How did you become an seo expert ?

First of all, I'm not a black hatter, and if I was I wouldn't be flapping my lips about so much. I'd just be standing in the shadows watching and laughing.

But I don't really consider anything real SEO unless there is at least some gray hat going on. That's because the rules have changed so much that it's become like that saying, "No news is good news", except now it's "No SEO is good SEO".

I and ErectADirectory have been clear that we're not condoning becoming spammers. But that there is a great amount of knowledge to be attained from following the black hat world. The delicious captcha crack I posted was not the best specific example of SEO because delicious links are nofollow, but the point is a good black hatter applies much more skill to his trade than a good white hatter. If you want to see specific examples of scripts and programs effecting rankings then get an account at syndk8.net and lurk. It's what I do.

I don't disagree with your advice especially for sites that you don't want to have banned.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=413544

That is a very good thread. But my point is, what you and the people at sitepoint teach can be learned in a couple of days unless you have no background in web development.

What caused me to repond in this thread in the first place was your subtle suggestion that you are the expert here and this forum isn't any good compared to sitepoint's, since you linked to them. And my intended counter point is that the stuff you post here and the stuff posted at sitepoint is all good, but it's very basic, it has to be basic or it wouldn't be white hat anymore.

If you really want to learn something you have to expand it beyond the narrow scope that the search engines dictate through their guidelines. Even if you don't apply it, it can help you.

ErectADirectory posted some good links, I'm going to post one of them again because it's so pertinent to what we're talking about in this thread. http://www.slightlyshadyseo.com/index.php/why-whitehats-need-to-know-blackhat-seo/

 

I'll take the kiwi.

It's true that people who don't see what's going on in the search marketing world will be left behind. Just because you don't watch what they are doing doesn't mean they are not watching you and everybody else. The point is, if they get their weapons, your weapons and everyone else's weapons and you only have your weapons who do you think will win the fight?

The parable of the white hat and the black hat

How can one be an expert without understanding the most up to date tricks of the trade and how to play defense at the very least?

So I say again ... watch the SERPs, you might learn something

 

You're right. I didn't like the advice, and that just happens to be a right I enjoy, as do others. I'm not going to sit back and cry foul if I see bad or wrong advice. I'm going to correct it so that others don't make a mistake that could come back to bite them in the bud later on.

Er, I actually recommend Linda Jenkinson or Robert S .Warren, but that's beside the point.

I thought self promotion was against the rules here?

Or learn how to do it yourself the right way the first time around.

My reference to "people willing to kill their own mothers" was a figure of speech. Relax, ok?

I'll agree with you on the latter, but not the former. Even before the search engines existed people were getting traffic. But back then in the Dark Ages the Web was a heck of a lot smaller than it is now.

Actually, that is not the definition of Grey Hat SEO. The definition that Chris Beasley gave is actually an accurate assessment of it. http://www.websitepublisher.net/article/white-gray-black/

As for social bookmarking, that's a form of marketing that employs the search engines, not search engine optimization itself. It merely uses the search engines as a tool, nothing more. (A similar arguement could also be made about effective Web copywriting as well.)

That's not true. The only way to "wear a white hat" is to make a Web site for people and not search engines - while complying with the best practices and guidelines published by the search engines.

Which as I said earlier don't affect me - what he's saying is that Google is constantly fighting back against people who make Web sites for search engines by seeking to exploit every single loophole they think they find. Building such Web sites also tends to negatively impact the user experience as well. Which again, leads to a crap Web site.

And remember what he does at Google as well. He's in charge of the anti-spam team at the Big G. You might want to think about that for a moment or three.

In the future, could you please state this in your posts when making generalizations? (I try my best to do it when making generalizations, and I've found it helps prevent a lot of confusion.)

I searched for "Viagra" not "Buy Viagra". Besides, the official site is an informational resource - of course they wouldn't be optimizing for the search term "buy viagra" as much as they would for other search terms related to their product. And given the amount of work they've done, they could EASILY crush the competition just by optimizing a LITTLE BIT for the "buy viagra" search term.

