PDA

View Full Version : Black Hat, White Hat & Lots of Gray


rustybrick
12-14-2004, 02:55 PM
Danny kicks off the session, wearing a tan cowboy hat. He said that they do not know if they have the answers to these questions, but they will begin talking about it.

Jill Whalen was first up representing the white hats. She posted a picture of Scottie and herself with halos over their heads and Greg and Todd with devil horns. Very funny. So who is better? She wouldn't and couldn't say. Big time spammers are in affiliate marketing, viarga and gambling are where the black hats are found. If its in your email as spam they do it. Black hats are not for most, real businesses with real sites should not use it. That was it from Jill.

Alan Perkins, an other white hatter was up, Danny says the white knight of the white hatters. He put up a chart to show the difference between white and black has.
- Black hats deploy content and links from search engines to see versus humans to see.
- Visibility to humans for black hats, its hidden, white hats its visible.
- Quality of Work for black hats are hidden, and white hats are visible.
- Search engines are black hats enemies and white hats friends.
- Domains and Brands are disposable for black hats and cherished by white hats.
- Site and relevance apparently not improved for black hats, and what hats they are approved (this is from his slide).
- Results are more short term for black hatters and long term for white hatters.
- Ethical techniques are not used by black hats, only white hats. :)
- Legal, Alan say "no?" for black hats and "yes?" for white hats.

Alan said he feels some tactics are illegal such as not having a site that is accessible to all (disabled) and deceptive advertising.

Mikkel Svendsen was next up, he is representing the gray hat. He showed some hysterical hats, just too funny. Mikkel, hook those slides up please. Mikkel quoted "It's a war out there". He said there are many ways to win a war. You do not have to be number one for a search on casino to be a successful casino company. Keep things in perspective, what kind of risk do you take with your brand today. Would Enron deploy black hat methods? :) Are you on the right path? He said more bigger brands should use black hat techniques and smaller companies white hats. Then Mikkel showed a picture of dark vander.

Todd Friesen, Oliman, was introduced as the black hat. He said there are very few black hats that are 100% black hats. He first explained a bit about referral log spamming. If you see that you have referrals from adult sites, that means your log files are wide open. Make sure to lock your stats folder or else he (or other black hats) will use it to link spam. Auto generated gibberish, a very good tool to generate content targeting content. They would take these content sets and cloak the content. They would screen scrap the content and repackage it. Then deliver different pages to the search engine and human. Flash sites is one area where the black hats travel into the white hat area. Laundering your visitors via IP, sending your visitors to the right page based on the IP referral. If your going to cloak, do the IP based method. An other good place to cloak is a member's access forum, and they did this with the supporters forum for WebmasterWorld. He then said the search engines cloak as well. Buying sites, PR and Link is no longer black hat only. Buying sites for PR to pass to your network. Buying off topic links for the PR the link will pass. Buying bulk links in large networks for the anchor text boost. At the end of the day be aware of the tactics competitors are using in your space, also be prepared to use those same tactics to compete. You must use SEO tactics (black or white) to a degree that is relative to your search space.

Greg Boser was the final speaker, to talk about the black hat side of things. His slides sport a black background. He said this is a long going debate, something he dislikes getting into. He said that there needs to be more honesty. SEM = Search Engine Manipulation. He said it is upsetting that our industry wont admit it. We are all here to learn here to learn how to be better at manipulating the results. My site or my client site isnt really the most relevant. the site sin the top 10 arent the most relevant always. After he is done with his job, he convinced the search engines that the pages are more relevant - but they are not. White hat SEO in Greg's opinion is content manipulation (if you write a way that differs from how you talk, then it is content manipulation). Gray Hat; technical solutions to overcome obstacles put in place by incompetent web designers. Corporate America does this all the time to make their sites more visible. Black Hat; full algorithmic assault. Finding and exploiting all possible algorithmic holes. SE guidelines play no role in determining course of action. He explains that he might not go full force black hat for a corporate client. Is aggressive SEM bad for your brand? He posted some logos of very famous companies that got caught spamming. He said a lot of people in the white hat spectrum use fear talk because they are afraid to get into the market. He said probably more white hat content has gotten banned, then IP based cloaked pages. Who is really Evil? The SEO companies that dont tell the client what they are doing and how they are doing it. He explains that you need to be transparent with your client about the risks and rewards. Full disclosure is a must!

