it's not cloaking... it's just content.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 12:34 PM

Dan, it's a little OT, but would you like to have a friendly game of poker some time?
That would be great. Doing any of this in person would sure cut down on the number of times that a good-natured (if sharp) jibe is interpreted as an attack on someone's honor.

I just hope you aren't offended if I need to take a peek up your sleeve from time to time. :D

Marcia

08-14-2004, 01:00 PM

I didn't see anyone say deceptively any paper came from Google - there were definitions that come from what's considered to be authoritative sources. That's representative thinking, not what we'd like it to be. Same way quoting Jon Kleinberg is a lot more authoritative than quoting some SEO or marketer out there with business interests of their own. One of the things that *makes* the university people authoritative is that they don't have a vested personal business interest - and there isn't one private entrepreneur who doesn't, present company included. Some choose not to use a dubious banner of virtue as a marketing tool, but take a realistic, honest, non-judgmental approach.

I agree with 4eyes - it's downright insulting to the rest of the SEO community for it to be inferred that they're spammers because they're not on a white-hat cheerleading team with pompoms.

What it's too much like is self-righteous, bible-thumping turn or burn SEO theology that says only their denomination is right and has the right interpretation of doctrine and whoever is not in their group is a spamming sinner.

Sorry, but link management for the purpose of increasing link popularity or PR is artificially inducing higher ranking for a site than it may deserve had it waited for "natural" linking to come spontaneously an without conducting a campaign. It's highly unlikely that clients will pay someone to find them link to enhance their visitors experience - it's to get rankings.

And whoever takes money from clients to obtain links for such reasons is NOT white hat - that is GREY hat. It's a matter of degree and what shade of grey and what degree of risk - and a matter of honesty and ethics. At least some people have the gumption to stand up and admit it without claiming lily-white purity and pointing the finger at others as sinners. Hey, some people consider being a hypocrite a sin, and some interpret pious self-righteousness the same way.

It's judgmentalism vs. non-judgmentalism - something like glass houses and throwing stones. Grey is NOT white, regardless of the shade.

"Denial is not just a river."

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 01:14 PM

wow Marcia, So sorry to see that you have listened to others in the last couple of years.

Getting good quality links in directories and other quality websites for a client is just common sense stuff. Not spam. Not a grey area at all.

I'm really surprised at you Marcia.

I'm also surprised at others in this thread. And yes, it was stated earlier a portion of that stanford paper was quoted directly from Google. Go back and look. That's at least misleading.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:18 PM

They don't mean all hyperlinks.

Dan, that is just MORE rhetoric.

Nobody said they mean all hyperlinks. Setting up a false statement merely so that you can knock it down is misleading.

Let me make it so clear that you cannot accidently confuse the meaning. Here is the exact quote from Google Guidelines again:
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank.
You seek to redefine the word 'shemes' in order to get of the hook on this one. Clearly Google use the word 'scheme' in its normal English usage as listed in most dictionaries, but to avoid repeating the argument over semantics, just look at the whole sentence again and consider what it actually means.

Any organised plan of link exchange is against their guidelines.

If you read the documents quoted in this thread, (those directly from Google and those from others but referenced by Google), there can be no doubt over Google's view of what constitutes 'spam'.

Whether some of these are directly from Google, or referenced by Google doesn't matter - they are making their views known in either case.

excell

08-14-2004, 01:22 PM

nice post marcia!
It's highly unlikely that clients will pay someone to find them link to enhance their visitors experience - it's to get rankings. Not always :) It is OFTEN that a client will pay someone to research their industry/target market etc in order to improve their resources and integration hence empowering their position & marketing experience on the web.

Why wouldn't someone charge for such hard work.. it's like - where am I, who am I & where do I fit in.. who am I related to.. ? It can come naturally if you have time or it can take some reaching out or it can be pumped up... just because? because why? you care? you want to help others OR because you wanna just get links for links sake to increase PR?

White/Grey/Black... where do you hover? where it is comfortable to you.?..
It doesn't matter if what you do is with awareness...

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 01:22 PM

Marcia; You said you did not think people were passing off that stanford paper as coming "directly" from Google?

Here you go:

mivox wrote:
Hm. I wonder why it is that everyone keeps TOTALLY ignoring the one Google statement that both myself and NFFC posted, which very VERY clearly said that ANYTHING (including "ethical" techniques) done to manipulate a site's position in the search results is spamming. Instead you choose to nitpick the particular degree of premeditation implied by the word scheme, trying to lead us off on a wild semantic goose-chase.

We could go in circles about semantics all day (and night) long, but Google quite clearly laid it out. Allow me to quote again (and we'll see how many times this direct quote can go ignored):

Quote:
"At the same time, many SEOs endorse and practice techniques that have an impact on importance scores to achieve what they call “ethical” web page positioning or optimization. Please note that according to our definition, all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming."

So, if you are doing ANYTHING outside developing quality on-page content, with the intent of improving the site's position in the SERPs, you are spamming. Not according to me, NFFC, 4eyes, littleman, oilman, et. al., but according to Google themselves, the very people who's guidelines you say should be sacrosanct.
Something similar was posted at least one other time in this thread.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:35 PM

wow Marcia, So sorry to see that you have listened to others in the last couple of years.

Doug,

If Marcia has 'listened to others' in the last couple of years, then good for her. Its a shame you seem to think that listening to others is something to be avoided and ridicule it in others.

I remember overhearing Mat Cutts praising Marcia's knowledge of Google in Boston. Clearly listening to others gives certain advantages over those that don't.

FWIW, Marcia and I would not normally be described as 'the best of friends', we've had our big bust-ups over the years. Never over her knowledge of Google though - respect due.

Keep on listening to other people guys, otherwise we stop learning.

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 01:41 PM

Who was questioning Marcia's "knowledge"?

She is saying 'all' linking campaigns are spam.

That is what she has learned from the likes of another place.

I'm sure Matt Cutts said that about her. What's that got to do with this thread and you and others saying all SEO is spam?

Please already.

Marcia

08-14-2004, 01:42 PM

Doug, don't nit-pick on the source. I can hardly believe that anyone is being accused of deliberately "passing off" a paper as coming from another source. It's very easy to assume that Hector Garcia-Molina is with Google, I had to double check myself. Between Google & Stanford it's hard to tell who all is in the bed and who isn't.

That is a highly esteemed and reputed member of the search engine community, one who worked with Page & Brin in their "20 year old college dorm days" before they had any job experiece - instructing students who will one day work at the major engines and be in high positions, explaining to them what spam is. That is why it has value - because his is a voice that is heard, has been heard, and will continue to be heard.

Guess what? When the search engine poo-bahs do research and list citations and sources, they cite other academics and papers as authoritative sources, not professional SEOs. Or SEO bashers, for that matter.

We really have to be careful who we allow to define our terminology for us. S.I. Hiyakawa's "Language in Thought and Action" is one of the best resources ever for learning to interpret words, and detecting slant, bias or impartiality. It should be required reading for everyone. Academics don't have a business bias - they're scientists with an objective approach. We can't be quite so sure about SEOs, who have a whole lot of reason to have an agenda whether they're in denial about it or not.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:43 PM

Something similar was posted at least one other time in this thread.

Answer a direct question for me if you would, Doug

Q. Do you believe that Google disagree with the definitions of spam used by their founders unversity, their founders professor, and more specifically , the 'authority' documents that they reference themselves?

4eyes

08-14-2004, 01:48 PM

What's that got to do with this thread and you and others saying all SEO is spam?

Sorry if it was difficult to understand.

I was pointing out that 'listening to others' which you seem to think is a 'bad thing' (or at least it made you 'sorry' that someone had done it), was actually quite a good thing and that the person you were 'feeling sorry' about was highly respected, both by her peers AND by Google, if not by you in this case.

Thats what listening to others does for you, Doug

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 02:25 PM

Do you believe that Google disagree with the definitions of spam used by their founders unversity, their founders professor, and more specifically , the 'authority' documents that they reference themselves?
Yes they would. They would with the overall sense that all SEO is spam. Google does not go for that. Google states on their "own" website that "NOT ALL" SEO is spam. Period.

How many times does this have to be stated in this thread anyway? You can read on that SEO page at Google yourself. Why do we constantly have to restate it time and time again? It's spelled out clearly that Google thinks "some" SEO's are helpful and useful. Simply read it for heaven's sake!

DanThies

08-14-2004, 02:27 PM

1. I didn't see anyone say deceptively any paper came from Google.

2. I agree with 4eyes - it's downright insulting to the rest of the SEO community for it to be inferred that they're spammers

3. Sorry, but link management for the purpose of increasing link popularity or PR is artificially inducing higher ranking for a site than it may deserve had it waited for "natural" linking to come spontaneously an without conducting a campaign. It's highly unlikely that clients will pay someone to find them link to enhance their visitors experience - it's to get rankings.

4. At least some people have the gumption to stand up and admit it without claiming lily-white purity and pointing the finger at others as sinners. Hey, some people consider being a hypocrite a sin, and some interpret pious self-righteousness the same way.
Marcia, I numbered those snippets so the response will make more sense, okay?

1. Doug already pointed to one post where statements from that paper were represented as direct from Google. I'm sure that some folks at Google agree with the sentiment. My only point was that it shouldn't be misrepresented as official dogma.

2. As far as I can tell, 4eyes believes (or is at least arguing in favor of) the notion that all SEO is spam. If you believe that, and you do SEO, you're calling yourself a spammer. You're also calling everyone else in the business a spammer. So who's insulting who?