*puts down the Gatling gun (I'm kidding, I'm kidding)*

That's kind of what I do actually - I look at the SERPs to see how my competitors are doing, what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong. I also look for any opportunities that I can use to bypass them in the results. Fortunately most of the sites I see don't know what the hell they're even doing, which just makes my job that much easier.

Which is something I do. As I said, information architectue makes up a HUGE part of search engine optimization. As does writing effective Web copy that contains the search terms people look for (while still being written for people instead of the search engines), using proper markup (believe it or not, most Web developes don't even get this part right), and linking to relevant pages and sites (whether internal or external). I don't focus on one or two areas to the detriment of others - I include them all as part of a comprehensive Web development and marketing strategy.

I never said they do. (In fact, I've NEVER said that. I'm always agreeing with you on this point, with the exception of the crappy student generated pages that many SEO frauds tend to "buy" when they go on a link buying spree for their often-times unsuspecting clients.)

If you noticed, he said that it's the PROPER way to start building a Web site/SEO empire. If he even recognizes the value of building a strong foundation, how am I wrong for "quoting him out of context"?

What he does is his own business - he has his definition, I have mine. And from what I've read of his site so far, he and I would probably agree far more often than not. But the points that we would disagree on we'd both be passionate about in defending. There's nothing wrong with that.

My definition closely mirrors the one that Google and the other major search engines use. Besides, it's just something I don't engage in anyway (why waste my time when I can better spend it on other things?).

No problem.

Didn't say you were. All I said was that there's a distinction - those who make Web sites for people, and those who make Web sites for search engines.

The core rules (aka the "fundamentals") haven't changed that much, actually. It's just that it's taken people this long to suddenly start understanding them - and you have Web designers to thank for that. Again, the search engines have made it very clear that their main goal is to serve the most relevant search results to people - is that really such a hard concept for people to understand?

If that's what you were trying to say, why didn't you just flat out say it? Like so? "Understanding how so-called "black hat" tricks and techniques work can expand your knowledge of what the search engines do not like seeing in their indexex. Just make sure you don't employ them on any Web site you expect to rank well for in the search engines if you want them to be successful because they are constantly fighting back against such tactics so they can continue to serve relevant and useful results to the people who use their services."

It's clear, direct, and to the point. It would also have prevented a long-winded arguement and people getting hot under the collar.

I fail to see how your point even applies to search engine optimization. All your link (in and of itself) showed is that the guy's a good programmer. Yes, he can use his programming knowledge to impact his rankings in the search engines (such as writing search engine friendly URLs, securing his programs, preventing his programs from creating substantially duplicate content, and so on), but programming isn't the end-all be-all of search engine optimization because at the end of the day even a static HTML page with great quality content and a lot of natural relevant backlinks pointing to it can still out-rank the programmer's page if the programmer failed to optimize it for a maximum ROI with the search engines.

HAH! That thread was actually written in anger (believe it or not). Had I sat down to think about what I was saying, it would have been stickied by now. (The next version of that will be - I guarantee you that.)

Which is why I'm saying that those who really understand search engine optimization (note I said optimization, not marketing) tend to be experienced Web developers. I'll also go out on a limb by saying that some of the best search engine marketers also tend to be experienced Web copywriters. Why? Because they know how to leverage their expertise in their respective fields to get the most out of the search engines will still making (and writing) Web sites (and copy) for people (these sites also tend to have the lowest bounce rates and highest conversions as well).

I never said I was an expert, nor did I subtly imply that I was. I have my blind spots with regard to SEO (I hate conducting keyword research for instance, but it's a dirty job that needs to be done), and when I come across an aspect that I'm not familiar with, I'll ask for help about it (though I'll go directly to those who know rather than posting a question on a forum).

As for SitePoint, I also never implied that they were better than Digital Point. They merely offered quality resources that happened to be relevant. If they were posted elsewhere (and had the same content) and not on SP, I'd link to them from there instead. Besides, to say that SitePoint is better than Digital Point would be a conflcit of interest due to my being a staff member over there. Both SP and DP have their strengths and weaknesses, it's just that they both target different types of people (both of whom I more or less like interacting with depending on my needs at any given time).

