White Hats don't build links?

[Fear The Pie]

In another thread, Moderator RustyBrick said:

For some reason, white hat seo has turned into only "on page optimization" and excluded all link building.

Maybe I don't understand what white hat SEO is, but where do you get this idea from? I don't know anyone considered "white hat" that believes in "on the page optimization" at the exclusion of link building.

Could you please elaborate for us, Mr. Brick?

[rustybrick]

Sure,

I spend a ton of time at pretty much all the major and some minor SEM/SEO forums. Many "newbie" or "novice" members tend to believe that buying links, trading links and such are "black hat" seo tactics. Of course it is not, but they tend to frown on such behavior.

Its just something I have noticed with some new members at some of the established forums.

[qwerty]

I hope those noobs get corrected. I don't know any white hats (among whom I count myself, even though I wouldn't be caught dead in a real one) who would argue that going out and getting links is a bad practice.

Certainly, many would argue that the best way to get links is to build content that's so good that everyone will want to link to it without the need to ask them, but that's not to imply that one shouldn't seek links.

[rustybrick]

agreed - newbies aren't always newbies. :)

[Fear The Pie]

Many "newbie" or "novice" members tend to believe that buying links, trading links and such are "black hat" seo tactics.

Really? Because I read a lot of forums too, and I've never seen anyone think that link building is a black hat technique.

Do you have some examples of people who think this? Some other threads you might point us to, perhaps?

[rustybrick]

I'll try to look for examples later.

Is this so important?

I am not saying that white hats don't build links, they do (or if they don't then they are not wearing a hat).

[Fear The Pie]

No, it's not important. I just didn't understand why you said such a thing in the other thread, because it made no sense. Still doesn't, but oh well.

[rustybrick]

Just like to point out that you took that quote out of its complete context. I did not say that white hats dont build links. I said that some newbies believe that white hat seos dont buy links.

Again, I'll try to find examples when I have free time.

Sorry if you took my statement the wrong way. See you in the other threads. :)

[Fear The Pie]

Umm...no...in the other thread where I saw your original post (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4781&postcount=30) (and I tried to reply there but a moderator removed it for being off-topic), you said that white hats don't build links.

It's pretty clearly stated there, not out of context at all.

You said, "white hat seo has turned into only 'on page optimization' and excluded all link building"

That means they don't build links, right? There wasn't anything about newbies either.

I guess maybe you didn't mean that, but it's what you said and I just wanted to get it clarified because it certainly didn't fit with my understanding of "white hat seo."

[Nacho]

I tried to reply there but a moderator removed it for being off-topic
You bet! After I see this 9 post conversation that is not related with exactly the topic of the Link Building Services - How much $$ per link? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343) thread dedicated to "what is the best fair price or prices to pay for legitimate one way link or even for reciprocal links", I believe I made the right decision.

Like I said to you (Fear The Pie) via PM, opening a new thread to clear your point about "white hat seo has turned into only "on page optimization" and excluded all link building." was a good move and I appreciate it very much for doing this. I wish you success finding your answer. :)

Saludos!

PS. Don't forget to "kiss and make-up" when finishing this positive and respectful debate. ;)

[rustybrick]

Again, I apologize for not being more specific in my original post.

I will say it a few times. I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry.

Do you forgive me? :)

[Fear The Pie]

If you're talking to me, it's not up to me to forgive you or whatever.

And again, the only reason I even mentioned it was because I saw the comment posted here on a highly reputable forum by a moderator no less, and then didn't see anyone even blink an eye at it!

If newbies (or anyone) read that, being as it was written by a moderator, surely they would have to assume that was true. I didn't want people to think that "white hat" SEO people excluded link building from their SEO work because that would start more nasty discussions about how dumb white hat SEOs were for excluding link building, etc., etc.

Glad we could clear up that's not what you actually meant.

What did you mean, I wonder?

[rustybrick]

Based on this thread, I have further clarified my post.

I will make a stronger effort in the future to fully articulate my thoughts for all my posts.

I appreciate you pointing this out to me and I will do my best to not allow this to happen again.

Good day.

[seobook]

You said, "white hat seo has turned into only 'on page optimization' and excluded all link building"

I would say that few firms are going to be foolish enough to say that they do not build links, but I know many firms do not.