3. Not all link campaigns are done with search engines as the target audience. Some are focused on reaching the real target audience. If you look at the backlinks for SEO Research Labs, you'll see a bunch of pages that reach my target audience. There may also be a few irrelevant links from annoying time-wasters who were looking for a link swap with a PR6 site and heeded the standard advice on link swaps, which is to put a link up first.

If all of the search engines went 100% pay-per-click, I'd still be very happy with my links. Those links deliver a positive ROI by themselves. In fact, if that happened, the value of those links would increase, because people would use search engines less and surf the web more.

4. I agree with this 100%. I don't see black, white, or gray "hats" as representing degrees of good or evil. If the search engines want to stop spam, they have to stop rewarding it. Until they do, people will make their own choices. Nobody here has the moral standing to judge another's decision about this, or question their motives.

5. You didn't say it so I will: Doug and everyone else who is making this personal, please take it somewhere private.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 02:38 PM

Yes they would.
You really think that?
Did you read those documents?

If so, wow, that certainly explains a lot.

Google states on their "own" website that "NOT ALL" SEO is spam.
How many times does this have to be stated in this thread anyway?
It never had to be stated. Google are more than capable of saying one thing whilst believing another. Lots of companies do that, its often part of their PR campaign.

Heck, you seem to think that they are happy to point people at documents that are diametrically opposed to their own views on spam - wouldn't that be a touch misleading?

Can I ask you another direct question that might help us understand why you seem to be so opposed to the majority view here.

Q. Do you believe that everything Google post on their site, and allow out though official chanels is 100% true - or do you accept that, like many other companies, there is a degree of spin and subtle use of words designed to improve their profitability?

(not having a go at Google here, thats pretty normal behaviour for most companies)

4eyes

08-14-2004, 02:47 PM

2. As far as I can tell, 4eyes believes (or is at least arguing in favor of) the notion that all SEO is spam. If you believe that, and you do SEO, you're calling yourself a spammer. You're also calling everyone else in the business a spammer. So who's insulting who?

Nope, I couldn't care less on the exact definition of the word 'spam' in the general world. I am not pointing fingers at spammers, but rather the people who I believe out of naivety or hypocrisy, are pointing fingers at others and shouting 'spammer'. In these case, I would be happy to shout back 'You are a spammer too, and a hypocrite to boot'. The only part that insults IMO, is the hypocrite part.

You wanna call me a spammer, fine not insulted, just make sure you are not being hypocritical. Call me unethical, and you had better be squeaky clean yourself, in all your internet marketing efforts.

My belief is that Google see all SEO types as spammers - there are just spammers that they really hate and spammers that they think they can neutralise with FUD. If you mess with their SERPS, you are a spammer IN GOOGLE'S EYES.

[added]
Dan, maybe you could confirm whether you agree with Doug that Google disagree with the definitions of spam detailed by their university, their professor and the documents that Google themselves reference as authoritive on spam.

Marcia

08-14-2004, 02:49 PM

Dan
I agree with this 100%. I don't see black, white, or gray "hats" as representing degrees of good or evil. If the search engines want to stop spam, they have to stop rewarding it. Until they do, people will make their own choices. Nobody here has the moral standing to judge another's decision about this, or question their motives.

Thank you for expressing it so clearly and objectively, Dan. This has all needed to be said for a long time. I feel the same way. I don't believe it does the industry as a whole any good when some set themselves up as pillars of virtue, which in essence is what can happen, and create artificial doctrinal divisions.

I think the best thing we can all do for the industry as a whole, as individuals, is exactly what so many already do - and that's participate publicly expressing safe, sound principles inobtrusively and without judgmental attitudes, without "marketing" and without pious "moralizing" - which only serve to further mistrust in and diminish the reputation of the industry, in more ways than one.

4eyes
My belief is that Google see all SEO types as spammers - there are just spammers that they really hate and spammers that they think they can neutralise with FUD. If you mess with their SERPS, you are a spammer IN GOOGLE'S EYES.

Agreed 100%, and I speak as one of those neutralized by FUD. In a perfect world without SEOs, search engine algos would work beautifully. It's SEOs who foul up the works for them. ;)

Added:
Dan, maybe you could confirm whether you agree with Doug that Google disagree with the definitions of spam detailed by their university, their professor and the documents that Google themselves reference as authoritive on spam.

Ya, I'd also like to know, and also I'd like references to where the contrary substantiating documents are if Google is in disagreement.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 02:53 PM

Google are more than capable of saying one thing whilst believing another. Lots of companies do that, its often part of their PR campaign.
I thought the Cluetrain Manifesto was their bible. Where does it tell you to lie? That must be in the appendix or something....
Do you believe that everything Google post on their site, and allow out though official chanels is 100% true - or do you accept that, like many other companies, there is a degree of spin and subtle use of words designed to improve their profitability?
I definitely believe that there's a lot of "wishful thinking" at least. You have already pointed out their statement on linking schemes. While it may be their desire and intention for that to be true, it's not really accurate today.

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 02:59 PM

I Disagree with those two posts.

No way will some of you and myself agree on anything with this industry. It's very useless to have debates/threads such as this.

They are confusing and misleading to a reader is the most important reason why they should not exist.

And no; I don't wish to be lumped together with some of you in this industry. To even infer that your businesses might be similar to mine is simply misleading. Some of you do business entirely different than many of us.

Dan is being very nice and I applaud him for that.

I'm not as nice and don't want to be. I'm tired of the crap. There are threads in here about "what to do about the bad reputation" of this industry.

It's clear to me the reason for this bad rap the industry has. I apologize for no one and certainly not for the way the industry is right now. It's a mess.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 03:03 PM

[added]
Dan, maybe you could confirm whether you agree with Doug that Google disagree with the definitions of spam detailed by their university, their professor and the documents that Google themselves reference as authoritive on spam.
Everyone that I know at Google would disagree with this definition, at least the way you spin it. Everyone that I know at Stanford would too. The definition is useful in the context of that paper, though.

Search engines need pages to be well structured. In their perfect world *all* pages would be "optimized" to an extent, so that the relevant content can be identified as such.

Search engines need to rely on linking relationships to determine which pages have authority etc. so if *everyone* just sought links on relevant pages, it would be easier to run a search engine.

Search engines need to crawl the web to find content. In their perfect world, no sites would have the kind of crawlability issues that exist on the web. Very good SEOs are very good at fixing these problems, which helps the search engines.

All of these things, incidentally, help to boost rankings. None of them has "higher rankings" as its sole purpose.

excell

08-14-2004, 03:05 PM

are u saying u don't love us anymore? :eek:

Brad

08-14-2004, 03:16 PM

I just looked around, and I sure don't see any halos in this thread. And I'm not buying any of the posturing that one group is more ethical than the next group.

excell

08-14-2004, 03:34 PM

I just looked around, and I sure don't see any halos in this thread. And I'm not buying any of the posturing that one group is more ethical than the next group.

That's the point - if you don't understand things for yourself - you never should buy... do your homework :rolleyes:

Lex

08-14-2004, 03:44 PM

It's gettin' rowdy in here. Please refrain from personal attacks.

I'm going to the beach. When I get back, I'm moving this thread over to SEO. So finish up your drinks and be ready to clear outta here.

In the meantime, behave. I'm leaving the nanny cam on.

polarmate

08-14-2004, 04:07 PM

It was was necessary to redefine the word 'scheme' in order to wriggle out of the fact that Google specifically mention 'link schemes' as a no-no..
<offtopic>4eyes, I don't know where you live or where you're from. I've grown up and lived in countries that were British colonies prior to independence. Scheme just meant a plan. Banks had saving schemes, governments offered incentive schemes. There was never any negative connotation. When I moved to the US, I had to re-learn a lot of my English mainly wrt to usage. I remember my first project meeting here in the US when I used the word scheme. Horrified silence ensued. I had no clue that the noun scheme was so closely associated with the verb to scheme in the minds of the people around me. A scheme in the US means a devious plot. Google is a US company. Most of the matter you find there will be drafted within the guidelines of American English. You can argue all you want, it won't change what "link schemes" means to the American public at large and by that token, what Google meant when they used that word.</offtopic>

Marcia

08-14-2004, 04:22 PM

>>scheme

One day I was chatting with a friend online who said all SEO was spam - called me a spammer, in a friendly way, saying "even you".

Being a "white hat" I started to type and hotly deny it, then looked down at the pen and paper I was working with. What I was doing was flowcharting (actually a hierarchy chart like in structured COBOL programming) - the navigation of a new site to set up the linking to distribute the Page Rank around the site properly based on keywords, depending on where it was needed most.

I shut my mouth then and there, realizing that I was "scheming" and manipulating the PR for the site. So is getting deep links for interior pages - for PR and anchor text, to the important pages. It's scheming and "working the engines."

Is that contrary to the written guidelines? No, it isn't at all. It's halfway decent SEO like everyone does, and if they're not then they should be, imho. But it's something we're manipulating for search engine rankings, and would NOT even consider doing if there were no such thing as Google and an anchor text boost for rankings and Page Rank.

<=== #F5F5F5, not #FFFFFF ;)

If we're #FFFFFF we need to change our business model and just do PPC & PPC management. Like painters.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 04:35 PM

I think you'd have to be redirecting cloaked pages with the names of children's cartoons to porn sites to get to all six Fs, Marcia. ;)

mivox

08-14-2004, 05:08 PM

My apologies for mis-attributing the quote. I was mis-remembering which of the many papers it came from, and (as it was late and I was getting sleepy), I failed to perform my usual "Googling" fact-check to get the exact source.