My god man, what is "advanced" SEO in your eyes then? Nobody can crack open a book on HTML, CSS and SEO and become an expert overnight! It takes YEARS of experience, and many who do get that experience STILL don't have so much as a clue as to what to do correctly. I see it all the time. Hell, even once in a while I'll learn something new that I can incorporate into my list of best practices. Many people have the knowledge, they just don't know how to put all the pieces together and use the complete product to the best of their advantage.

Furthermore, there are as many "advanced white hat" techniques as there are "advanced black hat" ones out there. To ignore them in favor of a skewed view that white hat is basic is not only downright foolish but also misleading, and even downright DANGEROUS in the wrong hands.

I'm all for advocating awareness. I'm not for using it, or suggesting (or even implying) that people do so.

Hell, I'll date one! (A woman from New Zealand, not the fruit.)

It doesn't matter if they have them - it all depends on if they use them, and how they do so. As for fighting back, sometimes all it takes is turning on a light to guide the way.

You mean recognizing them when you see them, or using them for your own advantage? Because if it's the former, most of what you see is the same stuff rehashed, often times with a fresh coat of paint (like a leopard changing its spots, or a snake asking to have its name changed to a lily - it doesn't make them any less of what they really are).

Yeah, what sites to report to the search engines for violating their TOS, what thsoe sites are doing wrong SEO wise when they're not breaking the rules, and so forth. Like I said earliler - searching for opportunities.

 

SEO existed before google and what people like you define as SEO now correlates remarkably well to what google suggests doing. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with just following the guidelines and only taking suggestions from Matt Cutts and the people who deliver his message, but what I'm saying is that google has redefined what SEO means. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. I like google. I'm just saying you need to be aware of it. All or most definitions evolve with time, some through random influence or lack thereof and others through intentional focused influence.

I didn't say that because I think it's silly. There's a big difference between sites having a short life span and being unsuccessful. The big black hatters have hundreds or even thousands of sites that are automated. They throw technology and brute force at the problem and they make money hand over fist. Defining success depends on whether your strategy meets it's goals. A black hatter knows their site probably won't be around forever.

Here are my points again on that:

1. SEO to me is about effecting ranking directly rather than doing stuff that traditionally has nothing to do directly with SEO. Everything else has just been brought in under this umbrella term "SEO".

2. It takes far more skill and even intellect to come up with some of the black hat tools that it does to figure out what keywords you should use and how to create search engine friendly urls.

[/quote]

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7377316&postcount=2

In that post you said the following.

"No offense, but this is far from the best place to find SEO experts. "

Then you linked to another forum's FAQ.

Then you said this "Besides, around here I'm the one doing the teaching. It's not my problem that some people still don't listen. " in this post.


Maybe it's just me but that seems a little bit condescending.

If you want you can create a list of advanced white hat techniques and I'll create a list of advanced(actually the most advanced would only be known by a few that are inventing and/or employing them right now) black hat techniques and we can compare. There's not a lot of slack on the search engine guideline chain to be able to come up with a lot of advanced techniques.

This whole conversation started with you admonishing someone for suggesting people study what the spammers do.

 

Alright buddy, I'm here. Start shooting your holes in my ideas. But first, perhaps improve your reading comprehension skills.
I didn't say it's cloaking, I said it's a modification of cloaking. The concept is that they (initially) do not see the content they were looking for. If you actually look at my comments, you'll notice a LOT of people didn't even know the answers WERE at the end. It's cloaking by intent, but not by tech. And that's what I was saying. That whitehats can take blackhat concepts and modify them so that they're within Google's TOS, and still functional for the site.
Believe me, I know cloaking. I have hundreds of sites in existence that do it. I don't need your definition. And if you think real cloaking even comes close to involving stylesheets/CSS, YOU are the one in need of education.

 

#1 thing I did ...read everything and anything related to seo by those who are smarter than I am (Danny Sullivan and Aaron Wall mainly)

I spent over 6 months 18 hours a day 7 days a week doing that, and then reverse engineering sites with high competition keyword terms.

My qualifications

#5 author seochat. com all time.....

53 months at # 1 on Google for a bit more than 10 keywords with over 200,000,000 competing pages.