A perfect example: earlier this year I went to Coachella (http://www.coachella.com) (awesome concert by the way) and met some kids who were hiring a large "White Hat" SEO firm.

These kids had server difficulties which prevented them from changing certain things on their server. The firm they were "working" with was charging them $1,000 / month to do SEO for them.

The really disgusting thing about this is that the firm not only did nothing to work on their site, but also did virtually nothing in the lines of link building. At the end of 6 months they had 4 links. That stinks.

Based on that and many phone calls from various dissatisfied customers who were hiring various firms I can tell you that a lack of link building is common in very large portion of the SEO field.

I do not have thorough survey of any sort, but a lack of link building is more common problem than you would think.

[St0n3y]

Is seo withou link building even possible? Honestly I don't see how you can and still get results.

[seobook]

Is seo withou link building even possible? Honestly I don't see how you can and still get results.

It totally is not possible in anything competitive, especially on Google. Especially in the consumer electronics field (which is the category this site is in).

[donut]

These kids had server difficulties which prevented them from changing certain things on their server. The firm they were "working" with was charging them $1,000 / month to do SEO for them.


A company that calls itself a "white hat" firm doesn't mean they neccessarily have talent or know what they are doing.

A "hat" or "ethical viewpoint" had nothing whatsoever to do with competancy. There are both effective and ineffective "white hats" and "black hats".

[seobook]

A company that calls itself a "white hat" firm doesn't mean they neccessarily have talent or know what they are doing.

A "hat" or "ethical viewpoint" had nothing whatsoever to do with competancy. There are both effective and ineffective "white hats" and "black hats".

I guess what made the SEO firm I was refering to "white hat" or "ethical" was their own self description when they called me up about a week after that concert to see if they could partner with me (not realizing that one of their own customers just switched to me).

I am just saying that usually those companies that align themselves with the ethical tag are less likely to be hard workers.

Like it or not SEO for competitive terms consists of a mix of the following:

coming up with better ideas than other people <--- not all SEOs can do this, especially when stuck promoting a bad idea.

being more socially connected than other people <---- not all SEOs can do this, many people in the SEO community are more financially driven and not as socially gifted as perhaps a popular blogger may be

doing large sums of grunt work getting lots and lots of links <--- odds are that a firm branding itself with the ethical tag is not going to be getting tons and tons of links. why do I say this?

link building is time consuming or extremely expensive. if you are at the point where you are using the ethics label to brand your services you are either:

1.) really new to SEO (and do not yet realize how important links are and how dirty a good SEO job can be). this was me maybe a few short months ago.

in this case you are likely to undercharge the client and not have enough money for profit margin & to buy adequete links, let alone not knowing just how many you will need.

2.) you are already so successful that you are not really willing to work as hard as you may need to work to do a really good job.

for example, the second person I worked for was in the adult toy industry. indeed I did get them good rankings, but if asked to work for that type of site again I would say no because I personally am not willing to put that much effort into placing large sums of money in other peoples pockets. I no longer personally have that much drive to make someone else that much money.

over time SEO can become somewhat boring as large portions of the job are repetitive in nature. perhaps this is why I am more interested in reading books and chatting in forums than having lots of clients.

many of the best SEOs leave the SEO field and make their own ecommerce sites because they can control everything from concept to marketing to fullfillment and make way more money or promote something way more interesting to them personally than the stuff they would being stuck promoting if they worked on other peoples businesses embedded with other peoples products and flaws.

[qwerty]

Maybe it's because you posted late at night, or because I'm reading your post before I've had my required coffee quota, but there seems to be a logical disconnect in there, Aaron.

I don't get how labeling oneself as ethical, unethical, neither or both is necessarily going to lead one to be lazy or unwilling to come up with new ideas.

[Fear The Pie]

I am just saying that usually those companies that align themselves with the ethical tag are less likely to be hard workers.

I do believe that is one of the dumbest remarks I've ever heard on a forum before.

Huh?????

[seobook]

I am not saying that it is wrong to do a good job, just often that many of the best workers do not use labels to define the work they do. Just that they are usually used by people who are really new or people who are really experienced. In my opinion there is often a time window when you can find some of the best SEOs between "being new" and "being really experienced."

