whitehat vs. blackhat, it is all BS

[massa]

>shakes own head in disbelief<
I can't believe I'm once again getting involved in this discussion after swearing to myself so many times I wouldn't.

Anyway --- I want to help. I too would like to see this industry promoted better and believe that will not happen until this pointless, circular debate is put to bed for good. I'm not smart enough to know how to do that so I only offer my comments as a person who may be able to bring a somewhat unique perspective to the table in the hope that it empowers someone who is smart enough.

I happen to be one person who has been seen as being at one extreme of this debate to the exact opposite extreme over the last 7+ years.

In 1998, I started serving as a moderator at the Search Engine Forums. I was personally invited by Jim Wilson who said he had read many of my posts and liked my approach. I was vigilant in promoting the idea of working with search engines on their terms. I was seen by many as the epitome of white hat, even though the term did not even exist yet. I’m willing to bet some reading this now remember some of the posts I had made there. Then I sued Google. Talk about perceptions changing.

Jill the other day replied to a post I had made trying to give some public relations advice to the SEMPO people. Her post said something along the lines of,
"it's all about PR with you isn't it Bob?"

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. I'm assuming it was a jab although I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to slight another for focusing on public relations in a marketing forum. I said that to the SEMPO people in an effort to help because Jill is basically right. I would use the term marketing instead of PR but yes, I'm guilty. I do spend a great deal of my time focusing on marketing and public relations. You caught me.

My point is -- is PR bad or just me?

I'm just a guy trying to make payroll. I have my good points and my bad but all in all I'm just a guy. I think anyone that's ever met me would have to admit that I'm nothing special. Not special good. Not special bad. Some girls don't like guys like me --- but some girls do. The same as I would think of just about anyone else.

None of us are white hat or black hat. We are people. Human beings. Those hat terms are just used to describe techniques, not people. The techniques we use, the policies we develop and the procedures we instruct our employees in does not define us as a person. It may define our business model, but surely we could at least agree that we are all targeting the same market which makes us all pretty much in the same business.

So if we're all just people, why does this topic always get so heated? What is it that gets people calling other people names and making "over the top" harsh statements? Why is it so difficult for us to find some common ground as a group all engaged in the same business or at least going after the same customers?

I'll give my unasked for opinion hoping it will give someone smarter than me some insight into a different approach.

I believe the primary objective for all living things, (including human beings), is to survive.

I believe that the definition of survival is the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

To be right is pleasure. To be wrong is pain. And THAT is the problem. In a weird way, it is about survival. To take one side of the issue and then switch sides would be admitting that statements you had made or actions you had taken prior to changing your mind would have been wrong. OUCH ! That is what makes the argument so heated. Regardless of which side you take, it is a VERY strong human drive to get others to see your side so you can “know” that you were right.

If this argument is ever going to end, or at least take a new positive direction, a way must be found to alter the perception of the crux of the debate. A way must be found that no one is forced to either be right or wrong.

There are those in the industry who have made a name for themselves as defenders of the truth trying to save the planet from a black art that threatens to destroy the world. If that person were to admit that maybe that approach has been just a little over the top, their entire empire could crumble. Admitting having made a mistake would put them in the position of NOT being some kind of hero, they would be faced with having to accept they were just a person. The scenario is false of course. The entire situation is not that important to anyone other than themselves. It is perception.

Then there are those in the industry who have made money using techniques that are not search engine guideline compliant. They have broken no laws and they do not wish to go back to being retail salespeople or auto mechanics or whatever career they had before they became SEO’s, (whatever that is). To admit that they had been doing wrong would reduce themselves to little more than a thief. As humans, only the mentally disturbed can view themselves as a “bad” person. We all believe we are good and justify our actions to prove it to ourselves. So, when faced with a black and white decision of are you good or are you bad, both parties must argue to the death that they are good. That is survival. Hence the name calling which eventually erodes into hatred and the inability to see the other person as a person. You start to see them as an idiot or a thief. De-humanizing is the first step towards hatred. Very bad mojo happenin' there.

I’m sure we could all agree that we have seen dozens and dozens of post where someone makes some kind of statement like, “ I’ve bought links BUT, I only buy the ones that can send me traffic” . Or, my favorite of course is, “yes, I do sell text links with the price based on google’s PR but only if it’s on-theme”. That boggles the mind, how one person can do the exact same thing as another yet see themselves as completely different from the other but of course, some minds are much more easily boggled than others. That is justification. That is survival.

We make judgments in our mind and then want to feel that we are right in our assumptions so we make public comments looking for acceptance or approval. The more drastic the statement, the greater the desire to be right. The greater the desire for approval. Of course the greater the desire for approval, the more violent the defense if the position is threatened.