I'll stick to the "poking bear cubs with a stick" quote from now on. ;)

Anyhow:

It's not about redefining the word "scheme" from this side. Google uses that word repeatedly, and in several contexts; it's quite clear what they mean. They don't mean all hyperlinks.

Of COURSE they don't mean all hyperlinks. They mean hyperlinks deliberately sought for the purpose of increasing PageRank or position in the SERPs. Which is virtually any link 'hunted' and acquired in the day to day operations of a professional SEO.

A professional SEO is trying to manipulate search engine results for their clients' benefit, ideally acheiving high first-page results for the client site's target phrases, regardless of the site's quality level as compared to competing sites... they do NOT work for altruistic improvement of the SERP quality.

The search engines do not want site owners and promoters deciding which sites appear in which position in their results. It's a conflict of interest, much like a congressman heading up a legislative committee dealing with issues that directly benefit his own private company. He will be inclined, due to his own financial interests, to make decisions that benefit his own company, rather than decisions that benefit the greater good of his entire constitutency. Or, in a briefer example, a man would not be allowed to serve on the jury of his own business partner's fraud trial.

Likewise, an SEO is working, in his/her own financial self-interest, to promote their clients' sites to the top of the SERPs, regardless of the overall effect it has on SERP quality. SEs DO NOT LIKE THIS.

As I said before, in order to be working SEO in a 'helpful' way to the SEs, you would have to take a mediocre client site and honestly try to achieve the mediocre search position it deserves in relation to the better competing sites. If you're trying to push a site higher in the SERPs than it's content warrants, you are a BAD MAN (or woman) in the SEs' eyes.

That's it. Spammer, spammer, spammer, nyah! (Like I said, I'm not a professional. ;) )

DanThies

08-14-2004, 05:23 PM

Likewise, an SEO is working, in his/her own financial self-interest, to promote their clients' sites to the top of the SERPs, regardless of the overall effect it has on SERP quality.
Some SEOs do this, not all. Some won't work on sites that don't deserve to be ranked, unless the site is fixed first (or concurrently, since many of the best SEOs I know are site designers).
As I said before, in order to be working SEO in a 'helpful' way to the SEs, you would have to take a mediocre client site and honestly try to achieve the mediocre search position it deserves in relation to the better competing sites.
A lot of professionals would tell the prospective client that they needed to improve their site first in order to get the best results. Doing SEO on a site that won't convert is just throwing away good money.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 05:30 PM

I thought the Cluetrain Manifesto was their bible.
Dan, why would you think that? how strange. I certainly wouldn't agree with that.

Doug, I am glad you do not wish to be lumped together with us.

I am sure that there is a niche for your particular brand of client relationship.

I also suspect that you really believe in what you preach, which is honorable.

However, please do us the courtesy of believing that we are honorable in our beliefs as well.

The big obstacle that I see between us, is that you seem to think that your position occupies the moral and ethical high ground - this I totally and honestly disagree with.

The moral and ethical high ground in my view is reserved for those that are honest with their clients and put their client's interest before that of Google's index quality. If the two can be combined, thats cool - but client first always. That means advising them of options, risks and risk management strategy. IMO anything else is unethical.

So please be aware, whilst you are looking down at me from your moral high ground, I am looking down at you from mine.

Just point your clients at the thread and let them decide based on the arguments presented here - no need for accusations and fighting from any of us - we have all made our cases pretty comprehensivly by now.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 05:44 PM

You can argue all you want, it won't change what "link schemes" means to the American public at large

Don't agree - see previous posts on Google's top definition of the word.
Also, the most important part of the phrase is the bit about intention.

Just to summarise again:
...designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank
A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you.
Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?

Now apply those to your normal SEO campaign and see what you are left with.

I suspect that even Doug and Dan would be a little reserved about posting a list those niche directories that they use in their whitehat link building. Equally, I suspect that the clients would not pay for the directory submission program if it was just for the traffic provided from them.

The Google guidelines are a mess - I don't anyone actually adheres to the letter of them.

More importantly, you have to take an overview that takes into account all their public statements, documents they point to, and university papers that they reference etc

Their views seem pretty clear when you look at the whole thing.
Heck, I'd share that view if I was them - it the only sensible position for them to take.

fathom

08-14-2004, 05:46 PM

Some SEOs do this, not all. Some won't work on sites that don't deserve to be ranked, unless the site is fixed first (or concurrently, since many of the best SEOs I know are site designers).

A lot of professionals would tell the prospective client that they needed to improve their site first in order to get the best results. Doing SEO on a site that won't convert is just throwing away good money.

That's a good supposition Dan.

Most industries that I'm not familiar with, on receiving a potential client, I start up a Google AdWord Campaign and spend $20.00 on the most specific queries I can find.

Most often these are about $0.10 or about 200 clicks and if they can't turn over even a single conversion - something is wrong.

It saves a ton of time in research and effort, and saves face with the client in the long-term -- there's nothing worse in ranking a dead dog that can't fetch - it only stinks up your reputation.

4eyes

08-14-2004, 05:50 PM

Something perhaps that we can agree on, previously stated but worth repeating.

If Google really want us to start adhering to the guidelines they could start by tidying them up and making a half decent attempt at enforcing them.

If they enforced them better, we'd all have to play nicer.

Nothing turns an SEO greysish quicker than seeing a good site getting wasted by a bunch of heavily cross linked spammy screen scraping nonsense.

NFFC

08-14-2004, 05:52 PM

Just to lighten the mood....

Now this thread has been moved out of Padded Room it shows on the Active Threads list, #2 just behind SEMPOGATE.

It may also set the new world record for posts by ihelpyou after having said " That's all I will say on this subject in this thread.".

4eyes and Marcia have kissed and made up.

All in all, a very good thread.

A special mention to Brad for have the best tag lines throughout.

DanThies

08-14-2004, 06:15 PM

Something perhaps that we can agree on, previously stated but worth repeating.

If Google really want us to start adhering to the guidelines they could start by tidying them up and making a half decent attempt at enforcing them.

If they enforced them better, we'd all have to play nicer.
Oh, yeah. Although I would say that of all search engines and not just Google. I'm sure we'd agree on that too.

mivox

08-14-2004, 07:36 PM

A lot of professionals would tell the prospective client that they needed to improve their site first in order to get the best results. Doing SEO on a site that won't convert is just throwing away good money.

Not to mention, the SEO would probably end up getting blamed for the lack of conversions. ;)

However, if an SEO turned a lousy site into a good one, but they knew it was still only the 10th 'best' site in it's area, would the SEO aim for a #10 placement? If that site 'accidentally' achieved a #1 ranking, would the SEO try to demote it to the #10 spot? Of course not.

Whether an SEO is helping clients genuinely improve their sites is not my point. My point is that SEOs do not analyze what position their client really deserves, and then try to achieve that position in the rankings. If they did, then they could claim that they were 'helping' the search engines, and not trying to manipulate the SERPs.

But in reality, if a site meets the SEO's standards of 'worth working with', they try to achieve the highest rankings possible. Every site an SEO promotes is not actually the absolute best in its subject area, but no SEO is going to try and 'correct' a client's #1 position because the site is really only #10 quality.

Therefore, the SEO is primarily working for the client's benefit, not the search engine's benefit (as well they should!). SEO is the art and practice of manipulating search engine rankings to achieve favorable results for one's clients' (or one's own) sites; it is not the art and practice of trying to assure quality search results for the search engine's end users.

The search engines are trying to assure quality search results for their end users. SEOs interfere with the SEs' goal. SEs do not like that.

lots0

08-14-2004, 08:12 PM

So many good things going on in this thread it is hard to decide what to comment on, kudos to everyone. (Yes, even to you Doug )

Doug, I have to say that you do a better job than anyone I have ever seen of showing how untenable your own position is. You stated on page 7 of this thread that “I would call this paper an authority:”. Well here is a quote from your “Authority”; BTW, I do believe that Alan is an expert in his chosen
profession.

Suppose search engines did not exist. Would the technique still be used in the same way?
If the answer to the above question is no, then clearly the content is designed only for search engines to see. Therefore it is spam.
Source:http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/#SPAMDEF

The above quote from Alan’s paper clearly states all the following is.... SPAM!

The promise to webmasters that you can rank their sites better in the search engines(get more traffic)... SPAM!

“Keyword Research”... SPAM!

Making a site “bot or index friendly”.... SPAM!

I could go on point by point, but I will spare us all that pain.

Doug you also said earlier in this thread, in so many words, that it has been a very long time since you bothered to read any search engine guidelines. So my question is, If you have not bothered to read the Search Engine Guidelines, how can you possibly stand behind them as forcefully as you do?

Even if the SE’s don’t often talk or write about how they feel about anyone manipulating their results, their actions, especially Google’s actions, have shown their true feelings towards any SEO.

NFFC

08-14-2004, 08:22 PM

It may just be me, but looked at in this context does anyone feel this is...well...a bit spammy?

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/+Search+Engine+Spam

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 08:36 PM

Yes lotso, I agree with that statement on spam. There is nothing I do that I would not do if search engine did not exist.

And why "can't" you guys leave out the personal attacks? What the heck is wrong with you? Let's put it this way; if you have a website that "you" own and listed in your profile, then feel free to attack others. You don't though.

Stop it. I'm not kidding either.

And btw, now you call writing content as being spam? That content reads just dandy to me. NOT SPAM.

Get a grip people. Actually, get a life 'and' a job that you know something about. Quit personally attacking others in this thread.