Most anything I have ever done has been exciting, new, and interesting for some period of time. Eventually you become more content and your job becomes more of a job than your passion. At that point you may have more knowledge and be able to come up with more decent ideas, but you likely become less risky and creative over time (it seems most people do - and sadly I think this may hold true with me).

I don't think I am anywhere near as good with words as Chris Ridings is.
http://searchguild.com/tpage8160-0.html

[St0n3y]

Every industry does have "ethical" and "unethical" standards, along with good/bad, experienced/inexperienced.

Say a contractor, he can be ethical and do a very poor job. Or he can cut a few corners with the code and still produce a good house, however that is unethical because its illegal (even if he did disclose this to the owner).

The problem, however is in SEO the word "ethics" is used improperly, basing it on standards that differ from one engine to another instead of absolute rules.

[seobook]

The problem, however is in SEO the word "ethics" is used improperly, basing it on standards that differ from one engine to another instead of absolute rules.

right. because as soon as there were absolute well defined rules people like me would nibble at the edges and probably comply with the text of the rules but maybe not with the intent.

[donut]

Funny, in my experience it's the people who claim to use "black hat" techniques that don't have the skill or talent to be real SEO's so they'd rather use tricks to achieve the goal- client risk or ROI is not a concern.

Either way, I'll repeat it because it bears repeating. Regardless of their ethical standards, there are competant SEO's and incompetant SEO's. HOW one goes about getting the results may differ by hat, but neither one has an edge on talent or work ethic. There isn't a correlation and to claim that there is one is just plain silly.

[Brad]

Back to RustyBrick's original comment, or what he meant by his original comment ... what he said. :D

I remember reading the same comments by many who saw anything but on-page optimization and organic (passive) linking as black hat. Many were zealous crusaders for that cause for awhile at least.

SEO hats like hair tend to turn gray over time. :cool:

[bwelford]

It sounds as though we have the basis for the next challenge here since the nigritude ultramarine thingy seemed to have been beaten to death.

This is for the whitest of the white hat SEO's. Who can develop a web page that has no links to it whatsoever? (You of course have to listen very carefully to hear the tree that falls in the forest when no one is there.)

[qwerty]

Who can develop a web page that has no links to it whatsoever? Sure, I can do that. Just don't tell me I need it to rank anywhere, or even get indexed :)

[bwelford]

Anyone can say they can do it, Bob. But you really have to do it to claim the prize. :)

[Fear The Pie]

Brad, do you have examples of what you mean? (Or who you mean?)

I've just never heard of anyone who hasn't always done link building as part of SEO. Not now, not 2 years ago, not 3, 4, 5, or 6 years ago. Have you?

[Brad]

Brad, do you have examples of what you mean? (Or who you mean?)

I've just never heard of anyone who hasn't always done link building as part of SEO. Not now, not 2 years ago, not 3, 4, 5, or 6 years ago. Have you?

As far as I can remember it was at WmW and most heavily in the Google forum, and probably during the summer before the Florida massacre. They were very --
insistant. It seemed like they came in with a flood of newbies in the spring/summer of that year.

I'm really not going to dig through 5 bazillion threads to prove a point, look for any thread from that time period that turns into a debate about spam reporting. ;)

>>(Or who you mean?)

Frankly it is all water under the bridge and not worth worrying about. The only constant in SEO is change, and dwelling on past debates serves nobody. I chimed in because I didn't want RustyBrick to think he was loosing his memory. :)

[rustybrick]

Frankly it is all water under the bridge and not worth worrying about. The only constant in SEO is change, and dwelling on past debates serves nobody. I chimed in because I didn't want RustyBrick to think he was loosing his memory. :)

Thanks, so I am not crazy. :eek:

I remember this too, plus I am pretty sure there are "SEO Firms" that specialize in certain areas. Some only do link building, some only do on page optimization, some do only copy writing, some only do keyword research, some do them all or parts of them. Nothing wrong with specializing as long as you tell the client about every facet in the business.

[I, Brian]

Every industry does have "ethical" and "unethical" standards, along with good/bad, experienced/inexperienced.


This is potentially such a naive post.

The only ethics in SEO are between the client and SEO. Fin. If the SEO wishes to apply techniques that may result in a domain being penalised, then the client must be fully aware of these consequences.

It would be unethical to do otherwise.

But the idea that certain techniques in themselves are "unethical" is utter rot, and one of the greatest pieces of misinformation in SEO as a business.