When in our own minds, the inevitable truth becomes that we see a personal benefit in doing something we spoke out against before, we mentally twist events around so that we can continue to see the other person as bad, (instead of admitting that we may have been wrong in the first place or that we are now doing the same thing), but we are good. Once this happens it becomes even more important that we find distinctions between them and us and then convince others that WE are right. Ironically, when the bare fact is that both them and us are doing the same basic things for the same basic reasons, the situation becomes even more heated, more violent and more bizarre.

I’m pretty sure some of my statements will step on some toes. There will be some who see themselves in these comments and some of those people will become defensive. I’m also sure I’ve done little to change anything. In fact, I am probably just throwing dry wood on the flame. I hope not. That is not my intention. Still, I fully expect to have to read more stuff about how I’m an idiot and a filthy spammer who should be killed. I’m much more used to it now days. My skin has gotten a lot thicker over the past two years and to me, it would be worth it if I’ve done anything to help even one of my colleagues find a way to stop this particular debate.

I truly believe it is going to take looking at this thing differently. Bruce Clay may have put forth a valiant effort to solidify the industry but anytime you try to save the world by providing links to your own $2,000 “be a good guy like me” training course, surely you would have to expect some accusing you of having an ulterior motive. Offering courses, starting clubs with a $5,000 membership and all of us choosing up sides is not going to have a chance of working until we can all find some kind of common ground that allows half of us to stop accusing the other half of being bad and just accept that we are people and it is not my place to judge another.

I’ve publicly mentioned some of the things I’m about to say in my very next post before, so I doubt this time will have any more impact than any other time, but I would like to try pointing out just a few concepts as an example that may indicate a possible direction that could be taken to shift focus away from the whole, “ I’m a white hat and you’re a black hat thing”. I truly hope I can be of some help.
************************

[massa]

I believe if a person is not breaking the law, paying his hosting fees and domain registration, that person has the right to use any text, script or technique he wishes for whatever reason he see fit on his own website. That is not a privilege, it is a right.

I believe every search engine on the planet has the right to index whatever they want anyway they want. That right was even granted by a federal judge. By the same token, they do not have the right to index whatever they want and then blame their poor choices on a third party. In today’s SEM environment, no one who has the slightest knowledge of search engines is still submitting their sites. Their sites are being auto-spidered by computer programs. If a search engine does not want certain data, don‘t go get it. If search engines have a right to control their own site, then like all rights, that right comes with responsibility. Control your data but accept the responsibility that goes hand in hand with the rights.

I believe there is no such thing as search engine spam. There are only indexing and algorithm programs that need improving. If those programs are delivering content the search engine does not want delivered, then it is the search engines' job to fix it and the search engines' fault it doesn't work the way they want it to. If eyeballs move away, the search engine can't sell ads. It's the ads that make the whole thing work and they could change guidelines all day long but if their results are poor, it is their problem and blaming the results on bad webmasters is not going to get advertisers to pay more. You can argue the point all day long but there can be but one bottom line. Results are bad, the search engine loses, not the webmasters. If they don't want bad stuff and only they can define bad stuff, they need to stop trying to change what people do and focus on changing what they do.

>This is the touchy one. If you are an anti-spammer, (whatever that is), your survival depends on convincing others there is such a thing as spam and you would likely feel you MUST defend your opposing position or cease to exist. You'd feel a little silly if it turned out you had been fighting for something that had never really existed in the first place huh? I wish I knew the answer to this dilemma<

I believe search engines promote the perception of spam to obscure the fact they have weaknesses that can be exploited.

I believe computers and programs are machines and I believe you can not spam a machine. It only does what it was told to do. It would be akin to saying the man holding the hammer backwards was spamming the hammer. If you don't like what a machine does, stop telling it to do it.

I believe no one can spam a human who cares enough to look.

I believe a search engine, as a business, has the right to establish what it considers guidelines. When those guidelines are self-serving, I believe those guidelines MUST be questioned.

I believe I have as much right to operate a legal, profitable business as the search engine does.

I believe no man has the right to judge another or try to force his view of morals onto others.

I believe if you knowingly break the law you should be prosecuted.

I believe if you lie, you are a liar.

I believe no search engine has ever asked for the “help” of any web master or web site promoter.

I believe people who post that they believe their job is to “help” search engines, are delusional at worst, grasping at straws trying to find a way to justify their actions at best.

I believe nothing sells itself.

I believe in dressing up and wearing a tie when appropriate.

I believe you should always wear clean underwear because you never know when you might get hit by a bus.

But that’s just me.