Alan disagrees with Mikkel's war analogy because you can have lots of winners in business. He won't get into the "good or evil" debate.

Q & A:

Q: How is affiliate marketing black hat?
A: Jill says its because many affiliate marketing sites are extremely competitive. Jill won't take on sites that are extremely competitive. Greg says PPC, pills porn casinos. Greg says that affiliate marketing is not evil in itself, but it happens to be a very competitive area on search. He said eBay has a tons of spammers on the pay roll, meaning they provide tools for the affiliate marketers to spam. Danny adds that AdSense is not helping the cause with creating bad content.

Q: How do you know when you have been banned? And how do you correct it?
A: Do a site command at Google to see and watch your log files. If your banned, clean it up and email Google and the search engines for re-inclusion. Or create a new domain name. Also speak with the search reps at this conference.

Q: Can you differentiate between Yahoo and Google with black hat?
A: Greg said the person with the most links wins. Google now takes a bit longer with newer sites. The new MSN has new opportunities for you.

Q: Text links brokerage are in the exhibit hall, is that black?
A: He said it depends on where you buy your links, relevant versus non relevant links.

Greg said he has so little tolerance for those companies that do low class redirection and then call it ethical, high standards. Be honest!

Greg says that the search engines don't owe him anything, he has an AdWords budget waiting to be used for when they change the search algorithms. Jill says that Florida did not change the rules of the game. Mikkel responds to that saying Google in 2001 added the nocache option, so stupid cloakers used it and a few months later, Google delisted all sites that used the nocache tag. Todd also says that the search engines owe us nothing in terms of the organic listings.

Jill Whalen
12-18-2004, 08:22 PM
She posted a picture of Scottie and herself with halos over their heads and Greg and Todd with devil horns.

The photo was actually Scottie and Karon with halos, not me! :)

We also have some coverage of this session here, as well as some pics:

White Hat / Black Hat Panel (http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11401)

rustybrick
12-18-2004, 11:55 PM
Very nice. Now that is good coverage Jill and Scottie.

Jenstar
12-19-2004, 12:31 AM
I want to see Jill's slide of Todd (oilman) & Greg (web guerrilla) again ;) For those that weren't there, they were photoshopped to look like devils :D

Jill Whalen
12-19-2004, 12:49 AM
See the thread at my site, it's posted there, Jenstar.

It's also here with other Chicago SES 2004 photos (http://www.highrankings.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=14).

Jenstar
12-19-2004, 01:05 AM
Thanks Jill. I did look through the three pages of the thread first, saw the other pictures, but didn't see the devil twins :p

rustybrick
12-19-2004, 11:23 AM
With permission of Mikkel, I just pulled out the slides with the different hats.

Too funny...Download Mikkel's Hat Slides (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/mikkel-hats.ppt).

grnidone
12-19-2004, 03:25 PM
Cowboy hats? No. That's just not what I pictured. More along the lines of
this (http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/dress-up/acc/hats/char/pimp.html)

Nacho
12-20-2004, 03:57 PM
Amazing photos and coverage by both Barry (Rustybrick) for SEW and Jill & Scottie for Highrankings!!!

Now, lets get on with the debate.... what do you think?

rustybrick
12-20-2004, 05:20 PM
Now, lets get on with the debate.... what do you think?

I like the pictures too. :D

Jill Whalen
12-20-2004, 10:37 PM
I think Danny copped out with his beige hat... :rolleyes:

glenn
12-20-2004, 10:47 PM
My favorite point from the session was focused on making sure the client knows exactly what SEO techniques are being applied on their behalf. Whether it is the white hats increasing keyword counts or black hats delivering specific user agent text. One thing is for sure, Mikkel's hats were great. Thanks for a great discussion...