I'm actually writing a multipart article for seo-lab, and perhaps I could invite comments from here when I finish it.

But, overall, the whole "unethical" debate is one tired old horse, and is almost exclusively pushed by amateurs on professional practioners - sort of like having Sunday runners trying to dictate terms to Olympic athletes.

If you really want a strong debate on it, though, I'll ensure I'm around to push the discussion once I've finished the article. :)

[St0n3y]

This is potentially such a naive post.

But the idea that certain techniques in themselves are "unethical" is utter rot, and one of the greatest pieces of misinformation in SEO as a business.

I think you failed to actually read my post. I never said that SEO techniques were unethical. In fact my post suggested otherwise. You can not have ethics when the rules each SE applies is different. Ethics implies a moral constant, which we do not have in SEO. What's allowed by MSN is not allowed by Google, etc. What makes one right or the other wrong? If there were governing laws on SEO then ethics COULD be applied to SEO tactics, but not until then.

But can there be unethihcal SEOs? Absolutely. those who claim to do something they cannot. Those that deliberately do a por job just to take someones money, etc., etc., etc..

[Fear The Pie]

Frankly it is all water under the bridge and not worth worrying about. The only constant in SEO is change, and dwelling on past debates serves nobody. I chimed in because I didn't want RustyBrick to think he was loosing his memory. :)

Perhaps both of you are? :)

But seriously, it's very easy to post in forums that you "read something somewhere" and then not back it up.

Since the posts saying that "white hats" don't do link building is completely false from everything I've ever read, if you do know of some where the shoe fits, it seems like it would be a good idea to back it up and post it here. The thought of people coming away from this thread (or any thread) believing that any SEO doesn't pay attention to links is very disheartening, and I also feel completely untrue.

It's nasty rumors like this that turn SEOs against each other because they have to fight an image about them that they don't even have to begin with. I've seen SEOs get accused of not doing link building on other forums and every accusation was completely false and not backed up by any facts at all. The SEOs in question had always been offering link building, but for some reason there were others who chose to only see what they wanted to see, and claim that they didn't do link building.

The real true facts are that all SEO, whether white, black, or purple will involve linking. It's true that the methods for obtaining those links may vary by color, but everyone does it to some extent, and unless anyone can show some SEO companies that don't offer this as a service, then everything else is just "I heard this somewhere" or "I read this somewhere" and should be taken with a grain of salt, imo.

[seobook]

Since the posts saying that "white hats" don't do link building is completely false from everything I've ever read, if you do know of some where the shoe fits, it seems like it would be a good idea to back it up and post it here. The thought of people coming away from this thread (or any thread) believing that any SEO doesn't pay attention to links is very disheartening, and I also feel completely untrue.

in my opinion the hat color and link building skills are irrelevant ideas to one another.

recently i have acquired customers from self proclaimed "white hats" -- at least that is how the seo firm described themselves on the phone when they called me up to try to partner with me -- and after 6 months they had built 4 links.

now they are not a representative sample of any portion of the seo field. they are just one company.

we rarely get feedback from one anothers clients unless something is going wrong for a few main reasons:
-if you do good SEO the ROI can be absurd, and most business are not looking to tell their competitors how and why they are doing good.
-some feedback may be friends singing for friends.

the problem with assoications within the seo field is that different definitions mean different things to different people and rarely is there any rule, technique, or idea that stays constant within any subset of the field.

link building is important. most SEOs do it. some people are lazy without reguard to ethics. I do not think quality link building can be tied with any type of SEO other than "good SEO" or "effective SEO" or "smart SEO."

its not to say that other things do not matter, but more to say that link building is often the most time consuming and most expensive part of SEO. if a firm is going out of its way to do good link building then odds are that they got their other ducks in a row too.

[Brad]

Nice try Fear the Pie. Never said _all_ white hats. If you want the information that badly then you can spend your time searching for it for yourself, not mine. I already gave you a probable target area to start at so go to it.

[Fear The Pie]

Since I don't think the information actually exists, I think I'll pass. Thanks for confirming my suspicions!

[seobook]

Since I don't think the information actually exists, I think I'll pass. Thanks for confirming my suspicions!

what is up with the accusitory tone? Brad is a good guy and that was just straight up rude.