NO ONE has personally attacked you at all. Not once.

Stop now. Thanks.

littleman

08-14-2004, 09:10 PM

To bring this thread away from 'ihelpy vs. evil blackhats', it must at least be apparent to all but the most stubborn that those of us who call all SEO work spam and therefore all SEOs spammers at least have our reasons even if you do not agree with them.

Ideology, especially the self righteous variants, has a way of clouding sight, in this business you need to see as much as you can.

fathom

08-14-2004, 10:04 PM

There is nothing I do that I would not do if search engine did not exist.

Unfortuately, that isn't entirely true.

A few weeks ago I provided the professional courtesy of privately informing you that your website was penalized by Google for duplicate content. Not only did you ignore my analysis of your website- you basically told me to stuff it.

The PM was send in the suggestion that (possibly like you) another SEO firm might have unintentionally had spam on their site... you told me to stuff that as well.

I provided this professional courtesy even after you publicly suggested that "I" was not a professional since I educate my clients in risk management and allow them to make informed decision about their business, much like I allowed you to do (on understanding there was possibly something wrong with your website) - and you simply ignored my advice.

You still have a bunch of doorway pages on your website (totally identical page content @ different page locations) and they are "still" and always will be penalized by Google until you add unique page copy.

Surely this suggests "you knowingly spam search engines" or don't know how to determine duplicate content penalties at the very least.

Doug I believe you have good intentions in your advocation but if you can't tell a penalty on your own site, how can you tell whether a client has unintentionally done this as well?

ihelpyou

08-14-2004, 11:22 PM

fathom

08-15-2004, 12:40 AM

What?

I also told you those pages were loaded two or so days ago. Of course they are PR0 right now. What else could they possibly be? And besides, they have zero content on them so again I ask you , what could they be other than PR0?

My goodness. The darn site is new. I had to get the front page up there as many simply type in my business name looking for my site. NO other pages have anything on them. I'm writing the content right now and wanted links to other pages, so I asked my designer to create them so I knew where I was in writing the content. Of course they are PR0. I truly don't care about that as it does not matter. When the pages are done, the PR will change on those pages. My goodness.

Gawd.

And the personal attacks continue.

And BTW, if those pages were so-called doorways, don't ya think I would be a little more "better" about them? LOL They all have:

ihelpyou, Inc.

as a title tag, and no other tags at all.

How is this a personal attack? I'm addressing Google guidelines "precisely" and in the same manner as you do - publicly.

1. It takes Google as little as 1 crawl to determine duplicate content.

2. Identical page "design" (and with minimal but identical text) linked from a common page 1 link generation away - is automatically penalized.

3. You can make a blank html page gain PageRank (DNS 404 error page as well)

4. Every page "not" penalized (not duplicates) are indexed and if you copy & paste your "call for quote & phone number" in Google all appear + the original of the page that was copied for SEO, Design, Copyrighting etc.

5. Regardless of why - there is (IYHO) zero reasons to spam including unintentional reasons like just getting pages up there so you can tell what to write (you could do that offline)

6. I make it my job to know "spam", to understand its affects (when you get caught) not just to know Google's guidelines or to have an overview of what spam looks like.

7. As I said before you are 100% penalized at this time (but no real harm - there isn't really anything to rank) and while I truly don't care one way or the other about your website, I really got to wonder if a potential client came to you to rank their site having a similar development and you not being as familiar with their site as your own - would you overlook this and waste their money on futile ranking efforts?

PR0 (new), PR0 (not enough for PR1), and PR0 (penalized) are closely the same but not quite

7. You publicly trash companies for spamming - regardless of why, and without any bloody knowlegde into why.

Why not use some of that "IHelpYou" brand and privately inform them of their errors -- Then you can truly say you're a professional SEO.

Marcia

08-15-2004, 01:04 AM

just getting pages up there so you can tell what to write (you could do that offline)
My motives aren't that innocent, sweet and pure. I develop pages offline, but I often figure the keywords and navigation beforehand and put pages up before they're really ready with just a bit of something absolutely unique on each of the pages. And quite honestly, it's done for search engines with the *express* purpose of getting them crawled and into the index to get some PR on them and get a headstart.

That be the truth! It's mostly for the search engines and to show something viable to be able to get some inbound links in advance. Not #000000 and not #FFFFFF either (chuckling @ Dan) - it's probably around #CCCCCC.

There are things we ALL do with the engines in mind that we wouldn't do if they didn't exist. Why not be honest about it and admit it?

<sidebar>
BTW, it's other sites, but pages with nothing on them - I mean absolutely *nothing* but a background graphic - can carry normal PR and rank well with just a page title and just one inbound link, especially if there's a relevant link two hops back.
</sidebar>

fathom

08-15-2004, 01:16 AM

For the record so do I Marcia - every liitle edge helps! :-)

4eyes

08-15-2004, 03:16 AM

WMW thread (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum78/6159.htm)

Worth checking out the presentations.

projectphp

08-15-2004, 03:17 AM

it must at least be apparent to all but the most stubborn that those of us who call all SEO work spam and therefore all SEOs spammers at least have our reasons even if you do not agree with them.
10 pages later, and we are all still just debating definitions.

So here I go: spam, as something other than canned meat, does not exist. There is no definition of spam that is either accepted by the majority or will ever hold in every Geoffrey Robertson presented hypothetical. There is no way anyone will ever (pun alert) can a definition of spam that always holds and that everyone, from lots0 to Doug, will agree with. If others need an iron clad, money back but keep the steak knives guaranteed to last definition of spam, I am sorry, but there just isn't one.

But so what? What does that prove?

Even if there is no definition of spam, there are still things that can be done with a website, including but not restricted to actions taken with the intent of manipulating Search Engine rankings, that are "wrong", under virtually every possible definition of wrong: from morally to ethically to legally, and right back to functionally.

Making choices always involves dealing with uncertainty and doubt, and we shouldn't need an understanding of Spam to make a decision on what actions we take, and whether or not such actions are "right".

So, I make a proposal. Lets stop using the word spam. We can't agree on what it is, we can't agree on who does it, or how, and we certainly can't agree if using it is right or not.

When we reach the point that the definition of spam can be argued to be anything done with knowledge that search engines exist, that even undertaking keyword research makes us a spammer and that only complete and total ignorance of Search Engines keeps us free from being a spammer, then the word spam no longer holds any usefulness, particularly as any sort of metric in decision making.

IMHO we should therfore remove the word from the collective SEM/O vocabulary.

In its place, I propose we stop defining ourselves as SEOs of one coloured hat or another based upon our interaction with a word that is useless, and start discussing real issues, like how we as an industry deal with our legal responsibilities, what those legal responsibilites in fact are, and how we avoid falling victims of legal actions due to ignorance.

As I see it, SEO's exist within a legal framework that is, in most countries, already defined, if perhaps not tested. The day will inevitably arrive when regulators look at what SEO is and how it relates to existing consumer protection laws. Before then, we should have at least attempted to understand what those regulations are, and what we need to do to abide by them.

DianeV over @ cre8 made these interesting observations (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=13190&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150) on this topic, and this sort of debate, rather than spam, is a better direction to focus collective attention.

Nick W

08-15-2004, 03:20 AM

Lovely stuff fathom. Doug im afraid in some eyes you may look a little foolish right now...

I have to say this:
Whilst reading this thread this morning, I saw the bits about "not doing anything I wouldnt do if SE's didnt exist"

I sprayed coffee all over my key board, and it's taken me 10mins to clean all the left hand side ;)

I think that just spells it out to everyone. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! hehe....

Nick

Fear The Pie

08-15-2004, 03:31 AM

I'm a little reluctant to post here since there doesn't appear to be much moderating at this forum (other than moving threads around), but I guess I'll take a chance and enter the fray since I just read the whole thing from start to finish.

Right before reading this thread, I read the Google Playboy Interview (http://www.google-watch.org/playboy.html) which was recently published.

Hopefully this will clear up Google's current thoughts on SEOs:

PLAYBOY: And yet an entire industry of optimizers seeks to influence Google search results. They claim they can help companies place higher in your rankings, but sometimes they resort to treachery. How do you counteract them?

BRIN: You have to distinguish among optimizers. Some do perfectly legitimate things—they’re just trying to create informative sites.

PAGE: They help people find what they’re looking for.

BRIN: But some people do surreptitious things. They try to influence the system.

PLAYBOY: What are some examples of new techniques people use to influence your search results?

BRIN: People send us web pages to review that are different from the ones they’ll send to users. It’s known as cloaking. They’ll put stuff on their web pages that the user can’t see—black-on-black text, for example. We consider that manipulative and work to combat it.

lots0

08-15-2004, 03:55 AM

BRIN: But some people do surreptitious things. They try to influence the system. Ahhh human nature at its best...

Their actions speak far more than their words...

excell

08-15-2004, 04:15 AM

"You have to distinguish among optimizers" - hmm.. optimisers cannot agree on the distinctions but the SEs can. food for though for this thread.

Brad

08-15-2004, 07:49 AM

Nick_W said:
Whilst reading this thread this morning, I saw the bits about "not doing anything I wouldnt do if SE's didnt exist"

Not at all specific to Doug or anyone else here, but this line by Nick reminded me that we are all influenced by the search engines even in the tools we use. For instance, I would love to learn Flash and build some sites with it, but I don't because the SE's can't crawl Flash sites. Still I think it would be fun.

I think search engines have changed the very environment of the Web, and we all have had to adapt or die. (eg. we used to think in terms of 'sites' for directories, now we think of and optimize 'pages' for crawlers.) Just as in physics, by measuring the particle you change it, so too the Web: by measuring the Web the search engines have changed it.

