whitehat vs. blackhat, it is all BS

[littleman]

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.

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.

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

[NFFC]

"Just remember, there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything and the wrong way is to keep trying to make everybody else do it the right way."

You can keep your great philosophers, can't beat M A S H for getting to the point.

[Nick W]

Geezer, pure class mate ;-)


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


Why dont people get this? Almost by definition you have to have some brain power to be an SEO surely?

Nick

[yellowwing]

I disagree, "Any action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic" is marketing. Any deceptive action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic, is spam.

I am out to beat the competition, not the search engines. That really simplifies my work. :)

[David Wallace]

Very well said, yellowwing. It is amazing that everyone who is a spammer thinks everyone else is as well.

[NFFC]

>It is amazing that everyone who is a spammer thinks everyone else is as well.

You miss the entire point David, by a wide margin, in the UK we would call it missing the barn door.

Let me try and help.

You are a spammer, LM is a spammer, one of you is man enough to admit it.

[littleman]

And what is 'deceptive'?

Let's not take it to the extreme of promoting a porn site under the keyword 'Barby'.

Is adding extra key words deceptive? Is using a style sheet to reduce the apparency of an H1 tag deceptive? Is feeding googlebot a meta-keywords tag while hiding them from the end user deceptive? How about rewriting dynamic URLs so that they appear static?

Often for the newbie the spam line is right out if his/her ability.

[seobook]

the whole black hat vs white hat thing is a marketing angle. nothing more. nothing less. I find it ironic how many people who push the hat issue were angry when I used it (http://www.blackhatseo.com) as a marketing angle too.

[littleman]

Seobook, you are right of course, the problem is that some would be seo types are gullible enough to buy into the concept.

Some are working an angle, some are strung fish.

[Lex]

Deception, IMHO, is directly related to intent, not tactic.

[ihelpyou]

It truly amazes and astounds me and "many" others how "some" people wish to lump together and blur the lines between a spammer and a SEO who follows se guidelines.

These forums will have and do have the most numbers of "guests" who read in here daily. IMO it's not a good thing to be lumping together with this kind of thing. There is clearly a difference between firms who do 'follow' and firms that "don't" follow. People who "don't" follow se guidelines have a vested interest in wanting to be lumped together with those who "do".

That's all I will say on this subject in this thread.

[seobook]

I think this states a clearer picture of my beliefs
Deception, IMHO, is directly related to intent, not tactic.

than this
People who "don't" follow se guidelines have a vested interest in wanting to be lumped together with those who "do".

although both statements are completely true.

[David Wallace]

You are a spammer, LM is a spammer, one of you is man enough to admit it.
Like I said before and will say again..."It is amazing that everyone who is a spammer thinks everyone else is one as well."

[littleman]

That's all I will say on this subject in this thread.
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.

[ihelpyou]

The silliness never ceases to give me shi ts and giggles.

Spammers deceive the search engines. True SEO's do not.

It's simple stuff. No really, it 'is' simple stuff.

[seobook]

Spammers deceive the search engines. True SEO's do not.

based on this definition could a "True SEO" promote a site to rank on the first page for stuff like "viagra" or "buy viagra online" or "online casino"

also think you misspelled a word or two or put a random space in your post ;)

[littleman]

Ihelpy, you said you were not going to post again in this thread.

Do you really believe that the search engines are happy with your "clean SEO practices"? Are you not trying to artificially manipulate your sites rank by employing these tactics?


What are your 'clean tactics'?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

[projectphp]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Nice points Danny, that's a good summary.

Nick

[ukgimp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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=

[David Wallace]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
That makes my point nicely.

[hiero]

How to define "deceptive"?

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

[David Wallace]

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]

>>the proper code of ethics

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

Nick

[ihelpyou]

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]

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]

Sure Nick,

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

[NFFC]

>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]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mivox]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Mivox,

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

This thread is horrendous.

[mivox]

Horrendous? I find it terribly entertaining. :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

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]

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

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

[ihelpyou]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[ihelpyou]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

* 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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 f