[rustybrick]

Before this thread gets into one that has personal comments on members, I would like to stop it. Keep this discussion about the topic at hand and do not mention names of other members here. Please respect each other, its not worth wording a post in a manner that will aggravate someone else or to make specific claims of a manner in which someone posts a reply.

Please just respect each other. No need to respond to this specific post, just post replies to the topic at hand, "White Hats and Link Building".

I think the argument is more about a classification of SEOs.

If an company does not offer link building (to some extent), I think, fear the pie is saying that they are not an SEO firm. Am I correct?

While some others are saying that there are SEO firms that do not do link building but only do search engine friendly design.

Is link building a requirement for all SEO firms? Of course there is no correct answer. :)

[Fear The Pie]

I am sorry if anyone felt that my post was rude, it wasn't meant to be.

I am simply protecting the reputation of "white hat" SEOs everywhere who have been besmirched by the original comments claiming that they don't do link building.

I'll leave it at that as I think everyone's points have been made. I think those reading this thread will now have the information necessary to understand what the facts really are regardng this topic.

[donut]

I think the argument is more about a classification of SEOs.

If an company does not offer link building (to some extent), I think, fear the pie is saying that they are not an SEO firm. Am I correct?


That isn't what I understand from Pie at all.

I think the original point was that RustyBrick stated that White Hat Seo's don't do link building, only on-site optimization, and wanted to know how to change that perception.

Since then, he has retracted that statement and Brad has been unable to back up his claim that "white hat seos" at WMW say that link building is spam.

People who optimize sites by making them better (my definition of "white hat") do not exclude link building from the program, as far as I know, even if they don't actually do it themselves. If some do, I don't think that it then applies to all companies who consider themselves ethical SEO's.

[rustybrick]

I will say it again. I did not mean to say that White Hats do not build links. That is down right wrong! It was a mistake in the way I worded my post as I have stated and corrected.

As I said, I have seen a belief in some new members at SEO Chat (to be specific) that they feel White Hat SEOs do not build links. Most mature and learn that this is false. I personally never believed that white hat seo's don't build links.

To be clear: White Hat SEOs should build links. :)

Are we clear?

[qwerty]

White Hat SEOs should build links
Should and do. Quite clear, I'd say.

[Fear The Pie]

I think we're pretty much all in agreement then!

[Brad]

rustybrick said:
As I said, I have seen a belief in some new members at SEO Chat (to be specific) that they feel White Hat SEOs do not build links. Most mature and learn that this is false.

I don't hang out at SEO Chat so I can't verify that. However this was the view I observed being expressed at other forums. Not by all, but by some "ethical seo's" aka "white hat" seo's.

[Daria_Goetsch]

I know quite a few "white hats" who provide link building, including myself. That doesn't mean every company that doesn't is a "bad guy". Everyone has to start out somewhere, and certainly, link building is a great deal of work. Frankly, it takes so much time it would make sense for a company to simply offer that service. Specializing in one area or another is fine to me as long as you tell the client about the other services (such as link building) that may help them.

As for the whole "white hat" - "black hat" ethics question, I'm not really fond of those terms. I think of it as using other methods or techniques. I may not agree with those other methods, but that doesn't mean they don't work. I don't think it is good for the client to have chances taken with their website with certain techniques, but that is my opinion. This is where ethics may come into the picture. The final decision is between the SEO and the client. As always, a client should be informed of what is happening and why it is happening, as well as the consequences that may occur.

"White hat" - "black hat" - seems to me that dividing ourselves this much does no service to our industry. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Incubator]

"White Hat " or "Black Hat" really doesnt matter.... if you are not agreesively looking out for good links, be in through link brokerage or manual hours into it finding them....

if your not getting the links...then i would believe it comes to the "dunce hat"
that should be worn

Cheers

Wc

[seobook]

if your not getting the links...then i would believe it comes to the "dunce hat"
that should be worn

I wonder if duncehatseo.com is still available...

I am doing my best to collect the various hats I can. :)

[Adam C]

"White Hats don't build links?"

Even Yahoo recommend a bit of link building (http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/ranking/ranking-02.html)

from http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/ranking/ranking-02.html
How do I improve the ranking of my web site in the search results?
...
Correspond with webmasters and other content providers and build rich linkages between related pages.