This is the touchy one. If you are an anti-spammer, (whatever that is), your survival depends on convincing others there is such a thing as spam and you would likely feel you MUST defend your opposing position or cease to exist.

Some of us don't have to convince anyone of anything. Our record stands on it's own.

I believe no search engine has ever asked for the “help” of any web master or web site promoter.

I believe that is not correct. I know Google gets 'help' from WMW quite often. Other avenues as well. They do a good job of 'engaging'.

I believe people who post that they believe their job is to “help” search engines, are delusional at worst, grasping at straws trying to find a way to justify their actions at best.

Google specifically asks for help on their website:

"References are a good start, but they don't tell the whole story. You should ask how long a company has been in business and how many full time staffers it employs. If you feel pressured or uneasy, go with your gut feeling and play it safe: hold off until you find a firm that you can trust. Ask your SEO firm if it reports every spam abuse that it finds to Google using our spam complaint form at http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html. Ethical SEO firms report deceptive sites that violate Google's spam guidelines."

But that’s just me.

Yes, that's a good thing as I would not like the idea of many holding your same opinions. You are entitled to your opinions however, just like I am.

[Nick W]

How do you follow that? - You dont! You quote your favorite bit:

We make judgments in our mind and then want to feel that we are right in our assumptions so we make public comments looking for acceptance or approval. The more drastic the statement, the greater the desire to be right. The greater the desire for approval. Of course the greater the desire for approval, the more violent the defense if the position is threatened.

Glad you broke your promise to yourself massa!

Nick

[littleman]

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

[mivox]

What the SEs want:

A bunch of websites built by earnest amateurs who's aim is nothing more than to educate and entertain the world regarding their pet topic, and retailers who's aim is nothing more than to increase conversion rates after customers arrive at their site. The SEs would like nothing more than for everyone building or maintaining a site to just forget the SERPs exist.

They do NOT want people out tinkering with sites to make them rank better. They want people tinkering with sites to make them more informative and beneficial to the end user, because deciding/calculating which sites are most relevant to any particular query is -- in their mind -- THEIR JOB ONLY!

What SEOs do: Try to alter a website to acheive a higher position in the search engine. SEOs try to interfere with what the SEs see as THEIR job: deciding which sites 'deserve' to be at the top of the results.

The ONLY way an SEO could do their job without directly contravening the SEs idea of how it "should" be -- the ONLY way you can do your job and actually be helping the SEs achieve their goals -- is if you analyze a client site in comparison to all their competitors, decide (for instance) they are really only the 10th or 11th best site on their target subject, and do everything you can to make sure they show up in the 10th or 11th spot in the SERPs.

If you found your client in the #2 spot, when they really only had the 50th 'best' site on their target subject, would you work to reduce their rank until they turned up 50th? If not, you are -- in the SE's eyes -- interfering with their ranking algorithms.

Whether or not you want to say "interfering with an SE's algorithm" is the same as "spamming" is up to you... but I feel pretty confident in saying the SEs probably think it is. If you are, in Sergey's words, poking a mother bear's cubs with a stick, I don't think she's inclined to look the other way depending on what type of stick you're using.

LOL Too funny.

Amazing how the way life is looked at and the way we think and feel, can be soooooo darn different from here to there.

I stay in a state of shock, astonishment, amazement, disappointment, dismay, despair, and frankly, quite disgusted at our industry.

I think another problem is all the different backgrounds we have and how we were brought up. Anything I've received for free, I have truly appreciated that product or service that was free. I always feel a need to "give back" to that person, entity, or whatever it is.

Anyone who actually will knowingly disregard stated guidelines from an "entity", or company, or website, or whatever; and do so knowing full well that "company" is giving them something for free, AND would not have to do so, is living in a whole another reality from myself.

[seobook]

Originally Posted by massa

If they don't want bad stuff and only they can define bad stuff, they need to stop trying to change what people do and focus on changing what they do.

some of the best spam control techniques are through manipulating the opinions and actions of others.

manipulation of others for own self gain is a large part of the world in which we live. it sucks. but its true. and its what many marketers do.

Originally Posted by massa

>This is the touchy one. If you are an anti-spammer, (whatever that is), your survival depends on convincing others there is such a thing as spam and you would likely feel you MUST defend your opposing position or cease to exist. You'd feel a little silly if it turned out you had been fighting for something that had never really existed in the first place huh? I wish I knew the answer to this dilemma<

funny, sad, & true.

[DrCool]

Originally Posted by ihelpyou

I stay in a state of shock, astonishment, amazement, disappointment, dismay, despair, and frankly, quite disgusted at our industry.