Old Welsh Guy
12-21-2004, 02:36 PM
There are no hats, only attitudes :)

Although I quite like the thought of a hat, being bald I would ;)

donut
12-22-2004, 12:40 AM
Gotta say, I'm disappointed. No punches thrown, no wrestling matches, no National Guard or riot police called in. What happened?

Did all the panelist really agree with what each other said or did no one feel like challenging each other? There are a few things I noticed that slipped by with no comment.

Why did Oilman give us an inventory of spam techniques? What was the point?

Jenstar
12-22-2004, 12:49 AM
Why did Oilman give us an inventory of spam techniques? What was the point?

That was hardly an inventory, you don't know all the ones the hardcore blackhats made him take out ;)

donut
12-22-2004, 12:08 PM
But what was the point?

WebGuerilla did a presentation basically saying that his tactics were OK because they suited the client and were needed. Was Oilman saying that these techniques were ok.. or stupid... or effective... or what? Just trying to figure out what the point was.

oilman
12-22-2004, 02:50 PM
I was saying there were effective and I was also attempting to generate some fodder for the discussion afterwards. It's one thing to talk about black hat in general it's anther thing to fuel the discussion by actually outlining some off the more 'offensive' tactics. Sorry if you missed that - I hope you still enjoyed the session. :)

Jill Whalen
12-22-2004, 02:58 PM
Hey Donut...I'm pretty sure I saw you at that session. But then Danny went and ate you...

:D

donut
12-22-2004, 03:02 PM
Thanks for the reply- maybe it made sense to people there. I was just reading the coverage and didn't really understand.

I wasn't there... ate me? :confused:

rustybrick
12-22-2004, 03:25 PM
Thanks for the reply- maybe it made sense to people there. I was just reading the coverage and didn't really understand.

I wasn't there... ate me? :confused:

Sorry if the coverage wasn't great. I do my best.

Donut, I think Jill is referring to your forum alias name. :)

Old Welsh Guy
12-22-2004, 03:52 PM
If you were a chocolate dounut then it would have been Jill doing the eating :)

Elisabeth
12-22-2004, 09:57 PM
Thanks for the reply- maybe it made sense to people there. I was just reading the coverage and didn't really understand.

I wasn't there... ate me? :confused:

yea, sorry bout that Donut, Jill just made the ultimate inside joke and lost a few people.

After hours, there was a certain mr. sullivan with an unnatural obsession for DD.

maybe we can dig up some pics for the rest of you
:)

Jill Whalen
12-22-2004, 11:42 PM
LOL...oops, I guess it wasn't this particular donut then... :p

I don't think we have any pics of the nightly donut fest. I never actually partook, just heard about it a few times!

rustybrick
12-23-2004, 12:41 AM
Yea, I heard that too. You were in who's room - 'chowing' down on Mr. Donut?

Jill Whalen
02-17-2005, 03:06 PM
Wow, Andrew apparently didn't like any of us who were on the panel!

http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3483941

rustybrick
02-17-2005, 03:16 PM
He is a Canadian. What do you expect? ;)

rustybrick
02-17-2005, 03:19 PM
But I do like how he makes the analogy with Todd and Greg as sheeps that eat wolves. ;)

andrewgoodman
02-17-2005, 03:38 PM
Wow, Andrew apparently didn't like any of us who were on the panel!

http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3483941

Wow, Jill, surely you saw me smiling as I wrote it.

Seriously, does my completely unbiased approach to reporting on what was obviously a very controversial topic -- and examining little quirks and inconsistencies -- strike you as "not liking" someone? I didn't notice the panel sitting around holding hands singing Kumbaya.

Truly, I *loved* that panel. If my reporting style didn't convey that, you're misreading.

