space for black hats on SEW?

[kidmercury]

i've posted a few threads in the link building section but have repeatedly seen the conversations steer away from the thread topic. i'm assuming this is because my questions/ideas could be construed as "black hat." it'd be cool if there was an area for black hats or black hat topics on SEW if others find them offensive. just a thought, for what it's worth. or does anyone know of any places that welcome the discussion of "unethical" tactics?

[randfish]

I would love to see them discussed here. I think it's an excellent topic set to cover and one that is worthy of all of our attention. The recent spate of 301/302 hijackings seems like as good an SEO topic to cover as keyword optimization or search industry news.

[David Wallace]

Dig a little deeper.

I think you will find a wide variety of topics discussed here, both what some would call black hat and white hat as well as everything in between. That is because the membership here is comprised of black hats, white hats and hats with shades of grey.

I can remember many a topic discussed here that could be considered "black hat" and then seeing many different people adding their opinions about it. Therefore I don't think a special section needs to be adapted for "black hats" as you will find these type of topics intermingled throughout the forum.

[fathom]

i've posted a few threads in the link building section but have repeatedly seen the conversations steer away from the thread topic. i'm assuming this is because my questions/ideas could be construed as "black hat." it'd be cool if there was an area for black hats or black hat topics on SEW if others find them offensive. just a thought, for what it's worth. or does anyone know of any places that welcome the discussion of "unethical" tactics?

Well since "I" am one of the steering offenders - I will say your suggestive comments are not 'black hat' techniques they are limited return techniques that will not only waste your time - you'll get nothing for your trouble.

I did however say what you suggested 'will work' as far as the search engines are concerned for creating the illusion of 'one-way' links from unsuspecting replicators - but it will not create superior ranks - well maybe if you have 20 or 30K of these it might.

[rcjordan]

IMO, deep black doesn't get much coverage in any public forum anymore. Some general black theory, yes, but no nuts & bolts. On the off-chance that a good black exploit does happen to be posted in forums you're not likely to see other blacks bump it, either --well, not in public discussion anyway.

[kidmercury]

hat-ism has gone too far!!! we must stand for our rights!!!! :mad:

[DaveN]

the problem is black hat discussions is that the flame wars start to quickly,

there was an old thread on another forum where I started to explains the way to automated Guest book spamming, showing the pitfalls and how to over come them, then you got all the guest book spamming is wrong posts and the thread was lost in the end I got it pulled altogether, because it became a moral issue and not a technical issue which the thread was about, So I keep out of those threads... but if people can stop the Non Blackhats from spoiling the threads I may post some stuff on Guestbook, Forum, Blog, Ping and Log spamming pitfalls and how to overcome them, hiding footprints and protecting the site, host and merchant ;)

but the Non BH will spoil it I promise you that ;)

DaveN

[kidmercury]

i know what you mean, DaveN. that's why i was thinking that if a special section were created for black hats, there would be a "leave morals at the door" before entering kind of policy. if they want to talk morals, maybe they can get a morals forum or come to the padded room and talk about how bad and evil black hats are and how they should be wiped from the face of the earth. but a space where black hats can openly discuss tactics and pros/cons of various tactics would be much welcome, i think.

at this point i've got it tentatively placed in my queue of projects, so i'll start a black hat community of my own if one doesnt popup within a few months or so.

[DaveN]

If they did that they would have to put a Evil Black Hat Mod in place ... hehehe

Most blackhat forums are close door affairs if you are think about starting one up , last thing you want is someone post I have found this new way to spam only for GG or Tim to read it and stop it dead, most blackhat methods last of 12 months ;)...

Lifespan for Blackhat methods ( lifespam )

New method found and tested 1 month

New method rolls out and you start to rank ( clever spammers hide new method in amongst blog spam / guestbook spam ) 3 months

Other clever Blackhats reverse engineer your new method 2 months

so 6 months have past and now every good spammer is using the new method, the top 10 in Yahoo and Google for the money terms are all using this method... clever white hat find new method and posts it on the forums usually take 3 months for them to find it and make other white hats believe them... obviously the blackhats are openly denying that method works and the SE's rep start to look into it...

if it all goes quite Se's rep don't fix it quickly ;) if the noise is way to high it gets fixed quickly another 3 months ...

12 months lifespam

DaveN

[Jill Whalen]

I would hope that the admins at SEW would not want to go that route.

[seobook]

I would hope that the admins at SEW would not want to go that route.
I think you should openly discuss all methods. if it is closed off from the most effective techniques then what use is it?

[kidmercury]

if the admins are considering this, i can pretty much guarantee it would be a huge hit. i bet they could even charge for it. i'd probably pay to get in and check it out. it would probably even succeed amongst the angelic white hats -- after all, curiousity and temptation can never be defeated. and besides, what's the harm? no one would be forced to enter.

[fathom]

if the admins are considering this, i can pretty much guarantee it would be a huge hit. i bet they could even charge for it. i'd probably pay to get in and check it out. it would probably even succeed amongst the angelic white hats -- after all, curiousity and temptation can never be defeated. and besides, what's the harm? no one would be forced to enter.

Unfortunately it will likely not occur and much to do with DaveN mentioned.

Blackhat works based on 'dedication to research' - simply learning via point form posts doesn't develop the ability to do your own homework - your rate of failure would be significantly higher and likely to the point of 'hiding' the risk to clients and that IMHO is what makes you a bad SEO and not the practices themself.