We don't even realize how much we do to please the engines.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 09:36 AM

Agreed Brad

Google's success has been the cause of a major change in how web sites are built.

The whole pagerank thing, for example, is based on a premise that no longer holds true (at least it significantly less true than it used to be).

Wouldn't it be fun if Flash sites suddenly started out performing html - Amazon would be out of stock of 'Flash for Dummies' in a few hours ;)

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 09:48 AM

Fathom; Your criticism of my "new" site and how it's somehow spam does not hold any water at all.

To anyone with a clue, my site is new and those pages are there so I can clearly see the navigation structure in order to write the content for each page.

Do you really think I care if new pages are a PR0? And since when does a new site get penalized? Do you honestly believe that Google is looking at those pages with the same title tag of "ihelpyou" and saying to themself: "That's Spam"? LOL

Ya gotta be pulling my chain.

This is simply an attempt to somehow discredit. You and others cannot stand the fact my forums are what they are and they ain't going to stop anytime soon. Okay?

Excell wrote:
"You have to distinguish among optimizers" - hmm.. optimisers cannot agree on the distinctions but the SEs can. food for though for this thread.
Read that a few times. Think in between the lines a little about that statement. Also remember that Google and other engines are "certainly" reading this thread. Make sure you understand that comment by Google inside and out. I understand it perfectly.

Don't think for one second that Google sees my new site as spam. They don't. Period. As well they shouldn't.

You are stooping real low to say my new site is spam.

Google "knows" who spams and who does not spam. Don't think they don't know. They ain't idiots in spite of what some of you are trying to portray in this thread. Even when they state specifically on their websites that 'optimizers' are basically in two groups, some of you insist on lumping all of us together as "ONE" group.

Trust me people; We ain't one group and have never been one group. Some of you will never be in the same group as some of us. Period.

Your rhetoric and spin is very good though. Your attempts at one group are good as well, but some of us are not buying it. We know it's in the very best interest of "those who deceive" the search engines to want to be a part of the "ONE" big group.

Nick W

08-15-2004, 09:59 AM

>>Google "knows" who spams and who does not spam.

No they dont. Seriously, that's the silliest thing you've said so far Doug.

>>trust me people

Sorry, but I just cant see anyone trusting someone that chops and changes their arguments so much. Someone that repeatedly selectively ignores what they dont want to hear, and someone who comes acrross in their posts as well, rather desperate.

This thread has discredited your ideas, and you have been the star of show m8 ;) You do yourself no favours by pretending you dont have a brain, I know you do, but continuing to froth and foam at the mouth when you've been sunk, is just silly.

Still, on another note, wish you all the best. At least this thread has been good for a chuckle if nothing else! hehe...

Why Are There No SE Reps in this Thread? ~ think about it...

Nick

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 10:04 AM

This thread was not started by "us". It was started from people like you Nick. We had nothing to do with this thread. It was started for a specific reason and you know as well as everyone else what that reason is.

It's to lump us all together and tar with the same brush.

That's why it was started.

Oh, it's obvious to some of us why Google would never respond to some of "yous" rhetoric and spin. It's clearly obvious. They would never give you the satisfaction of an acknowledgement as they know it ain't worth their time.

And yes, they "do" know who the "real" Professionals are in this industry. Anyone reading this thread can figure that out.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 10:06 AM

They ain't idiots in spite of what some of you are trying to portray in this thread. Even when they state specifically on their websites that 'optimizers' are basically in two groups, some of you insist on lumping all of us together as "ONE" group.

Its because they are so clever that they came up with the idea of spinnng the 'two groups' thing.

One group that they can sucker and control, and another that they can't.

If you read ALL the Google statements, the documents already referenced, the powerpoint presentations and pdf files, then you can see the whole picture.

Once more for fun, straight from their guidelines:
"not doing anything I wouldnt do if SE's didnt exist"

Guess we had better all change our titles to 'Web Site Improvers' if we are going to stay within the guidelines - what say you Doug?

Nick W

08-15-2004, 10:09 AM

This thread was not started by "us". It was started from people like you Nick. We had nothing to do with this thread. It was started for a specific reason and you know as well as everyone else what that reason is.

It's to lump us all together and tar with the same brush.

Actually, im 99.9% sure that it was started as a wind up. ;) In fact, make that 100% sure!

It's just a shame Jill and old Perky decided not to join the fray. Much as I like arguing with you, it'd be much more fun if a few of your mates helped you out a bit.

No one likes a ritual slaughter. Bring 'em in. Let's have some fun!

Nick

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 10:10 AM

Website Improvers

IS very good. I like that as that is exactly what some of us do.

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 10:14 AM

No one likes a ritual slaughter. Bring 'em in. Let's have some fun!
It's the weekend. Some of us are too stupid and have to respond to things on a Sunday.... like me. :)

Oh, believe me, Alan Perkins is MUCH better at this stuff than I am. He would run circles around and about with the likes of some of you. Not only does he have the best technical mind in the industry, he is also the best debater the industry can put out there. Very diplomatic and very fair.

You don't want Jill and Alan and all the rest of us to join this thread. You are much better off with Doug and you certainly know that's a fact.

What would really be funny is if Google "did" decide to join this thread. Some of you would be in for a rude awakening as to the facts of life.

Nick W

08-15-2004, 10:17 AM

>>What would really be funny is if Google "did" decide to join this thread.

I really wish they would. Even if they came in and blew everything im about right outa the water it'd be great. I love GG's cluetrain'esk posts. Very clever chap, and completely wasted in his current position.

Nick

4eyes

08-15-2004, 10:26 AM

Even if they did, who'd believe them anyway.

The whole 'keep your friends close but your enemies closer' is done with consumate skill.

FUD, FUD and more FUD.

Remember that whole 'hidden text is going to get penalised' thing from ages ago - well I deliberately produced a hidden text page on a spare domain, and then reported myself. It was nothing fancy, just a bit of css.

Its still there, and I bet that must have been over a year ago.

(No, I don't use hidden text on real sites. Yes, that would be foolish and risky - but not as risky as Google would have us believe apparently).

Google, (cos Doug says you MUST be reading this), sort your algo out, guys. It would save you from having to read debates like this.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 10:40 AM

He would run circles around and about with the likes of some of you.

That'd be great - go fetch him then.

Perhaps he would deal with bits that you seem to ignore, like the "not doing anything I wouldnt do if SE's didnt exist".

Perhaps he would read all the Google documents, pdfs etc and respond with some killing logic that would blow us out of the water.

Perhaps he could come up with a very clever logical explanation of how we can still call ourselves ethical SEO's whilst remaining within the Google guidelines.

Maybe he can get a site to No.1 for 'Viagra' based on directory submissions alone - that'd be really cool.

I'd like to see that - always happy to learn.

excell

08-15-2004, 10:59 AM

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Some of us play a game - it's fair game, it's business... others do things differently. Fact is that the whole thing is not as grey as many want to make out.

Educating clients of risks sounds very honourable and works well as long as the search engines do not take steps to uphold their guidelines. - as long as it works!

The truth is - Spam (as defined by the search engines) works.. until it doesn't. It's worked for a long time now and yet there has been much public discussion about maybe doing things "a better way"...

I think "hats" are good and I think that we all should know what colour we are wearing. :cool:

4eyes

08-15-2004, 11:37 AM

I think "hats" are good and I think that we all should know what colour we are wearing. :cool:

OK - lets say we go with that.

Whitehats are those adhering to the Google guidelines, everyone else is a greyhat apart from those who cloak porn onto Disney phrases.

Not many whitehats, then, not unless Google remove that oh-so-troublesome phrase.

Joshing apart, the problem with this is still 'who judges' - what would you do if a newer search engine had guidelines which were more flexible than Google's - buy a selection of different coloured hats?

Sure its a game. Most of us aren't breaking any laws, most of us just produce sites that exploit Google's inability to adequately police their index. Its not 'evil', if they don't want my sites in their index, fine - ban them. I'll produce more that do fit in with what they accept.

They *could* spend more money on controlling their index, they choose not to. They choose to index every site they come accross - I didn't submit my sites to them - they found them, they index them, they decide whether they are at the top or not.

When they spend more money and start to apply their own guidelines THEN we might produce the sites that they want to see.

Until then, damned if I am going to let a bunch of spammers beat my sites out of the top ten - I'll play the game by the rules that Google ACTUALLY APPLIES. I'll manage my own risk and I will always advise clients to take the lowest risk that is aligned with their ambitions.

Google - stop being hypocritical, start applying your own guidelines effectively and stop using FUD as a cost saving strategy - its misleading and as such its not an ethical thing to do (IMO, although I'm sure Doug will disagree).

Lets get this straight, Google are a greyhat search engine.

excell

08-15-2004, 11:55 AM

Joshing apart, the problem with this is still 'who judges' - what would you do if a newer search engine had guidelines which were more flexible than Google's - buy a selection of different coloured hats?
For me I don't wear a hat that is dictated by the SEs - I'm one of those boring folks that just build quality content that matches search engine queries to appropriate info and integrates it to the web - same as I have for many years.. I'll be damned if I will pander to the whims of the current darling of search engines :D

Sure its a game. Most of us aren't breaking any laws, most of us just produce sites that exploit Google's inability to adequately police their index. Its not 'evil', if they don't want my sites in their index, fine - ban them. I'll produce more that do fit in with what they accept.
There is a different there I think.. A different aim and way to go about things.