This has nothing to do with whether I like people or not. We all know I hate people. Other than my clients, ordinary readers of SearchDay, my Mom, wife, and proprietors of Thai restaurants. :eek:

One blogger's take:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/02/black_hat_white.htm

Alan Perkins
02-17-2005, 07:44 PM
I thought it was a pretty good write up, Andrew, although naturally I resent the implication that black hats are any more technically capable than white hats. :)

I've written a couple of followup articles since the panel. You might find them interesting in the light of your article:

SEO : Sleepwalking Ever Onwards? (http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/articles/seohats/)
Ethical Search Engine Optimization Explained (http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/articles/ethical-seo/)

There is another one to come: "Search Engine Optimization and The Law".

Jill Whalen
02-18-2005, 12:24 AM
Wow, Jill, surely you saw me smiling as I wrote it.

As was I when I wrote this:

Wow, Andrew apparently didn't like any of us who were on the panel!

projectphp
02-18-2005, 12:59 AM
Read the blog and...
ither traffic converts or it doesn’t. If it converts, didn’t the searchers have a successful search?
It seems that SEM and SEO is not bneing governed by the same rules as every other markteting channel:
"If people bought, then the ad was good, wasn't it? The fact we promised a cancer cure shouldn't matter, people bought it, and that is all that matters".

Extreme example I know, but nonetheless valid.

Seems SEM constantly wants to proclaim our issues our own, without any view to either the wider community, law or true ethical responsibility. Why is that?

IMHO, a website for a business is one big ad. Surely, within that context, there are pre-existing legal and ethical requirements that must be met. Why does this community never mention or discuss these? Very perplexing.

johntang
02-18-2005, 08:00 AM
This is my simple way of finding the black hats from the white hats; ask a libiranian; "how do you add a book to the library's index?" Based upon that simple question you have a basic understanding of SEO needs. A title, a few keywords, a description of what the book is about and finally were to find the book. A title, two meta and a URL to your web page; modernization of the Dewey Decimal System for the Internet.

White hats simply addresses the rules, blacks hats trick the rules.

Marcia
02-18-2005, 10:30 AM
>>A title, two meta and a URL to your web page; modernization of the Dewey Decimal System for the Internet.

Google uses over 100 variables for scoring, which I believe is a bit more than what the Dewey Decimal System requires of librarians.

Jill Whalen
02-18-2005, 10:34 AM
IMHO, a website for a business is one big ad. Surely, within that context, there are pre-existing legal and ethical requirements that must be met. Why does this community never mention or discuss these? Very perplexing.

Good point, projectphp. It is rather perplexing. Perhaps some here would like to address that aspect?

seomike
02-18-2005, 12:32 PM
Let's play a game called "Ethical, Who am I".

I crawl the web and scrape copy written content.
I make money by selling ads on the back bone of that copy written content.
I don't pay royalties to any of the owners of the copy written content for the money that I make.
I accept all sorts of shady characters to join in the selling of the above ads.
I pay a share of the profit made off of ads to the shady characters.
I pretend to be your friend.
I go to your meatings.
I spy on your little circles and forums to make sure you aren't on to my secrets.
If I lose your content I don't care even if you are < insert your ethical name here>.
I make guidelines to detour people from generating unworthy content so our business structure of scraping doesn't implode.
I infringe on trade marks, registration marks, brands and other protected symbols of identity.
I list my so called friends as one of the only liabilities in my quest to go public.
I go public and make billions.

who am I

Jill Whalen
02-18-2005, 05:20 PM
SEOMike, let's say that your little riddle is completely true, and that Google (and all search engines) are inherently evil and unethical.

Does that fact in and of itself mean that it gives the rest of us the right to be unethical in return? (Out of spite perhaps?)

If every unethical behvior by man/woman kind was answered by another unethical behavior, I daresay that the entire planet might just explode from all the negative energy it would produce!