You will also find that 'blackhat' SEOs are dedicated to their client base - they don't drop them when the results go south & and the clients' don't drop the SEO when results go south = together they share the risk and enjoy the rewards and have action plans in place to immediate handle dramatic drops...

The latter points are the greatest values that black has over white - while 'white is far less 'risky' the client tends to be the party that assumes 'all that less risk' e.g. if a Florida update occurs the client loses sales but the SEO doesn't where with black the client and SEO are 100% joined at the hip and the SEO is actually using their own revenue to replace organic results while they implement a new strategy.

It's rare to find that level of collaboration 'in white'... but it rarer in black not to see it'.

Be that as it may - you need to invest in your own research to be any good in black hat SEO... the considerations are enormous and what isn't said in a post is as importasnt as what is said.

[Elisabeth]

Actually, Danny & I have always been open to talking about all aspects of search and the spectrum of SEM tactics.

But recent discussion (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3475) surrounding SEWF's "MISSION" has gotten us thinking about that a little more specifically, and how to better define the purpose and 'vibe' of SEWF in general.

I think we both expected it to be a melting pot of people who also visit many other forums, and that's fine, since we don't expect to be the primary source of information for anyone. That's not how this business works. although we admit there has been some conflict because of diverging methods, how we handle that going forward may be part of a new mission statement after the new year.

More than anything, Danny & I both envisioned these forums to be an extension of the conference circuit - a place where both seasoned and inexperienced professionals can have intelligent, interesting and productive discussion much like we do during the conferences themselves. We'd like to see the same level of professional courtesy, respect and a little bit of well-intentioned humor/sarcasm we treat each other when face to face, even when we don't share the same views.

I think danny said it somewhere else, just because "forums make people act differently than they normally do", that sad excuse just won't fly here. For years Danny Sullivan has personified professionalism in SEM and a fair & balanced view, I think anyone visiting these forums owes him that in return for all his hard work & dedication to the industry.

(now somebody please pass me my free Yahoo/Overture/Google/AtlasOnepoint/MSN sponsored beverage...)

if the admins are considering this, i can pretty much guarantee it would be a huge hit. i bet they could even charge for it. i'd probably pay to get in and check it out. it would probably even succeed amongst the angelic white hats -- after all, curiousity and temptation can never be defeated. and besides, what's the harm? no one would be forced to enter.

interesting idea. :)

[Jill Whalen]

More than anything, Danny & I both envisioned these forums to be an extension of the conference circuit - a place where both seasoned and inexperienced professionals can have intelligent, interesting and productive discussion much like we do during the conferences themselves. We'd like to see the same level of professional courtesy, respect and a little bit of well-intentioned humor/sarcasm we treat each other when face to face, even when we don't share the same views.


That's exactly how I see this place as well. As with the conferences, Danny is very careful not to have panels that teach people how to spam, even though he may have people who do it, speaking on some panels.

I would encourage you to continue along those lines here, and to also keep moving this place toward high level discussions of issues, as opposed to technique. Even perfectly "white" techniques. The world doesn't need another forum with a bunch of threads on 'what's the best way to create my title tag' or 'why is my page missing from Google"?

We are very well covered for those things, and I do notice that those types of threads here tend to have very few answers, which would leave one to believe that most others here aren't interested in those types of threads.

ProjectPHP's excellent post from that other thread pretty much summed it up. Decide what your USP is and go for it. You're on the right track for the melting pot thing; I'd definitely try to put that into the mission statement and steer the conversations that way.

[fathom]

I would encourage you to continue along those lines here, and to also keep moving this place toward high level discussions of issues, as opposed to technique.

That's a very elegant statement... and totally agree.

[Elisabeth]

I would encourage you to continue along those lines here, and to also keep moving this place toward high level discussions of issues, as opposed to technique.

That's a very elegant statement... and totally agree.

Can I get a ME TOO post??

Jill just said what I meant to say for me. Good thing she's two hours ahead of me & my coffee:)

[Jill Whalen]

You did say it Elisabeth! I was just agreeing and expanding. :)

[fathom]

Not to take anything away from you Elisabeth - I read Jill's post first! ;)

[kidmercury]

I would encourage you to continue along those lines here, and to also keep moving this place toward high level discussions of issues, as opposed to technique. Even perfectly "white" techniques. The world doesn't need another forum with a bunch of threads on 'what's the best way to create my title tag' or 'why is my page missing from Google"?


but that's precisely why a black hat area is so desperately needed. black hat techniques tie into black hat issues -- i.e. how to assess risk, how to assess risk/reward ratios, how to create a "portfolio" of sites where you can diversify your risk across the board, and the countless other issues that would come up. when you open yourself up to different techniques, you open yourself up to different issues.

even those who are adamantly opposed to black hat tactics/issues could benefit from knowing what they are up to, how to compete against them when selling seo services, etc.

[Dave Hawley]

Where would one draw the line in the sand on 'black hat'? Seems to me like a 'black hat forum' would attract all the wrong sort of attention and crowd.

[kidmercury]

Where would one draw the line in the sand on 'black hat'? Seems to me like a 'black hat forum' would attract all the wrong sort of attention and crowd.

presumably that would be a moderator issue; whatever the mods/admins say. i think the definition of black hat would grow and be clarified a bit through a communal discussion as well.

[MrMackin]

Let's assume for a moment that all "black hats" are very bad people.

