Black Hat, White Hat & Lots of Gray

[Old Welsh Guy]

If you were a chocolate dounut then it would have been Jill doing the eating

[Elisabeth]

Originally Posted by donut

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?

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]

LOL...oops, I guess it wasn't this particular donut then...

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]

Yea, I heard that too. You were in who's room - 'chowing' down on Mr. Donut?

[Jill Whalen]

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

http://searchenginewatch.com/searchd...le.php/3483941

[rustybrick]

He is a Canadian. What do you expect?

[rustybrick]

But I do like how he makes the analogy with Todd and Greg as sheeps that eat wolves.

[andrewgoodman]

Originally Posted by Jill Whalen

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

http://searchenginewatch.com/searchd...le.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.

One blogger's take:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives..._hat_white.htm

[Alan Perkins]

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?
Ethical Search Engine Optimization Explained

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

[Jill Whalen]

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]

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.

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]

>>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

...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]

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?