We must be in different industries

Originally Posted by ihelpyou

I think another problem is all the different backgrounds we have and how we were brought up. Anything I've received for free, I have truly appreciated that product or service that was free. I always feel a need to "give back" to that person, entity, or whatever it is.

I am giving back. Google freely takes my content.

Originally Posted by ihelpyou

Anyone who actually will knowingly disregard stated guidelines from an "entity", or company, or website, or whatever; and do so knowing full well that "company" is giving them something for free, AND would not have to do so, is living in a whole another reality from myself.

Google is taking my content for free. I never ask them to come and spider. They do so on their own volition. They take my content for free and in return give me traffic. What is wrong with that?

[mivox]

Excerpted from NFFC's earlier quote (page 3 of this thread), in Google's words:

"...according to our definition, all types of actions intended to boost ranking, without improving the true value of a page, are considered spamming."

So if you work to improve your clients' ranking by doing anything beyond validating their code and improving their content, it seems that you are knowingly disregarding stated guidelines from an "entity" that is giving you something for free.

And they say quite clearly right there, in their own words, they consider it "spamming"...

<added>
However, I'm with DrCool on the "something for free" angle... Google isn't giving me anything for free. My sites contribute content to their index, and their index contributes traffic to my sites.
</added>

[agerhart]

Mivox,

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

This thread is horrendous.

[mivox]

Horrendous? I find it terribly entertaining.

Yes I have because none of it is worth commenting about.

"Many" with views like mine about this thread are "not" going to post in here. They don't feel it's worth it. I'm alone with all of you for the most part. I feel a great need to make sure new people and owners reading this thread get the 'other' side of the debate.

Your world is much different from mine. If you don't want Google to index your content, then why do you allow it to be indexed for free? If you don't believe you get a free listing from Google, then why do you manipulate for position when your sites are indexed?

You see, you can easily "disallow" Google from crawling your sites if you wish. You simply stick in a disallow all in your robots.txt file. That way you would not feel that Google is "taking" something from you without your permission.

[agerhart]

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

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

You are welcome.

I thought that sentence was funny. I had to post it. I think you may have chuckled at the robots.txt thing as well. Come on... admit it.

[mivox]

That way you would not feel that Google is "taking" something from you without your permission.

Who said Google was taking anything without their permission? I think what everyone was saying is that they consider it a pretty fair trade for Google to 'use' their content in exchange for the traffic they provide.

If you don't believe you get a free listing from Google, then why do you manipulate for position when your sites are indexed?

What in heaven's name are you talking about? SEOs try to manipulate for position whether their sites were indexed for free or not. That's their job.

[DrCool]

I never said I didn't want Google taking anything from my site. I am not bitter or mad at Google for doing it. They even have my permission to do so. Like you mentioned before if someone gets something for free they should give something back as well. Google is taking my content for free (and I have no problem at all with this) and they are giving me traffic (and I have no problem with that either). If they don't like my site they can choose to not spider it.

Also since they are freely taking my content and my site they have the right to do whatever they want to with it. They are under no obligation to list it anywhere, but they usually do. I, also, am under no obligation to follow their guidelines. Do you freely check out a book from the library and then complain to the author or publisher when it doesn't fit on your shelf? No, since it is for free you generally have no recourse and shoud be thankful that you even have the book at all.

Google is freely taking what I have built and should be in no position to tell me what to do with it. On the flip side they are also under no compulsion to list it either.... but they do.

[littleman]

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

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

I think what everyone was saying is that they consider it a pretty fair trade for Google to 'use' their content in exchange for the traffic they provide.

So that equates to you thinking you can simply ignore the Google guidelines?

The thing is, if 'your' content was not listed in "any" search engine, why have a website to begin with? It's a "privilege" and not a "right" to have your content listed. How can you possibly say that because you are "giving" your content to Google, that gives you the right to spam Google as well? Does Google think that is a good trade off? I don't think so. Deception could never be a good trade off for a major search engine.

Google has said many times that spammers are what can ruin a search engine SERPS more than anything else. If the serps are bad, the users will search elsewhere. Spammers don't care about anything other than that their client's website "must" be better and more relevant than anyone else's. They do anything and everything to get it to the top with no regard to what may happen to a client's domain/site if it is penalized. Let alone what it does to the search results across the board.

Deceiving a search engine of which "your" content is indexed for free is almost on the verge of fraudulent. It's deceptive advertising in the end. I know the day will come when it truly will be deceptive advertising and punishable by law. Just wait and see.

[NFFC]

I flipped you off ignore just for this one, glad I did.

>I know the day will come when it truly will be deceptive advertising and punishable by law. Just wait and see.

Then you sir will be going to jail, for a very long time.