Would you trust what they posted in an open forum?

[kidmercury]

Let's assume for a moment that all "black hats" are very bad people.

Would you trust what they posted in an open forum?

let's assume that black hats do exist, and that they currently post on forums.

can you trust anything you see on a forum?

[mcanerin]

I think it's just as much of a waste of time to start a "white hat" thread and hope "black hats'" don't say anything on it as the reverse would be.

My major problem with a lot of the white hat/black hat stuff is that it's one of the quickest ways to derail a thread in this industry.

One thing I have noticed is that sometimes someone will start talking about a black hat technique and people will start discussing it, and finally some white hat stops by and points out that this is black hat/risky/etc and then some newbie lurker will often go "Really?! This could be dangerous?"

For every lurker that actually posts, there are usually about 1000 that don't but were thinking the same thing.

"Black Hats" talk about making informed choices and risk management all the time, but in practice threads and posts regarding BH techniques tend to focus on the technique rather than the risk.

The only way I could see a pure BH thread/forum being useful would be if it was invitation only, and only highly experienced people who know SEO risk managment inside and out being allowed in. And if that's the case, why not have a mailing list rather than a forum?

Risk managment is part of SEO. It's critical to the BH business model and yet it's the area most often ignored or neglected in discussions of BH techniques. And saying "oh, by the way, this is risky" isn't exactly disclosure. Life in general is risky. You need specifics. Even pure WH techniques can be risky under certain circumstances.

My preference would be to discuss BH techniques but also encourage free, frank and full disclosure of the risks at the same time. This often requires both "hats" showing up and discussing it.

The reverse is also true. There have been some WH discussions that have benifited greatly from a BH persective and I, for one, appreciate it.

My personal opinion,

Ian

[kctipton]

a black hat area is so desperately needed

So start your own forum somewhere that doesn't involve Danny's excellent reputation and my money (yes I'm a subscriber here) to provide cover for the crap that will likely be discussed.

[kidmercury]

So start your own forum somewhere that doesn't involve Danny's excellent reputation and my money (yes I'm a subscriber here) to provide cover for the crap that will likely be discussed.

i suppose that's one way of looking at it, and as i stated in a previous post, i may in fact go for that. of course, a wiser way of looking at it would be that it'd be better for the seo community in general if there wasnt another forum -- the market is already saturated with enough of them -- but rather if the existing ones found better ways of differentiating themselves. but of course it will be the decision of danny/elisabeth and whoever else is involved in those kinds of decisions....just my two cents, although i think it's pretty obvious that there is a void in the seo community, a demand to fill that void, and an opportunity for anyone who can manage to successfully fill it. SEW is, in my opinion, the best seo/sem forum out there, so personally i think it'd be great to see this community expand.

i'm not really so sure as to why this incites anger in people. if you dont like, dont click.

of course this thread has gotten a fair amount of activity since it was started....hmm, maybe the idea is interesting after all...... :eek:

[kidmercury]

Risk managment is part of SEO. It's critical to the BH business model and yet it's the area most often ignored or neglected in discussions of BH techniques. And saying "oh, by the way, this is risky" isn't exactly disclosure. Life in general is risky. You need specifics. Even pure WH techniques can be risky under certain circumstances.

My preference would be to discuss BH techniques but also encourage free, frank and full disclosure of the risks at the same time. This often requires both "hats" showing up and discussing it.

The reverse is also true. There have been some WH discussions that have benifited greatly from a BH persective and I, for one, appreciate it.

My personal opinion,

Ian

give it up, ya'll: mcanerin just hit the nail on the head. it's really more about risk than about white hat/black hat stuff. white hat/black hat is terminology for those who believe in morals, which is nice and all, i suppose, but generally irrelevant. risk, on the other hand, is something everyone should pay attention to, as it affects your reality.

[kctipton]

Morals are never irrelevant, even for SEO work. Techniques follow from principles after all.

[kidmercury]

Morals are never irrelevant, even for SEO work. Techniques follow from principles after all.

i'm not sure i follow. seo techniques are based on on-page optimization and link building. how do those stem from morals/principles?

the other issue is that what is moral and what is immoral can be a very personal issue, so i question who has the right to say what is moral and what is immoral.

the other thing i'd like to remind people about is the state of search back in the late nineties. the quality of search results was horrendous. you could type in anything into yahoo or altavista and early on in your search results you'd find some porn pages, thanks largely in part to "unethical" seo tactics. that brought about the substantial demand for a better search engine, which in turn led to google. without google, a lot of seo's would be out of business -- white hats included.

i'd like to think that the internet and search engines in particular are far from done in terms of growing and improving their algorithms. "unethical" tactics help to identify weaknesses in search engines and bring them to the search engines' attention so that they can fix them. in the end, it is evolutionary advancement that everyone seeks -- white hats, black hats, gray hats, no hats. everyone. an open discussion of all tactics is the best way to ensure the evolution of search engines. if some people are offended by certain tactics or find them distasteful, that's fine; to each their own. although there is clearly a demand to discuss the "evil" techniques and corresponding issues. personally, i'm all in favor of seeing that discussion take place here at SEW, where the community is already established and there are many, many community members who have so much information and experience to share.

[Quadrille]

You will also find that 'blackhat' SEOs are dedicated to their client base - they don't drop them when the results go south & and the clients' don't drop the SEO when results go south = together they share the risk and enjoy the rewards and have action plans in place to immediate handle dramatic drops...I don't dispute that such loyalty exists, but it certanly does not exist as an acceptable generalization.