1,000s of others needless to say.....

but hey I am no expert

 

Even before Google came into being search engines were trying to deliver the most relevant content to people when they looked for something. What set Google apart was that they took a basic idea, combined it with common sense (soemthing many SEOs seem to lack), and ran wild with it. I remember back in the late 90s (98 to be exact) when teachers and librarians were really praising Google - I was using Yahoo at the time - and I said to myself "this will never take off." Boy was I wrong then.

As for Google and Matt Cutts, I don't always sing their praises. Note that everything I'm saying isn't coming from Google, it's just that Google happens to AGREE with it!

So they're gaming the system. How original.

Such tactics also tend to pollute the Internet landscape anyway, and are also a waste of time when you think about it. I'd rather have a few well-made long-lasting Web sites that run themselves rather than thousands of Web sites with short life spans that run themselves because the time investment in making and managing them happens to be far less when I make Web sites for people rather than search engines. (Or constantly abuse and manipulate the search engiens looking for every little loophole to exploit.)

Then go into detail exactly how you do that rather than just tossing out definitions. Explain how you write your copy, structure your pages and sites, and how and where you elicit links from other Web sites to point back to yours with the keywords you want to rank well for so we can stop beating this dead horse already. It's starting to stink and should have been turned into Purina One Puppy Chow a long time ago.

Or properly structure your Web sites and organize the information on them, find quality sites that want to link back to yours, writing effective copy that people will naturally want to link to (delegating the hard work to others does pay off, you know)... of course I also don't engage in open warfare with Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft either (ok, maybe the latter, but not in the search engine arena).

And it's true. Most of the real experts don't hang out here - what you see instead are a lot of people practicing and learning about search engine optimization. Those who know help out the ones who don't by responding to questions and educating others. In other words, this place has a "blue collar" feel to it, rather than being a first-class entourage of the who's who of SEO.

Because that forum thread happened to contain quality relevant information. Woud it be any different if the information was on Search Engine Land or another well-respected SEO resource? Or are you pissed off because I linked to a resource that happened to be published on SitePoint?

You got me there. As I said, there are a lot of people here who teach and help others - I'm just one of them. I'm not the only one, and I sure as spit on shine ain't sweetfunny either. I'm in the trenches getting my hands dirty day in and day out helping others become better at what they do. It's not my fault that some people refuse to listen to what I have to say. Of course, listening and accepting with blind faith are two different things. I ask for the former, not the latter - especially since those times when I'm wrong (and someone points it out to me in a constructive and educational manner rather than just going for the jugular with a personal attack), cites their sources and explains why I'm wrong before demonstrating the correct way to do something helps me (and others) learn as well. In fact, it's a LOT of what I do here.

If I do go on the war path, I attack the arguement and/or the position, not the person.

Why bother? I assure you at least half the list will be obsolete shortly after it's posted and besides, it's not the point of this thread anyway.

Given that it was written (as I perceived it at the time) in the context of advocating what they do, yes. But I admonished the arguement, not the person who made it.

I'll be more than happy to once you learn to treat others with a little respect by following the forum guidelines.

The content is there, it's just out of normal public view by creating the false impression that one has to register in order to view the content that's already visible on the page. But I already said that and voiced my opinions on the practice from an ethical standpoint. Yes, it's within Google's terms of service (and Yahoo's and Microsoft's), but tha'ts beside the point.

I did, actually.

But in the strictest technical (rather than dictionary) sense of the word, it's not cloaking. It's hand-waiving - what EE is doing is creating the illusion that the content isn't there even though it really is. Do I like it? No. Do I think it's sleazy? Yes. Did EE's credibility get shot DOA in my eyes? Oh hell yes. But that's beside the point.

I'm sure you do, and I didn't mean to imply that don't know what cloaking is. What I said (in regard to the way the article was written) is that what EE did is not cloaking, nor is it a modification of cloaking. It's user manipulation, not search engine manipulation.

I only touched upon the proverbial tip of the iceberg because I was running out of room to make my post and I also didn't want to split it into multiple posts (I've received more than my share of infractions for accidentally "bumping" and "post-padding" threads before, even though my responses were to individuals that warranted unique replies - which is why I now quote multiple people in the same post). You might want to keep that in mind before you start insulting people on a public forum.