They *could* spend more money on controlling their index, they choose not to. They choose to index every site they come accross - I didn't submit my sites to them - they found them, they index them, they decide whether they are at the top or not.

When they spend more money and start to apply their own guidelines THEN we might produce the sites that they want to see.

Until then, damned if I am going to let a bunch of spammers beat my sites out of the top ten - I'll play the game by the rules that Google ACTUALLY APPLIES. I'll manage my own risk and I will always advise clients to take the lowest risk that is aligned with their ambitions.
If you cannot beat them join them - it's been an increasing trend.

Google - stop being hypocritical, start applying your own guidelines effectively and stop using FUD as a cost saving strategy - its misleading and as such its not an ethical thing to do (IMO, although I'm sure Doug will disagree).

Lets get this straight, Google are a greyhat search engine.
I don't know about Doug, but I agree with you 100%!! here ;)

Nick W

08-15-2004, 11:57 AM

To quote a good friend of yours and mine:

Today, Google banned my site. So I built 100 more

They're gonna have to do a whole lot more than just enforce their guidelines.

Why do you think that the guidelines are contadictory? Why do you think no G rep will post here?

They cant control their index Simple as that. And that's not my fault. I operate within the given enviornment. I dont work for googe, sort your own damn index out and stop blaming your woefull inadequacies on hard working webmasters.

Google, as far as your algo/spam policy goes. You suck. With a capital SUCK.

But I kinda like you anyway ;) Feel free to pick up my content whenever you like, I dont mind...

Nick

Nick W

08-15-2004, 12:00 PM

I'll be damned if I will pander to the whims of the current darling of search engines

Spot ON!

Nick

seobook

08-15-2004, 12:37 PM

Google is primarily driven by links and link text.

the one thing the ethic and hat discussion misses is the fact that with enough money you can:

register your site with more directories
write more articles and syndicate them to more places
write more press releases
buy more "legitimate" ad space
buy out other smaller tools / websites / companies with powerful linkage data
etc.

if you have enough money you can almost always buy your way to or near the top. the only difference about pure white hat and grey hat is how much money you need to spend to get the same effect.

the greyer you get the more bang you get for your buck, but if you go to far with it the bang is on your ROI when you get deindexed and have no traffic :(

search engines want you to do SEO the expensive way because that makes their ads look more appealing and because if you have enough money to do it the expensive way you probably have so much money that its no big deal for you to buy their ads too.

Fear The Pie

08-15-2004, 12:47 PM

Some interesting stuff about Google obviously allowing "spam" making there be no reason to not use it. Until they actually do something about that, this argument will never end.

However, at least we do have a conclusive answer to the main question of this thread.

The Playboy interview quotes from Brin and Page conclusively show that at least from their perspective, all SEO is NOT spam. Since this is their latest statement on this subject, it really doesn't matter what they may have said in the past.

Case closed as far as Google is concerned.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 12:58 PM

Case closed as far as Google is concerned.

Fear the Pie.

No it isn't - not even close.

Although this is the crux of the matter.

Google spin, and they spin well.

Everytime they make a public statement of this sort it is for a reason.

The point we have been trying to make is that their carefully worded public statments often conflict with statements that they make that are not directly targetted at the public.

Read the articles referenced in the thread and then ask yourself 'which is most likely?'

Google's public facing statements must be treated the same as any other corporate press release - ie extreme scepticism

Fear The Pie

08-15-2004, 01:13 PM

4eyes, you seem to want it both ways.

Either Google means what it says or it doesn't. You use past quotes from Google from many years ago to further your argument, but when faced with quotes that are recent, you say it doesn't matter what they say.

It's no wonder hardly anyone except for Ihelpyou will waste their time posting to this thread in support of the "SEO does NOT equal spam argument."

4eyes

08-15-2004, 01:54 PM

You are just missing the point here.

The point, and the whole point, is that the public utterances of Google cannot be trusted as 'their honest opinion', nor can they be trusted as an indication of how they behave in practice.

Their guidelines are therefore not a suitable or practical standard for SEOs to include in their business model.

My argument revolves around their inconsistency.

For the purposes of this debate, I don't want it both ways, I want it exactly how it is.

[added]

You use past quotes from Google from many years ago

And some recent ones - did you bother to read them?

lots0

08-15-2004, 02:12 PM

It becomes obvious after reading this thread, that there are a few people that want to continue this “me good - you bad” attitude in the SEO industry . Why they want to continue with this kind of rhetoric can be debated (waste of time), my opinion is that these few people are using this “me good - they bad” attitude in a rather coldly calculated way to make money and raise their own personal profile (Marketing). The fact that several of these “me good” people show up to here and elsewhere to tell others “you bad”, is just a sign that they know they have lost the debate and the ear of the webmasters (potential clients).

The SEO clients (you know the folks that pay our bills) are learning fast that they would rather hire a company that is going to make them and what they want a priority rather than the making what the Search Engines want the priority, like the “me good - you bad” folks do.

In my opinion, anyone that takes money for SEO and does not put their client first, is a at best a con artiest and at worst a thief. But it is not my opinion that matters, it is the opinion of the clients and potential clients that matter.

How many clients would be happy to hear, that you took their money but your true loyalty is to the Search Engines... I am willing to bet none...

You can argue all you want, but the bottom line is, if the client knows you are not putting them first, they are not going to be your client for long.

But take heart, you bunch of “me good - you bad” folks, maybe you can get google to pay your bills, they have lots-0 money...

In closing I would like to say; If all you self proclaimed “me good - you bad” people don’t want to be involved in moving the SEO Industry forward, then shut up, get out of the way and let the rest of “us” get on with the work of improving the Industry.

HATS - I hate hats, if you wear hats you may go bald...

fathom

08-15-2004, 02:45 PM

In my opinion, anyone that takes money for SEO and does not put their client first, is a at best a con artiest and at worst a thief. But it is not my opinion that matters, it is the opinion of the clients and potential clients that matter.

That is, thus far, by far, the best illustration of what is important and who.

It's Google job to seek out spam and destroy it - not mine.

It's my job to give the client the best change to reach their markets... against an ever-changing enviroment filled with unknowns and uncertainties, against competition that may or may not be superior, and against market habits that change over time.

Put a hat on my head if you will but I am as effective without any hat. as with one.

This debate rages on because Google is "ineffective" at curbing spam without reportings and define spam as they go.

hmmm... they protect their trademark with due diligence - why not their archive?

Seem to me that if you want to "protect" what's yours - start using the legal system rather than relying on others to freely protect you.

Note: for the sake of this debate and in the spectrum of things: Hat "white" is a collection of all colors -- Hat "black" is an absent of color.

Which is worse?

Fear The Pie

08-15-2004, 03:31 PM

lots0

08-15-2004, 03:59 PM

You have determined yourself that you are their enemy...

...Either the search engines are your friend or they're your enemy...

...It's a whole lot easier to be friends.

The Search Engines are not my enemies and they are not my friends.

Search Engines are a TOOL!

You can NOT be friends or enemies with a Search Engine, just like you can not be friends or enemies with a computer, hammer or a wrench.

FTP - I am afraid your logic is more than a little flawed...

fathom

08-15-2004, 04:29 PM

As long as there are people who choose to see the search engines as the enemy, there will always be white hat, black hat labels. That's how the search engines themselves would see it. You have determined yourself that you are their enemy, and they are simply fighting back.

I think that's probably the biggest difference between the camps. Either the search engines are your friend or they're your enemy. Personally, I can't imagine why any SEO would want to approach their job with the idea that SEs are the enemy, but I could care less if that's how you want to do it.

It's a whole lot easier to be friends.

I don't see SEs as anything beyond what I base my sole livelihood on. In fact, I professionally believe that Google is far superior than any other engine on the market, and I use it "exclusively" when I need to find something.

Just the same - there is tons of room for improvement in all areas of discussion.

Case in point - I manage fifty odd PPC accounts, I get regular calls from Google reps asking for feedback, I provide it... and they offer in exchange $25 of free AdWords.

In this instance there is a mutual exchange (I truly don't care if I get free AdWords - I'll use them because they make sense to use them).

On the other handle Google's SEO guidelines tend not to make sense - they are not consistent with Google high standards and further suggest if I don't report spam - I am unethical?

Fortuately I place my efforts towards things that matter - "clients" and let Google worry about spam - as they define what spam is -- not I.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 05:00 PM

Fear the Pie

I don't mean to offend you, but are you new to SEO?

The search engines have decided that we are their enemies, not the other way round. I'm guessing that you still haven't read all the references in the thread yet - if not, you really should, you know.

Google give me income every month - thats cool. If they did their job better, I'd earn more - I still have well over 60,000 pages that they haven't spidered yet - and no, they are not spam, even by Doug's definition.

Google is just another business, same as IBM, same as Walmart etc

If you think differently then I'm afraid you have fallen for the Google line.

fathom

08-15-2004, 05:16 PM

Fear the Pie

I don't mean to offend you, but are you new to SEO?

The search engines have decided that we are their enemies, not the other way round.

nay - I wouldn't go that far. I tend to believe that the guidelines are simply meant to distance themselves from bad results only.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 05:28 PM

fathom

08-15-2004, 06:02 PM

OK I take your point, but they have gone on record as identifying SEO's as a 'threat' - which seems fair enough.

I know that 'threat and 'enemy' are not quite the same thing, so I'll rephrase it.

Google see SEO's as a threat that they need to combat. All their utterances directed at webmasters should be seen as part of their attempt to combat that threat. Its cheaper for them to do it that way than to really tackle it effectively from an algo direction.