Black Hat was named after the 'evil ones' who took the money and ran, leaving their clients overspent and underGoogled.

Indeed, if 'twere usually true, would they not be called "Gold Hats"?

[fathom]

I don't dispute that such loyalty exists, but it certanly does not exist as an acceptable generalization.

Black Hat was named after the 'evil ones' who took the money and ran, leaving their clients overspent and underGoogled.

Indeed, if 'twere usually true, would they not be called "Gold Hats"?

At the same time 'white' should be 24Kt Gold Hats - but the general scope of SEO in totality it is not a mainstream advertising and promotion method that has the 'clout' of TV, Radio, Newspapers, etc.

If it had, there would be a regulatory system in place to govern what you can and can't do.

Black/White discussions often get mixed in with 'ethics', 'cost', deliverables', and 'return' or 'lack there of' and 'white' hasn't proven itself 100% that no matter the contract, no matter the industry, no matter the market, and no matter the servicing company - it doesn't get the same bad press that black can produce.

As such 'white' isn't a better way - just another way.

[I, Brian]

Black Hat was named after the 'evil ones' who took the money and ran, leaving their clients overspent and underGoogled.

I believe the terminology comes from security programming - aka, hacking - to differentiate those who used their talents for "illegitimate" coding (blackhat) activities, as opposed to "legitimate" (whitehat). Quite possibly derived from the old Mad Magazine cartoon, Spy vs Spy, to illustrate the antagonism of the practices.

I'm under the impression the terminology was carried over into SEO to differentiate those working "within" search engine guidelines (whitehat), as opposed to those working outside of them (blackhat).

Ultimately, the terminology represents rather artificial extremes - as the Google webmaster guidelines make clear, doing anything for "search engines" as opposed to "human users" is to step outside the letter of the guidelines.

So, really we're all just different shades of grey. :)

I don't believe that either "whitehat" or "blackhat" at all refers to actual business relationships of practices or customer ethics - "whitehat" practices can entirely fail to deliver on the investment, just as "blackhat" can backfire if handled without proper care.

And I believe "blackhat" tactics such as "cloaking" are covered in the SEW members only area.

Irrelevant 2c. :)

[Quadrille]

I'm under the impression the terminology was carried over into SEO to differentiate those working "within" search engine guidelines (whitehat), as opposed to those working outside of them (blackhat). and I don't believe that either "whitehat" or "blackhat" at all refers to actual business relationships of practices or customer ethics - "whitehat" practices can entirely fail to deliver on the investment, just as "blackhat" can backfire if handled without proper care. There's some confusion here; Yes, white hat can fail to deliver and yes, black hat may 'get away with it' for far too long.

But customer ethics is central to the distinction. White Hat works within the guidelines, Black Hat outside them. Already Black Hat is in shady territory.

But go further; in most cases, Black Hat is working without the customers consent to the tricks; without informed consent, anyway. Black trades on having the expertise; the customer just has the money. Black Hat depends on the client not understanding where the guidelines end, or, worse, not understanding the risks being taken with their site.

But all this is old news; point is, you are either White Hat (working within guidelines, being honest with Google and the client). Or you are 'beyond the pale' ;) Call it what you like, but Black Hat is as good as any other color; everyone knows what it means; it's never out of fashion. If you live the life, wear the hat with pride.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Quadrille, I very much disagree with you. How you chose to produce results and how you do business with your clients are two very different things. I have seen very professional handling of clients and the oposite in both camps.

In terms of evaluating risks the fact is that long-term experience in how search engines are actually dealing with these issues is worth a lot more than just claiming you follow the guidelines.

I have done work for many very large companies and with the long-term nature of such projects I can not rely on weak and ever changing guidelines put up the engines. I have to rely on my experience in what works and where the real risks are. If you claim you don't take risks because you follow the guidelines to the letter that is in my mind fooling the clint and in fact much more "black hat" (if you like) than anything usually refered to as such.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to brand themself as "whitehat".

- Where are all the white hat lawyers? - I can't find them
- Where are all the white hat off line marketing agencies? - Can't find them either
- Where are the white hat accountants? hehehe!

The clients that hire me want to make sure I know the trade very well and all tactics used. Just like you would expect your accountant to know about every single tax loophole there is. That dosn't mean you have to use it all but how can you develop or evaluate any strategy for a client if you chose to ignore large part of the landscape even before you start? Sorry, but I don't get it.

If you want to call me a Black Hat for that, fine. I am actualy proud of the fact that I know my trade very well.

[Chris_D]

Just like you would expect your accountant to know about every single tax loophole there is. That dosn't mean you have to use it all but how can you develop or evaluate any strategy for a client if you chose to ignore large part of the landscape even before you start? Sorry, but I don't get it.

'Loophole' is a gray word - in accountant terms, the difference is 'tax minimisation' V 'tax evasion'.

As Ian said - its all about risk, and understanding the risk reward tradeoff.

As best as I can tell, milliners don't even congregate based on specialisation in white or black...

[dannysullivan]

Lots of great comments, but I think David's earlier one probably sums up my feelings best:

I think you will find a wide variety of topics discussed here, both what some would call black hat and white hat as well as everything in between. That is because the membership here is comprised of black hats, white hats and hats with shades of grey

I suspect that if some particular technique needs to be discussed, we'd all look at it regardless of hat. I think if someone wanted to discuss a particular technique or a portfolio of techniques to assess risk or whatever, they should be able to do that now.