 

Why is it when the knowledgeable guy makes a quality post, it gets stamped upon every time? I tell you what, if you don't receive +rep from me in the next 5 minutes of this post being submitted, your knowledge isn't reputable.

---Edit---

I apologise for the incorrect statement made above, seems I can't give rep to Dan Schulz again for a while...

 

Ok, you want me to be more respectful, this is your chance. Please, poke holes in it.
Let me explain why I'm high strung on many things though. 90% of the critics I get jump into their complaints or whatever without actually bothering to read the article. Many just want their name out there as "ethical dehli seo" or whatever, and decide to flame me as a quick way to do so without bothering to actually read or come up with relevant points. Half the time, their complaints actually agree with me.
When someone says they can poke holes in my arguments, but then decides not to mention any of the actual points, it is normally a pretty safe assumption that they are one of those people.
If this is not the case with you, then I do apologize, and would like to hear your points.

 

From Chris Beaseley's guide : "White hat SEO is more and more becoming almost nothing." More and more implies strongly that how white hat SEO is defined is constantly changing and becoming more narrow. Do you disagree with him?

The way black hats game the system take much more originality and creativity than following a handful of simple rules/FAQs.

I have nothing against sitepoint overall but I think the seo section is full of people who have a very narrow minded view of seo who try to demonize people who don't agree with them.

Same here.

 

No problem. Would you mind waiting a few days, though? I'm getting ready to head out for the weekend (celebrating my 29th birthday, which was on Sunday, with my family and some of my closest friends), but I should be back Monday night or Tuesday morning.

(And yes, I know exactly about the type of person you're talking about. They think they know it all and try to make themselves look more knowledgable than they really are. It's a shame, really.)

 

Yup. I'm ready whenever

 

Cool. Enjoy your weekend.

 

the only tip::
hard work + dedication + patience

 

Wow...some people have a "fight" here ...

I'm not a SEO expert, nor I intend to become one...but I'm trying to learn at least the basics of SEO...so far so good with my website which started to rank well for specific keywords related to web software...

I think SEO takes a lot of time and dedication...and when you think you know it all search engines are changing the rules again ...so it's a never ending learning process...

 

use DP regularly, you will become SEO expert.

 

I have to disagree. While there is good information on here, a lot of it is utter crap too.
I would say if you want to become an expert, experiment with the search engines. Don't just listen to people.
Make a few sites, and try different link structures. Try getting lots of crappy backlinks. Try getting a few high quality. Try siloing/pagerank sculpting. Try static anchor text vs. varied anchor text. Shove out a bunch of sites, and run as many experiments as you can.
It works wonders.

Here's a hint: One of my sites that in theory should be banned, and has right now a bit over 1000 different shiite quality links that should count for nothing, and another 300 links that are nofollow and should count for nothing, is ranking for almost 20 relatively competitive keywords in it's niche and has a PR4 or 5 (I forget at the moment).
And if you read DP, or read around nearly anywhere on the planet, they'd tell you such a site shouldn't exist. But it does. And has survived for months.
That is the true value of experimentation.

 

That is probably due to the fact the "niche" itself is not very competitive so your competitive keywords in a non competitive niche are therefore non-competitive......Even if you think otherwise.

Lastly just like real life cheats, con artists, thieves or whatever criminal you want to insert here..... do not get caught immediately after committing whatever it is they do.....but most get caught after time.

 

...yes, it is pretty competitive. It's not a viagra, but definitely hard enough that many have failed.
And I'm not con, cheat, thief. And by the way, this site was never meant to rank. It was an experiment. Not something I financed with the idea of success. Get off your high horse.

 

I ride 3 quads a 2008 and 2 from 2007, an 88 monte ss with 5k in the engine alone.... and a very nice dodge ram all of which I have the titles too.... no horse though and without needing to stoop to trying to cheat a business.

And basically as a blackhat you are a cheat.......not by my definition alone either.

Whether you can deal with the honesty of your profession or not is your flaw....... not mine.

Its sort of like a crack dealer proclaiming he is not a killing anyone by selling drugs......


and if you think your such a badass point out to google what your doing.......

But we both know you don't have the cajones to walk the walk.......



Peace