Alan Perkins
02-18-2005, 06:22 PM
I offer the ability to opt out of being crawled and "scraped"
I send free, qualified traffic to the owners of "scraped" content
I publish ads alongside snippets of content, not ON content (unless with the publisher's permission)
I provide an essential part of the Web's information architecture
I make the Web more usable
I provide a means for publishers to make money from their content
I take ethical positions on deceptive advertising, spyware and free speech

You don't have to be indexed by Google and you don't have to use Google to search. It's your choice.

seomike
02-18-2005, 06:22 PM
let's say that your little riddle is completely true
Jill, are you drinking your dinner through a straw? Ummm it is.

Does that fact in and of itself mean that it gives the rest of us the right to be unethical in return? (Out of spite perhaps?)
If you hit the submit button and ask Google to come crawling, then No, you should play by the rules if you want in so bad, but if you don't hit the submit button and Google happens to follow a link to you, Then it's on, I guess you can say. No contract no terms no dotted line they found you.

If a search engine pays you a visit with out, your asking then you are not bound to their submission policies or spam policies on any level of ethical standards. If they chose to rank spam or some black hats wacky network it's due to their own greed for copy written content.

Googles entire business model is a mirror image of the worst of the worst black hatters. 1. Scrape content 2. Make money off of it. 3.Sell ad space 3. Dominate the competition.

Sounds like a spammers check off list for an upcoming porn doorway.

Google stopped being ethical when it started making money. If they were truly the good guys they'd be a .org and take donations.
of course they could just make ammends and start down the ethical by sending out the checks for royalties.

You know something like this:

Dear siteowner,
You are found on page 1 for the term ...
even though you never submitted to us we still used your content to sell 4 million dollars in ad revenue last week. Thanks for everything. Enclosed is a little slice of the pie to show you our appreciation.
Sincerly,
SE

PS sorry about the entire Florida thing...oh and the drop in PR too.

lots0
02-18-2005, 06:24 PM
...that Google (and all search engines) are inherently evil and unethical.
Does that fact in and of itself mean that it gives the rest of us the right to be unethical in return?
Come on Jill, you know thats not what he is saying... :(

seomike
02-18-2005, 06:38 PM
I have my own ethics.

1. Make sure that a core site is squeeky clean and follows all the guidelines.
2. Don't use aggressive techniques on a core site unless it's your own and you don't give a crap.
3. Step on everyones heads until my client dominates. It's ok if you follow the rules, right?

projectphp
02-18-2005, 07:57 PM
Googles entire business model is a mirror image of the worst of the worst black hatters. 1. Scrape content 2. Make money off of it. 3.Sell ad space 3. Dominate the competition.
Why is it always Google? What about the rest?

SEO discussions like this always limit their scope to a small little world in which only seqarchers, Search Engines and sites exist. To break free from that, lets take teh word "Google", and replace it with "Newspaper".

Newspapers entire business model is a mirror image of the worst of the worst. 1. Write stories about people's suffering 2. Make money off of it. 3.Sell ad space 4. Dominate the competition.

Why do we let them talk about sufferring for their benefit? I mean, at least Search engines let us opt out. It would be appropriate for a news site to discuss a page that a search engine was banned from. How is that fair?

PS sorry about the entire Florida thing...oh and the drop in PR too.
So wait, now I am lost. They are spammers of the worst kind that offer nothing, yet Florida was a problem? You can't have it both ways. you can't benefit from their presence and not allow them to benefit as well.

Search Engines are not parasites, stealing from webmasters and giving nothing back, they are a symbiotic entity working with websites and searchers. As we all know, when things go well, the relationship has benefits for all three, as well as the wider internet. How is that such a bad thing?

Jill Whalen
02-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Jill, are you drinking your dinner through a straw?


Actually, I was...but not until after I made my post! :D

<added>

Just read this:

If a search engine pays you a visit with out, your asking then you are not bound to their submission policies or spam policies on any level of ethical standards. If they chose to rank spam or some black hats wacky network it's due to their own greed for copy written content.

That's actually a very good point! (I must have had too much dinner to drink tonight.)

You're certainly entitled to put whatever you want on your domain and if Google finds it, it's not your fault. Of course, if they ban or penalize that same content or domain, I assume you wouldn't cry about it as well.

Interesting!