There is an issue that if you were dealing with a black hat topic, as DaveN aptly points out, the technique under discussion can get hijacked with a discussion of ethics.

We've been through that here before, and the way we're handling it now is to split the topic. If the discussion is about a technique, how it works etc, the focus stays on that. If someone wants to have an ethical discussion of the technique, that can split into a new thread.

But what DaveN also rightly points out is that no public forum is going to successfully have a "black hat" area operate. If you discuss publicly specific techniques, in particular loopholes, that search engines can detect, then they shut those down. There mere act of going public shines some light on the black stuff you want to try, making it potentially die a quick death.

It's a tricky issue, though. Cloaking is seen by many as black hat. But we've discussed cloaking plenty here. I think that's because it's a tactic that the search engines have difficulty detecting -- and frankly in some cases, they don't even care.

After the new year, my write-up on SES Chicago and our black hat/white hat session will look at this more. A tactic seen as "black" for one circumstance or query might not seem so black even to a search engine in another one. Or in other words, it's not always the tactic but the intend. Did you black hat with the intent to mislead a searcher? A search engine is much more concerned about that than using a "black hat" tactic to solve an indexing problem that some might argue is a search engine failing.

In the end, my own hesitancy in wanting to start a black hat area is that I would never want someone new to search engines to dive in there, thinking they now have all the "secrets" to success. People need to learn the basics of SEO first, and those basics in my view are good content, good on page optimization and good link building. Many people can do these steps first, can still do lots of simple and non-controversial things and get success. That's where they should start -- but if you had a black hat area, folks would go right there. And black hat is hard -- it's constantly fighting to find the latest loophole that is probably way overkill for lots of people.

But I do want people to understand black hat issues, of course. We've done that in our conferences and as part of my own writing, where I think the context has been to help educate people about the broader things that are going on. Some may want to go further. Some may simply want to understand better so they can make an educated decision on why they may not want to go that route. So discussion here of these topics is part of that experience, and I wouldn't want it to go away. I just think it's probably best integrated as part of the forums overall.

[Quadrille]

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to brand themself as "whitehat".
- Where are all the white hat lawyers? - I can't find them
- Where are all the white hat off line marketing agencies? - Can't find them either
- Where are the white hat accountants? hehehe!
If you want to call me a Black Hat for that, fine. I am actualy proud of the fact that I know my trade very well.Taking those points in order;

By branding yourself 'whitehat' you are stating that you will adhere to guidelines; you will possess (and display) a code of your practice, and you will be prepared to take responsibility for your actions (not blame Google when things go belly up!)

I'm not in the business of defending those others; but the key difference is that their professions have some regulation; SEO has none.

Which brings me to the final point - I'm not calling you anything. My point is all about self description. In the absence of any external regualation, self labelling is all we've got.

I note in this thread (and elsewhere) all those who routinely defend 'black hat' techniques, also claim to be shades of grey. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say "I'm Black Hat" (apologies if I've missed it). Those who are proud to call themselves whte hat never call for shades of gray. I wonder why this difference :rolleyes:

In fact, the only real difference is that anyone who criticizes BlackHat gets negative points, anonymously, which is a shame, isn't it?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Those who are proud to call themselves whte hat never call for shades of gray.

Yes, and that is exactly the problem

[kidmercury]

In fact, the only real difference is that anyone who criticizes BlackHat gets negative points, anonymously, which is a shame, isn't it?

hey count your blessings, buddy. some of us would die for some negative rep.
:cool:

[fathom]

I note in this thread (and elsewhere) all those who routinely defend 'black hat' techniques, also claim to be shades of grey. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say "I'm Black Hat" (apologies if I've missed it). Those who are proud to call themselves whte hat never call for shades of gray. I wonder why this difference :rolleyes:

You can note alot of discreprencies in the way people view things and more often than not white isn't totally white and depending on situation 'I'm proud to be white' endorses the greying of the line.

A black hat isn't stuck with interpretating vague search engine guidelines.... unfortunately a white hat is.

Where do you stand on....

If you are a 100% white hatter - FROM GOOGLE to your client's - You should never have to link to an SEO

If the definition of white hat is obeying SE guidelines - then alot of proclaimed white hats - AREN'T.

Or

For your own safety, you should insist on a full and unconditional money-back guarantee.

If you are a 100% white hat please point out that full unconditional money-back guarantee you offer... many more proclaimed white hats - AREN'T.

Yet at the same time Google says: No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google but you as a white hat SEO OBEYING GOOGLE'S guidelines MUST offer a full and unconditional money-back guarantee to be an ethical SEO.

What in the hell are you guaranteeing????????? That they won't get to #1?

If this is the bases for being a "white hat SEO"... please keep it... clearly the guidelines are not well thought out for anyone to follow by "verbatim".

As such I'm proud to be a BLACK HATTER - the guidelines are easier to live by and understand... making and keeping client's happy.

Please note: I can use white hat techniques - there's nothing in the rule book that says I can't.

[Marcia]

Although I don't much care for nit-picking where definitions are concerned, and care even less for intentional attempts toward foisting of terminology upon people, I think a valid point on this issue is the point some have raised and recommended on referring to "black hat/white hat" as "high risk/low risk instead."

