Black Hat SEO - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Black Hat SEO

Isofarro wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Content is what the surfing public wants, and therefore content is
what google wants to serve to the surfing public.

Trying to "win" rankings without supplying content may bring in short
term results, but in the end, it merely activates more programmers at
google to come up with more work-arounds that will nullify what the
short-cut designers did. That's why last year's serps-shortcuts don't
work this year, and this year's won't work next year.

Google will always be trying to serve content, long after individual
spamming techniques, tricks, and short-cuts are nullified by google's
refining of the google algo.

The only long-range success -- the only success that will not need to
be rewritten every time google's programmers tweak the google algo to
dump off another parasitic crew of seo cheaters and spammers -- lies
in giving google exactly what it wants to serve to the public:

Serving content is the goal at google. Everything the folks at google
find useful today -- from parsing domain-names-with-hyphens to giving
points for inbound links from legitimate natural sites at other IP
addresses than your own -- is just fodder for the ever-shifting algo
that the programmers at google use in ranking content. When and if
those portions of the algo stop being useful in helping google serve
content, they too will fade away, just like meta tags did.

The only rock, the only secure center of success, is content. Period.
End of story.


cat yronwode

Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -

Re: Black Hat SEO

On 16 Aug 2004 12:53:33 -0700, (RFI Admin) wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ok, here's my 2 cents, while reiterating I do not do SEO for a living:

You feel that getting to the top of the heap at any/all costs is the
primary goal. Cool, I can go along with that thought.

But a person going out and creating a lame site, throwaway domain or
not, does not necessarily deserve being on top of the heap. No matter
how interested s/he is in making  a buck off that site - their site
doesn't deserve top placement.

To get around this hurdle some [notice I said "some"] try to invent
excuses or loopholes. You know the "this other site does it so I maybe
I can too" thinking ... not building up their site to make it more
deserving to being on the top but resorting to conning or tricking the
search engine into thinking it is more relevant.

Hence you have the primary reason why many people resort to hidden
text/links method - even if their site has plenty of elbow room for
them to creatively insert optimized, keyword rich text - they will opt
to go the hiding route instead. Even if they read about other people
getting their sites banned for it - they think they will be cleverer
or more under the radar than "their competitor" or "that no one will
look at my view source ..."

Now if working on someone else's site - I don't know how the client
would like it if you did something to their site to cause it becoming
banned or whatever. Traffic-Power charged folks a pretty penny - and
also got many, if not all, their client's sites banned off both Google
and Yahoo.

Some people/places do not use throwaway domain names [and it may cost
them money to change the domain name - more than just plopping down $8
or so at a registrar site] and you have effectively screwed up their
site and business. Now what do you say to that client when they call
up asking what the heck happened? "I did anything and everything that
I noticed your competitors doing - even the ones that may eventually
backfire or cause your site to get banned. Oh well. Was fun while it
lasted. Give me a call when you get a new domain name and I will start
working on the SEO again for you."?? Have you read about some folks
trying to get their sites unbanned on Yahoo Search - and that, for
some, they have been waiting for 5 to 6 months now? Google isn't the
only search engine some people care about.

To me - in doing SEO - one doesn't want to do what they already know
has gotten other sites booted out of Google and Yahoo. There is
manipulation involved - yes; but when you take try to over-manipulate
or make it "more than what it really is" then maybe it is time to sit
back and relook at what you really have to work with.

SEO isn't just about getting to #1 - it's about the end benefit to you
and the people/clients your site wants to attract in [in a commercial
site instance - attracting in people then converting a good percentage
of those people into clients/sales].

If you get to #1, through SEO techniques and/or tricks, but your
content sucks or people feel it is lacking - then sure you may have
more hits on your counter but may be, inadvertently, sending part of
those hits to your competitor's site [who aren't listed as #1 on the
search engine] ... all because your own site was lacking in providing
information, content, or a reasons for them to prefer your
site/business over the others outside of "getting top placement on a
search engine".