That better ;)

Sure but the greater issue "is" -- if consumers queried computers and only found ]"downloadable porn for computers" how long would it be for users to find a new search venue.

If "I" was a search engine -- I would see this as a business threat as well - won't you? It makes perfect business sense.

They need to "address it" - however they are "search experts" which isn't necessarily the same a "ranking experts".

Their guidelines appear as a mish-mash of submitted spam reports -- copied & pasted IMHO and not professionally developed copy for consumers, web developers, or SEOs.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 06:12 PM

I would see this as a business threat as well - won't you?

Yep - d**m right - thats exactly my point, how could it be anything other?

The only non-threat SEOs are the ones they can control.

So there is new definition for whitehat: 'An SEO controlled by Google' :p
[ducks]

fathom

08-15-2004, 07:14 PM

Yep - d**m right - thats exactly my point, how could it be anything other?

The only non-threat SEOs are the ones they can control.

So there is new definition for whitehat: 'An SEO controlled by Google' :p
[ducks]

Thanks I just pulled a Nick_W and sprayed my monitor :D

Fear The Pie

08-15-2004, 08:13 PM

Fear the Pie

I don't mean to offend you, but are you new to SEO?

Hardly. I imagine I've been in the SEO business longer than you have.

The search engines have decided that we are their enemies, not the other way round.

No they haven't. They have decided (rightfully) that those who attempt to subvert their index are their enemy. If that means you, then so be it. It doesn't mean most SEOs.

I'm guessing that you still haven't read all the references in the thread yet - if not, you really should, you know.

I read every post in the thread. Was up till nearly 3 AM reading it all. The quotes were all ones I've read before. They were all old ones.

Google give me income every month - thats cool. If they did their job better, I'd earn more - I still have well over 60,000 pages that they haven't spidered yet - and no, they are not spam, even by Doug's definition.

That's great! Then what are you arguing the definition of spam for anyway? Sounds like you have figured out that there's no sense in "spamming," (using Doug's definition) just like most of those before you. Funny how most end up coming to that conclusion after awhile.

Google is just another business, same as IBM, same as Walmart etc

If you think differently then I'm afraid you have fallen for the Google line

I agree, they most definitely are a business. They are in the business to show the best search results to their users. By doing that, they are able to make a lot of money on their ads.

But here's the thing...having been online for as long as I have been (at least 10 years or more now) I have a fondness for the Internet. I watched while it has become commercialized (inevitable of course) and I've watched as email spammers have made it nearly impossible to get real email through.

I've also watched search engine spammers ruin perfectly good search engines. Sure, we can all say well that's the search engines problem, but that's awfully selfish, don't you think? The Internet is everyone's. Email is everyone's the search engines are everyone's. I just personally hate seeing all these really great things getting ruined by those who'd rather cheat and scam.

Naive? I guess. :(

projectphp

08-15-2004, 08:18 PM

There is a lot of backslapping going on over how one side is doing so well in this suppossed debate. But really, none of the really hard issues are getting an airing, or even being discussed.

People talk about games, and seem to act as if SEO happens in a vacuum. That simply is not true, and all this talk of spam and whether Google likes us or not and whether we should obey Google or not (as if they are 100% of all search engines) misses the point. Although Google seems all powerful to many, it is just one Search Engine amongst many, all of whom are themselves part of a larger legal framework.

In closing I would like to say; If all you self proclaimed “me good - you bad” people don’t want to be involved in moving the SEO Industry forward, then shut up, get out of the way and let the rest of “us” get on with the work of improving the Industry.
So what does that actually involve lots0? How do you propose "moving the SEO industry forward.."? Where is this forward you speak of? And were are we moving from?

I am all for progress, but until you define where we are progressing to, and how it is indeed an improvement over where we are currently, supporting such progress is impossible.

donut

08-15-2004, 08:43 PM

Filling up the indexes with bogus pages and boosting sites that aren't worth a crap because they'd rather spend their money on tricks than improving their site may not be illegal... but then again it might. It's false advertising.

So there is new definition for whitehat: 'An SEO controlled by Google'

LOL- who's controlled by Google? Oh, right, a lot of newbies who stress over their greenbars and cry when it goes down.

A better definition of whitehat:

An SEO who cares about their client's business. Not search engines.

donut

08-15-2004, 08:47 PM

Black Hat SEO-

An SEO who only cares about rankings but couldn't give a flip if the traffic never makes a sale. That's not their concern.

seobook

08-15-2004, 08:57 PM

Black Hat SEO-

An SEO who only cares about rankings but couldn't give a flip if the traffic never makes a sale. That's not their concern.

that is complete rubbish.

most people who blatently ignore search engine guidelines are aggresively promoting sites and care about traffic. most of these people are driven by money though, and they do not get that unless they convert (sell ads, get signups, sell products, etc.).

you definition would be similar to me saying

White Hat SEO -

An SEO who only cares about personal image but couldn't give a flip if the clinets made any money. Thst's not their concern.

donut

08-15-2004, 09:04 PM

rubbish is spelled with 2 b's

4eyes

08-15-2004, 09:04 PM

Hardly. I imagine I've been in the SEO business longer than you have.
Then it seems you have an overactive imagination. Unless you were in from the start, in which case you would have been 'in' for the same amount of time. I asked the question because I checked out a few other threads that you participated in, and just got this impression from the questions you asked.

They have decided (rightfully) that those who attempt to subvert their index are their enemy.
And that means anyone who breaks their guidelines - that means you too, (assuming you have read their guidelines properly).

It doesn't mean most SEOs.
Yes it does. Obviously you disagree, but then you do seem prepared to take Google's statements at face value.

Funny how most end up coming to that conclusion after awhile.
Wrong again. You made another logic error - I have many other sites as well.
More importantly, the majority looking to make serious money comes to exactly the opposte conclusion 'after a while'.

Also, it seems that you didn't read the right bits - go read the WMW thread referenced. particularly the presentations. These are not old, and they ARE from Google.

Let us know how you interpret all of it - I am interested.

Also, le us all know how you deal with that tricky bit in the guidelines about doing stuff as if search engines didn't exist. You, Doug and Dan have all chosen to duck that issue repeatedly.

Its not old, its current. Its in their guidelines and I am REALLY interested in how someone with your long experience manages to reconcile this.

Please don't duck the issue again, its at the core of this whole debate.

NFFC

08-15-2004, 09:05 PM

>An SEO who only cares about rankings but couldn't give a flip if the traffic never makes a sale.

I have to disagree.

Those guys almost 100% of the time get work via recommendations from other clients.

NFFC

08-15-2004, 09:10 PM

fathom

08-15-2004, 09:10 PM

I could add a third set:

Black: An SEO that know what to do

White: Never attempted, and will likely take on clients that got themselves in trouble and never know.

seobook

08-15-2004, 09:17 PM

rubbish is spelled with 2 b's

sorry I did not have the time for spell checking. I was out doing black arts to get traffic and make money... :)

seobook

08-15-2004, 09:19 PM

>rubbish is spelled with 2 b's

You are one smart guy.

"Correct spelling, indeed, is one of the arts that are far more esteemed by schoolma'ams than by practical men, neck-deep in the heat and agony of the world." -- Henry Louis Mencken

truely I am a bad speller, but that is one amazing quote. I need to memorize that and keep it in my pocket at all times :)

Anthony Parsons

08-15-2004, 09:31 PM

First let's define SE spam...
Anything action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic. If you want to say that isn't true you then have to argue point by point on every aspect of site promotion.

Ok, lets stick with the original arguement here. Whilst some very good points are made, some people just need to wake up to themselves quite honestly, get of their little soap box and get back to reality.

You have to ask all the silly questions:
Is using an H1 tag spam?
Is using a nocode tag spam?
Is writing key word rich content spam?
Is building link pop spam?
Is having the key word in the URL spam?
And so on...

There are about 1000 of these, and the answer to all those questions is:
Yes, if you do it to increase search engine traffic. If you haven't manipulated a website to increase traffic then you are not an SEO.

There are alot more than 1000 of these "littleman", its called web standard compliancy. Know it? Funny how the search engines seem to use web standard compliancy to base their algorithm around. <h1> <alt> etc etc.

Gee....here I was thinking that by providing good copywriting upon a webpage, you might actually get your visitors to like your product, have some faith within it and possibly purchase it. Uummmm? Is that spamming? Gee, I believe not. I believe they call that "MARKETING" for the one's with small brains.

Therefor:
all SEOs are spammers
all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both
you are wearing a blackhat now and don't even know it

Only a spammer would call themselves a Black Hat. What is a black hat SEO? Is it more the definition off, right vs. wrong? That could possibly be it. So, lets answer these questions:

# Is it right to provide web compliancy tags within your pages? Yes!
# Is it right to provide marketing page copy that will lead to a sale? Yes!
# Is it right to obtain links to your website to improve your traffic and possible sales? Yes!
# Is it right to hide, manipulate or provide something that your users cannot see? No!
# Is it right to obuse the use of web compliancy tags? No!
# Is it right to stack useless terms one after another into a page in an attempt to gain a higher ranking? No!
# Is it right to comply to the search engines editorial guidelines? Yes!
# Is it right to deceive the search engines acceptable use and editorial guidelines for use? No!

See, it has nothing to do with "White Hat" vs. "Black Hat". It has clearly to do with right vs. wrong.

If the search engines do not accept the use of dynamic query strings all that well, then is it wrong to change the way that URL is delivered to the search engine in order to get indexed within the engines? No.