Guess what? Most accidents happen at home, not out on the highway. But there is a HELL of a big difference in risk involved between stepping out of the bathtub onto a bathmat and slipping or frying chittlins in the kitchen and getting splattered or burnt, and driving down the freeway during normal rush-hour traffic, or driving drunk when you know the Calif. Highway Patrol is out to GET YOU if you're doing so.

It isn't so much hat color, or even risk level, that's a critical factor in a diverse community but disclosure that's the critical difference and issue. We also sometimes have to look at who is doing the posting and discern their motivations for posting as they do, in light of the content and context.

For some who have been around the block a few times it isn't very hard to spot an agenda in operation, but not so with newbies who are still wet behind the ears, and those are the very ones who need to be apprised of risks involved because they are the very ones who are vulnerable - and therefore liable to be targeted, if such is the case.

Those whose agendas are personal and promotional don't necessarily see things the same way as those who are rather community-minded or even "neutral" in intent within forum settings - but the bottom line is that for the sake of the innocent and uniitiated in the ways of the web, disclosure is critical for their protection.

[fathom]

Overall Danny said it best with this...

People need to learn the basics of SEO first, and those basics in my view are good content, good on page optimization and good link building. Many people can do these steps first, can still do lots of simple and non-controversial things and get success. That's where they should start -- but if you had a black hat area, folks would go right there. And black hat is hard -- it's constantly fighting to find the latest loophole that is probably way overkill for lots of people.

While 3 simple points - each is very complex.

[Dave Hawley]

Analogy: I would see any SEO forum that encouraged SEO'ing outside the SE guidelines just like a contruction forum encouraging building outside safety guidelines. Sure, it may get the building up faster and cheaper, but that wont mean much when it all falls down and you wont't see all those that offered the all ill advice for dust!

[Marcia]

>>Analogy: I would see any SEO forum that encouraged SEO'ing outside the SE guidelines just like a contruction forum encouraging building outside safety guidelines.

Distinction:
Encouraging isn't the same thing as allowing or providing opportunity. I dont think we're talking about *encouraging* what GoogleGuy and others have referred to as "cheating" over time, and I think we're all mature enough to recognize what that refers to; but rather, it's about providing an opportunity to share ideas.

The distinction, however, is that techniques that carry an element of above average risk level should not - IMHO, of course - be presented as legitimate, regardless of who the propogation of such may benefit on a personal business and financial level, which is sometimes the case and the motivation. The key element is honest disclosure

>>Sure, it may get the building up faster and cheaper, but that wont mean much when it all falls down

Distinction based on reality:
It will mean a lot to some, Dave. But not to all, not by a long shot. The fact of the matter is that if one should fall, some will just put up a half dozen more to take its place within the day without batting an eyelash. Others won't or can't, and there's a big difference between the two.

>>and you wont't see all those that offered the all ill advice for dust!

We will see them, I think - though not necessarily where we expect to see them. :)

[Dave Hawley]

As far as I'm concerned, providing a forum is encouraging the activity of the forum theme. I don't care what spin is placed on this, those that provide the means (being fully informed) are (should be) tarred with the same brush. If not, those providing hate/racism forums are totally innocent too and are not "encouraging" .....yeah right!

Whether one can re-build again, or not, makes no difference as far I'm concerned.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

You probably have to be American to understand the logic of censorship. I don't get it. I am sorry, but to a Dane like me it is very confusing. I simply do not understand why we should limit the discussion of ideas and different opinions on various topics (in this case, within the space of SEO/SEM and search in general) to some kind of fanatic "whitelist".

In my mind, people that only want to discuss topics with others they agree with and only following a approved whitelist of arguments and examples should join a private club - not an open discussion forum.

A fourm is not a "book of what to do" but a place for discussions and sharng of ideas. Within the limits of law I think we should keep the discussions on this forum as open as possible.

[Dave Hawley]

So there should be no censorship? Even your own Country has censorship.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

No, actually we don't. We have some very weak liability laws, some general regulations on "hate" (for example if you say you will kill all Judes or Mislims) but no cencorship. Even in broadcast you can say almost everything you want.

In any case, it dosn't change my view on cencorship. If your arguments are not strong enough for the discussion accept it instead of using cencorship to limit my right to speak my case - or the topics and issues I (and others) want to talk about.

[Dave Hawley]

Of course you have censorship.


Even in broadcast you can say almost everything you want.There's your proof.




In any case, it dosn't change my view on cencorship. If your arguments are not strong enough for the discussion accept it instead of using cencorship to limit my right to speak my case - or the topics and issues I (and others) want to talk about.You mean you would like to cencor my comments. Nobody is saying you cannot have your views, but please let's stay in the real world where cencorship is alive and a good thing.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I have my views on this and you have yours. That probably won't change.

What I also believe won't change is the fact that "Black Hat tactics" ARE being discussed here at this forum, as Danny pointed out. One example is cloaking - which many other forums have also discussed over time (and even conferences like SES where I used to do cloaking sessions some years back when that was a hot topic).

As far as I'm concerned, providing a forum is encouraging the activity of the forum theme.

So, are you saying that by providing a forum for cloaking this place would in effect tell anyone they should go ahead and use it - just by discussing it, and possibly even be in violation of law (as cloaking can in it's most extreme use - for example cloaking hijacked content - be illegal)?

I don't think so and apparently neither have the Jupiter Medias lawyers (thanks for that!).

