All SEO is Blackhat : Do You Agree?

I do J/K However, so called white hatters post in blogs to get a link back to their site, they just post something that makes sense... Also, blackhat isn't just about spammy comments. Alot of so called white hat that we do today was first a black hat technique that over time became a so called white hat technique.

So I say again, all SEO is the same...there is no white hat and there is no black hat. Whether you say tomato or tamato its still the same little red thing we all love.

 

So we're to march to the beat of Google's ethics?

I think I'll start a search engine, tell everyone what I don't want them to do to their web sites and then when they break my rules, everyone can say it's unethical.

See how it just doesn't stand up to logic?

 

Especially when you just list people you find trolling the internet without asking them first.

 

Ethical vs. Unethical -
In many situations, this can be impossible to determine (except by the person doing the SEO). How do I mean this? In certain situations it boils down to intent. If my intent is to violate the TOS for a specific search engine to obtain better results on THAT search engine, then that is unethical. You ask, "Why should I have to follow rules set forth by Google, MSN, Yahoo, or whomever?" The answer is if you are trying to get better results for a specific engine then you are implicitly agreeing to use them and abide by their rules then turning around and breaking them. That is unethical. If I agree to the terms of service for a M$ product and then break those rules, it is unethical. Even when the rules themselves are not fair. I have agreed to them.

On the other hand, if I make changes to x, y, and z because I know that in general search engines factor in x, y, and z then what I am doing is not unethical even if it breaks the TOS of some of those search engines. My intent was not to break the TOS of any search engine. That just hapened to be a result. This is a very simplified example, and there is certainly more to it then that. However, that is the basics.

In situations like this, it is very hard to determine the ethical status by an outside observer.

When can a person be sure some SEO is unethical? When something is clearly designed to fool either the user or the search engine. Cloaking a crappy high paying keyword site that has nothing but ad links so that the search engine sees something with content is clearly unethical. While not really SEO, buying low cost adwords that are completely unrelated to your site is also unethical. In that case a person is tricking the user more than the search engine.

I think for the most part, SEO tactics are grey hat. Very few are strictly good or strictly bad. The way that they are used determines where they fall.

As far as there being no "real" line and saying that all SEO tries to achieve the same thing, these arguments hold no water. Would you say that all killing is killing and there is no difference? Is there no difference between stepping on an ant accidentally and purposely killing random people for the fun of it? Is there no difference between killing a person that is about to kill your child and killing someone because they forgot to put cream in your coffee? The line may be a mental concept, but it is certainly there. These types of lines are certainly subject to interpretation (especially in the grey areas), but that doesn't mean there is no difference. Also, to say that all SEO tries to achieve the same thing is untrue. While all SEO tries to move a site up in the SERPS that is not all they do. In my opinion, SEO can only be "white hat" if it is done on a content site (I don't mean an article site, directories and search engines have content too) that has legitimate content (that is not to say that SEO is "white hat" simply because it is on a legitimate content site). To me, the SEO changes cannot be done in such a way as they confuse or trick a or search engine. Changing the keywords in your header so that they match more highly searched terms is fine, so long as the new terms are in line with the site. On the other hand, "black hat" is not limited to non-content sites (e.g. MFA sites). Stealing others content so that you can have more pages is certainly bad. Writting "brittney spears, porn, nude celebs" 1000 times in the same color as your background of your Honda Civic page is also questionable.

Claiming that there is no difference between good and bad is the last ditch argument of those trying to justify their own actions (or actions they would like to take because they think it will earn them money).

 

How's it illogical to think that breaking your rules is unethical?

 

Hey dude, I added the site in your signature to my directory.

However, our rules state that you can only have 5 forums total while you have 10 there. Please remove 5 of them or you are breaking our rules which both you and I know is unethical. If you don't remove it there will soon be hundreds of webmasters who have no problem following the rules we decided to force down their throats who will call you names on webmaster boards across the internet. This directory will have so much influence that anyone banned from it will be considered a spammer or an unethical webmaster undeserving of any respect or income. Change your site to suit our needs now or you can be sure that you are a black hat directory spammer who will be shunned by your peers.

Stupid arguement?

Yeah so is yours.

 

Haha /signed

You just got pwn'd Kirby6

 

in my opinion its yes as well as no.

 

Having more than 5 forums be against the rules is a ridiculous rule. Having cloaking and keyword SPAM be against the rules isn't ridiculous.


And that site isn't even mine, so I'm sure the owner would thank you .

 

Umm I think he was just giving an example

 

An example is useless if it's crappy.

 

Not all SEO is using black hat method. Some SEO wants to obey the guidelines and policy of SEO

 

The example isn't crappy. It is exactly how google operates and exactly how people are treated for breaking the rules of a site that listed them without permission. Posting over and over won't change the fact that it's a ridiculous stance on the issue.

 

blackhat is just a way of describing something

 

Show us one.

 

Yep, and it describes one certain thing, that differs from another: white hat. So there is a difference.

 

Black-Hat SEO is a lot like stealing a car or raping someone. An honest person would have no need to steal a car. A decent person would have no need to rape someone else. However, black-hatters are rarely descent, often have shady pasts, bad attitudes, and a clear lack of ethics. To deny that black hat puts you in the same ethics / morality category as a thief or a rapist is rediculous. Its basically stealing visitors clicks through force or deception. Some of you may not like to hear that, but sometimes the truth hurts.

In the same aspect, using black-hat techniques to increase SERPS is not all that different from white-hat techniques. Hows that for irony?

 

That's a little much - and I dare say that any woman whom has been through the experience would be none-to-happy about U relating it as such. If you truly feel that - U may want to attend some sensitivity meetings.

Too true, too true

 

Ahaha now a black hat SEO is compared to a rapist or thief. Thank God morons aren't allowed to write the laws in this country.

 

True. They're only allowed to run them.