If you produce a webpage that is clearly within the web compliancy standards and the acceptable use and editorial guidelines of the search engines, then you have done nothing wrong. You haven't used Black Hat, you haven't spammed, you haven't cheated or manipulated results. What you have done is provide accurate content to the search engines in the hope they reward your good work as such.

If you produce a webpage that is clearly outside of the web compliancy standards, acceptable use and editorial guidelines of the search engines, then you have clearly and blatantly done wrong. You have used techniques that don't conform to any policy and the sole intent is to manipulate and pollute the search engine results with biased content.

You need to throw Whitehat and Blackhat out the door quite honestly, because there is an area in between that turns grey from those two colours. Simply change them to right and wrong, and that grey area has dissapeared. There are clearly defined web policies and each search engine has their own acceptable use and guidelines. You either obide by them, or you don't. Right vs. Wrong. Simply huh?

Some people need to take their hats with blinkers attached off, so they have full use of their Peripheral vision and can look outside of the square they are confined. Stop trying to work against the engines, and work with them. You might just find it easier to obtain long standing results.

Fear The Pie

08-15-2004, 09:39 PM

Also, le us all know how you deal with that tricky bit in the guidelines about doing stuff as if search engines didn't exist. You, Doug and Dan have all chosen to duck that issue repeatedly.

Apparently you are not aware that Google got that specific part in their guidelines from Mr. Alan Perkins (Perky to some here) from his Classification of Spam (http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/) whitepaper. I believe Ihelpyou already mentioned that or at least posted the link.

You must have decided not to read it, or you would understand perfectly well how and why every SEO can indeed work under those constraints.

The specific wording is as follows:

Not search engine spam: Anything that would still be done if search engines did not exist, or anything that a search engine has given written permission to do.

Which pretty much kills any argument about Meta tags and Title tags, etc., as the search engines have given permission to use those as you deem fit.

I will read the WMW stuff you've mentioned (haven't yet), but I would implore you to read Mr. Perkin's whitepaper all the way through with an open mind, and then let us know exactly what you disagree with. I would implore others to do the same.

Even if you read it once before or skimmed through it, or think you know what's in it. Read it again, you may be surprised to find that you actually agree with it. Most SEOs are logical people, and that whitepaper is extremely logical and well thought out. But of course, you do have to look at it first with an open mind, and then make your judgement.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 09:45 PM

# Is it right to provide web compliancy tags within your pages? Yes!
# Is it right to provide marketing page copy that will lead to a sale? Yes!
# Is it right to obtain links to your website to improve your traffic and possible sales? Yes!
# Is it right to hide, manipulate or provide something that your users cannot see? No!
# Is it right to obuse the use of web compliancy tags? No!
# Is it right to stack useless terms one after another into a page in an attempt to gain a higher ranking? No!
# Is it right to comply to the search engines editorial guidelines? Yes!
# Is it right to deceive the search engines acceptable use and editorial guidelines for use? No!

All very clever, if a little obvious, except for:
# Is it right to comply to the search engines editorial guidelines? Yes!
Care to tackle that difficult phrase that everyone seems to be avoiding, or are you just going to pretend it doesn't exist same as the others?

4eyes

08-15-2004, 10:02 PM

Fear the Pie

What on earth are you talking about???

A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you

Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

EXACT QUOTES from Google's guidelines.

The rest of your post is just irrelevant rhetoric - I am talking about the published Google guidelines and their faults.

If you feel that the problem is that Google have worded their guidelines incorrectly, or missed bits out, then please say so. But trying to pass off others words as being part of the guidelines, well, its not worthy of you or this forum.

[added]
Yeah, read Perkins paper - not relevant unless it appears in Google's guidelines

donut

08-15-2004, 10:03 PM

4eyes

08-15-2004, 10:09 PM

donut

Sure, little league stuff can be done with the so called 'whitehat'

Care to share with us how you would get top tens on Google, Yahoo and MSN for the really competitive stuff, (you know the top end pharm type phrases), without doing some seriously borderline stuff (or even some stuff which you would not do if search engines didn't exist)?

seobook

08-15-2004, 10:13 PM

.There are alot more than 1000 of these "littleman", its called web standard compliancy. Know it? Funny how the search engines seem to use web standard compliancy to base their algorithm around. <h1> <alt> etc etc.

if search engines think web standards are so important then why doesn't Google's home page even have a doctype on it right now??????

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29

as short as the google home page is it shows 41 errors.

seobook

08-15-2004, 10:22 PM

Seobook, you used to pretend to be white hat... I guess you couldn't cut it?

that has to be a joke.

I never pretend anything. I speak what I know and understand as best as I know and understand it. Less than 2 years ago I had never made a web page, knew nothing about seo, marketing, the web, or anything.

Off the start I bought into a bunch of stuff I no longer agree with. Learning does not make me a bad person. I would be a bad person in my own eyes if I still stuck with marketing angles I did not agree with.

We all start from somewhere and we all learn. Everyone has their own marketing angle. I just decided I did not need some artificial label to promote myself. Others for some reason think they do.

To each their own.

The most ironic part of all of these debates is that each time a self proclaimed white hat seo talks about black hat seo they are giving me free marketing (http://www.blackhatseo.com).

Say what you will, but I know I help a bunch of people and thank you for promoting my site.

lots0

08-15-2004, 10:29 PM

So what does that actually involve lots0? How do you propose "moving the SEO industry forward.."? Where is this forward you speak of? And were are we moving from?
Since when did you become a professional SEO? Why do you seem to care so much about an Industry that you are not a part of? Are you really that board with your life?

I have noticed quite a few people contributing to this thread that are not Professional SEOs or SEMs (I am defining “Professional SEO/SEM” as those that get paid by someone (besides their mama) for SEO/SEM services)

Why? Why are all you non- SEOs participating in a forum for and about SEOs? Why do you care what we do or don’t do? This really boggles my mind...

I know this may sound harsh but if your not a Professional SEO/SEM, I really do not want to hear your uneducated “opinion” about the Industry I make my living in.

Maybe all these non-SEO types posting here has to with someone recruiting small time one site webmasters in their forum to come here and voice their opinions in support of him, even if these folks know little or nothing about what this debate is really all about.

4eyes

08-15-2004, 10:50 PM

I agree, Google clearly does hate SEO.
This is a quote made by a member of this forum, who has been in the industry for a very long time. Full thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=5904#post5904)

Its a touch more extreme than my own view, but I can understand what they mean.

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 10:53 PM

I honestly don't think they give a rats arse what you might think lotso. I don't recall many of us asking you to post in here either. Lay off please.

Btw, thanks to all of you who have chipped in your thoughts in this thread. VERY good posts!

And lotso; anyone with a darn website can do SEO. Since when is the only requirement to post in a thread when you take money for services?

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 10:55 PM

Hey 4eyes; If you are going to quote someone, make sure it's the FULL quote in the context it was meant to be in:

I agree, Google clearly does hate SEO.

Who can blame them when you look at the posts in this forum and others and see that a good percentage of them want nothing to do with ethics and decent business practices.

I'll be more specific. Google hates people who cheat the system. A good many are in this thread.

seobook

08-15-2004, 11:04 PM

Btw, thanks to all of you who have chipped in your thoughts in this thread. VERY good posts!
your welcome. I do what I can

Google hates people who cheat the system. A good many are in this thread.

indeed. effective SEOs provide great ROI that AdWords can not match.

ihelpyou

08-15-2004, 11:07 PM

Yes. Good ROI until you get banned or penalized.

That's good business sense. Remind me that I have to go over to the other side real soon. I don't know what's wrong with me for being a "Professional and Ethical" SEO for 7 years when I could be a SEO who cheats and spams for a living.

ahhh, a life it must be......

fathom

08-15-2004, 11:14 PM

There are plenty of people doing white hat SEO badly- it takes a lot more than "following the search engine guidelines".

It takes skill, talent and creativity to do well. It's no wonder people resort to trickery and the latest algo crack- they don't have what it takes to create a site that naturally ranks well.

Seobook, you used to pretend to be white hat... I guess you couldn't cut it?

Just because people disagree is not suggestive of anything.

Obviously - I disagree - care to show how I lack skill, talent and creativity?

What trickery am I doing?

Simply put - (sorry Doug) Doug advocates to follow SE guidelines explicitly.

He is an SEO, a qualified professional (if any of us could say we "are" qualified)

He redeveloped his site and to save time, in getting crawled he quickly set up all his pages, replicating the internal ones. (Nothing wrong with that).

Unfortuately, Google sees the same page replicated multiples time as "spam" and penalized the lot of them.

On being informed of this - he proclaims the site is new and nothing is wrong and "I" don't have a clue what I am talking about.

Well - I practice "spam" to be able to identify it from (in Doug's case) "new" and just PR0 because it is new.

It took 1 minute to identify Doug's penalty, and even being "informed" of this he still did not attempt to prove me wrong - he just assumed I was... that's not good in our business - to assume there is nothing wrong.

I am not here to discredit Doug - I believe his morals are sound but if you can't tell the difference between a new page and a penalized page - how can you truly help a client where you have no knowledge of website history.

A few years back - I work, and worked and worked on a site and couldn't rank it.

The guy hosted himself and thought he could save more money by getting me to rank his first site, and he'd simply copied the work twice so that all 3 of his sites would be ranked.

That was a lesson learned the hard way... and I'll never repeat it.

Client's are often spammers out of ignorance. They see their competitors rank above them, look, copy, and then forget, hire an SEO and then we are automatically accountable for that spam. When you "didn't do it yourself" - do you assume spam is there?