I understand people that don't like to have such discussions. Fine with me but let the rest of us have them as we like. It is not going to go away. This IS the real world for many of us, this is what we do, and we very much like to discuss various aspects of what we do with each other.

There are many kinds of discussions on the web that I don't like and therefore don't participate in. Most of them are fully legal but I still don't like them. However, I accept that other people can have them if they want - I am just going to stay out (and for certain kinds of discussions I will probably try and keep my kids out too).

[fathom]

I understand people that don't like to have such discussions. Fine with me but let the rest of us have them as we like.

In the context of the thread 'a specific forum' it's a bulleye for people simply not interested in the discussion or debating the issues... which I suppose is what Dave_Hawley said - attracting the wrong audience.

Kind of like a 'right for life' rally which also attracts the 'right to choose' crowd but not because they are interested in hearing what the other side has to say.

At least the way things are now when you have interest in a topic - you tend to find it pretty easily... with less of a sign that says "cheap shots welcome".

[lots0]

...the real world where cencorship is alive and a good thing.
I would like to point out that most Americans do not hold this opinion, only a small vocal group of right wing radicals within America that believe that "their type" of censorship is a good thing.

Most educated people, Americans included, have learned the lessons of history and censorship.

There CAN NOT be a free society and you CAN NOT have anykind of freedom when the information you receive is censored in any way, history has proven this over and over.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao all strongly supported censorship.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I am sorry, lots0, if my statement came out wrong. I was not trying to imply that all americans like cencorship but it does seem to be more widespread in the US. However, the fact is that most (if not all) of my very good American friends do not, like you, believe in censorship - especially not the way it seems to have been conducted in recent years with the FCC almost making meaningfull broadcast possible.

I am happy that we do not have a "FCC" here in Denmark :)
As I said, we are actually very free to broadcast what we want only under the limitations "normal" law has, such as extreme hate and direct recomandations to do higly illegal things (even minor illegal things seems to be OK to broadcast here such as saying it's OK to smoke pot even though it is in fact illegal).

The only way the world can truely be a better place, in my mind, is if we allow ideas to develop - even ideas we may not like or understand to begin with. And, if this is true for lifes bigger issues I really don't see why we should limit ourself so much in this, rather insignificant (seen in the bigger picture), industry.

[lots0]

I was not trying to imply that all americans like cencorship but it does seem to be more widespread in the US.

No problem Mikkel, :-)

Unfortunately, Mikkel I believe you are correct about the level of censorship in America, and it is growing, too many here have replaced logic with fear. :(

[Dave Hawley]

So, are you saying that......No, what I have said is written above in black and white.

Lots0 Said: Hitler, Stalin and Mao all strongly supported censorship. Then states; and it is growing, too many here have replaced logic with fear

In other words, you alone have "replaced logic with fear" Lots0.

As expected, the radicals come out to play :rolleyes:

[Dave Hawley]

Lots0, this may come as a shock but the USA is not the World.


even minor illegal things seems to be OK to broadcast here such as saying it's OK to smoke pot even though it is in fact illegalHere is Oz with have a Goverment sponsored national radio station aimed primarily at our youth. They discuss drugs from alcohol to Herion and it's all done with some censorship.

It would appear that some believe there should be no censorship and I believe that is spoken out of pure ignorance. It's the level of censorship that is the question, not whether is should exist or not. As I have said, censorship is already alive and well in most Countries.

[lots0]

Hmmmm called a radical for espousing free speech.... I am honored.

I know that is not what dave intended, but I truly feel that I have been honored.

[Dave Hawley]

LOL! I never even mentioned you as a "radical" Lots0, I said "As expected, the radicals come out to play", but hey if the shirt fits :D

[lots0]

I never even mentioned you as a "radical" Lots0
maybe not directly, but the implication is clear.

[Dave Hawley]

but the implication is clearOf course it is if you are a "radical".

[Lex]

The topic of the thread is centered around whether or not black hat techniques can be discussed in this type of forum, along with why, or why not, as well as "how." Let's focus on this (in this thread anyway) instead of dwelling on the merits and politics of censorship.

[Marcia]

>>thread is centered around whether or not black hat techniques can be discussed in this type of forum

Sure they can be, and sometimes are; but the nature of what they are needs to be divulged so no one who happens to come along who doesn't know the difference will think it's normal, acceptable practice without risk. There can be some unexpected motivations for people doing such posts, among which are some that are considerably less than "honorable."

>>dwelling on the merits and politics of censorship

I can definitely see the merits of self-censorship on a personal level of what we choose to read or not. As in avoiding the same ole' same ole' black hat/white hat debates that have gone on ad nauseum for years. It isn't an issue, it's an irritating redundancy. It's a fact of reality and it gets really tiresome after a while.

When people expend the effort and skill it takes to take manipulating the engines to the "next level," what leads anyone to believe they'll just share their sweet little tidbits with just anyone who comes along out of the goodness of their hearts, regardless of how earnest some people's desire to learn them may be?

To be perfectly honest, I think it's quite likely that worthless garbage would be shared, and to think otherwise is either naive or detrimental at the very least.

[Dave Hawley]

I agree that is is niave to think 'black hat' methods will not be discussed and/or suggested. However, I feel that is a long way from supplying the means to do so.

One would be niave to think hate, racism, pervertion etc etc does not exist on the WWW, but that does not mean it should give the green light for forum owners to supply the means and thus encourage the activities.

If SEW does take this route, I fear any good will be deeply buried under all the bad and SEW will become a known haven for 'black hat' and SE spammers. Very bad move IMO.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Dave, it is not a "move" as we have had these kind of discussions from the very beginning. This thread was started by a member that feel some of the more advanced/black hat threads has been "hijacked" by ethical issues instead of sticking to the actual technique in question.

I hope that this has been resolved by the policy laid pout by Danny where such threads will be split up. We have room for both but I think it serves all the best if they each stay on focus.

[Dave Hawley]

The way I read it is there is want to have a specific area (forum) for 'black hats'. So as far as I can tell this would be a "move" indeed.

[Marcia]

Mikkel
This thread was started by a member that feel some of the more advanced/black hat threads has been "hijacked" by ethical issues instead of sticking to the actual technique in question.
Mikkel, I pretty much know *exactly* which some of the threads are that are being referred to, and if I'm correct those were not getting into the black hat/white hat issue at all, but rather clarifying long term issues concerning linking relationships with other webmasters regarding linking practices, both straightforward and deceptive.

That has nothing to do with gaming the engines. Those had to do more with disclosure of risk vs. benefits of the strategies presented, for the benefit of those who come along and read, and also - effective vs. ineffective linking strategies over the long term, rather than ethical issues as they relate to exploiting search engine algos, which is something everyone does, or tries to, whether or not they deny it or are honest enough with themselves and/or others to admit it.

I hope that this has been resolved by the policy laid pout by Danny where such threads will be split up. We have room for both but I think it serves all the best if they each stay on focus.
If they are the ones I think they are, they've got nothing at all to do with reporting of spam. In the threads I believe are involved, spam reporting wasn't even close to an issue.

From what I'm gathering this thread is indeed suggesting a private, restricted area for "black hat" discussions and revelations of techniques to be freely discussed.

Question:

Does the suggestion refer to just so-called "black hat techniques" for gaming the engines, an art form in itself, at time exquisitely executed and to be admired for brilliance and ingenuity, or taken in context of the Linking forum, issues that relate to webmaster relationships with other webmaster or clients?

In other words, would a private, exclusive "black hat" forum topically cover subjects including screwing over other webmasters who may be naive and don't know any better, or simply practices that relate to reverse engineering and exploiting search engine algos?

[Marcia]

"unethical" tactics help to identify weaknesses in search engines and bring them to the search engines' attention so that they can fix them. in the end, it is evolutionary advancement that everyone seeks -- white hats, black hats, gray hats, no hats. everyone. an open discussion of all tactics is the best way to ensure the evolution of search engines.
Identifying and exploiting weaknesses in algos is one thing. But screwing Google over and screwing me over with cleverly devised and hidden, deceptively devised linking schemes to deceptively NOT give benefit back for benefit given are two different things.

Shafting fellow webmasters isn't black hat, it's a beast of a different name altogether. How does giving other webmasters the shaft wthout the KY help Google in any way?

if some people are offended by certain tactics or find them distasteful, that's fine; to each their own. although there is clearly a demand to discuss the "evil" techniques and corresponding issues. personally,
Sure there is a demand. Why not? The dude who is making $100 a month at most sure does have a demand to know what the dude who is making $10K or $100K a month is doing. Desire and entitlement or availablity are not synonymous however. And there is still no free lunch.

While ethics or offensiveness has nothing to do with some people's decisions, practices and techniques may well have bearing on whether or not people are being promised something that isn't being delivered or whether or not some people pursue various and sundry paths.

We are all affected by that, and we all need to know when we are being deceived regarding getting benefit back for benefit given - or being given a snow job and giving but not getting anything back - based on lies. Any sites' visitors are entitled no no less than the truth, as far as it can be known. That has NOTHING to do with black hat SEO techniques.

i'm all in favor of seeing that discussion take place here at SEW, where the community is already established and there are many, many community members who have so much information and experience to share.
Exactly, including information to let people know when they're being screwed over. Is that what we want?

[Chris_D]

Shafting fellow webmasters isn't black hat, it's a beast of a different name altogether. How does giving other webmasters the shaft without the KY help Google in any way?

Marcia - ROTFL!!!!

[Marcia]

Lets look at this thread. What do we think about this?

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3467

Should there be a private area set aside for some folks telling others how to do that, just because they want to know how? Then look at some of the other methods proposed in some of the threads in that forum:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44

Is that what a webmaster/SEO community is all about? Should there be a dedicated area set aside for it? Let's get real about exactly what it is that's being discussed here.

Black hat? I think not.

[Lex]

Well put Marcia.

[mcanerin]

I think it's much more useful to have multiple viewpoints on any discussion. The OP in this thread was concerned about threads being hijacked by those with personal agendas, and that of course is a valid concern for all of us.

OTOH, in my experience many threads also are started by those with a personal agenda and later the members of the forum actually hijack it back to something useful other than self promotion or whatever. (not this thread specifically, I'm speaking generally here)

Seen it happen a few times here - a thread started that, while the Mods are discussing whether they should remove it, our wonderful forum members come along and take matters into their own hands...errr...keyboards. By the time the mods come back, the thread is suddenly useful and more even-handed - no doubt to the disgruntlement of the OP of said thread.

As a matter of fact, this very thread has gone from a "Can we have a BH Forum, yes/no?" to a much more interesting discussion. It would have been a shame if the answer to the OP had been "No" and then the subject dropped. The change in direction has been more useful, IMO.

Ian