But once your site hits #1 then you may be leery of changing anything
cause you are at #1 ... so this can become a bit of quandry also for
some sites. [Now you have why I don't advise people to use hidden text
but to create the visible text and optimize that over time instead -
this way they can add-remove a bit more easily than if they had
limited themselves to a paragraph and a half of visible text, 8 or so
images, and hidden string that is a listing of keywords or trying to
share "secret links" with "longer than usual anchor text shared" to
other sites.]

Some people know what is risky and still do it anyway. *shrug* Their
choice - their site - doesn't affect me as they are the one now trying
to think of a new domain name, paying for it, working on getting IBLs
to their new site, and et al - just to put up the same content they
had before. Some don't even change methods used and just wait it out
until that site gets banned or penalized - then start over the cycle
again. I am sure their competitors don't mind watching that site get
booted out or penalized either - as they now advance up in the SERPs.

I suppose if one uses throwaway URLs then it is easier to do what one
would debate doing on a site/URL they truly cared about [long term
thoughts?]. *shrug*

That's just my 2 cents - without getting into splitting hairs of what
is ethical or what is not.


Re: Black Hat SEO

thats crap.

most sites are designed for beans, sites that are rich in great content cost
mucho spondies... customers dont pay but we still have to do our best - i
dont work for free but uf the budget is low and my the site ive designed
deserves a slice of the SE pie then im gonna use some dirty tricks to get it
up there


Re: Black Hat SEO


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your choice - your decision - and your clients choice and decision
also once they are informed about what is being done on their sites.
As I said - it's not my site nor do I do SEO for a living.

However some sites that people that want to try to get up high
placement thoughts, dirty tricks or not employed, do not necessarily
deserve high placement in comparison to some of the other sites
[designed for beans or mucho spondies]. Nice looking design - whom
they hired to do it or how much they paid for the design - not
necessarily a criteria.

Review my post, I was talking about sites that the site owner [usually
doing the design themself] slaps up a scant paragraph or two and
thinks _their_ site and content of that site should land in the Top 10
on a search engine. I didn't say anything about the content needing to
be "great" - but it has to make an attempt sharing info about one's
business/affliliate to another person. Some people think sharing a
flimsy [but keyword littered] paragraph, 8 or so images, oodles of
hidden text, then a high placement [say in the Top 5 if not #1] will
make up for that lacking of content offered. Does it?

Before saying it does - recall then all the posts shared here in the
past by people griping about sites using hidden text or other
supposedly "dirty tricks"/questionable means to land higher [but their
content lacking in comparison to the other person's site?] or the
oft-shared complaints about directory/Amazon pages. Those people felt
the other pages listed in the SERPs were somehow "lacking" and
therefore didn't deserve the placement received.

Everyone wants to think their site somehow belongs at the top. Makes
no sense to strive to be at the top of the heap if that placement
doesn't benefit your billfold any more so than if your site landed
#10, #21, or even #68 in placement. SEO isn't just about placement
alone but, as Isofarro said, having the ends justify the means.


Re: Black Hat SEO

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or it may _not_ been anyone in this particular NG. One other time you
accused Dave of something then turned around and said it was someone
else, not from this NG, who was spamming your links off some sites -
Semptor or something like that. Not the first time that
accusation-later-apology-for-false-accusation happened either.

But appears that Stacey is right about the forum site not being
deleted. leads to a page sharing about
their guest book, yes.

Compare that to what happens when one tries to go to - an error page loads in first,
and lasts for about a minute or so, before redirecting to the main URL
of which shares the same info as your forum (minus the
bottom banner ad). Your forum site doesn't exhibit similar behavior -
and also has an area set aside for listing of pages and such. Which
would be unusual for a deleted site to still  accept posts and such,
isn't it?


Re: Black Hat SEO


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Go to post a new message and click on it. It will load up a form for a
message page to the literature forum page. Truly meaning the page still

Re: Black Hat SEO

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wouldn't worry about the above Stacey I'm sure he'll be back to
blaming me soon.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Tel me about it, every time something goes wrong with something of
Sam's I get the blame. To date he's later realised he's been wrong
about them all.

We've had getting his Angelfire sites removed from the Google index
because I work for Google (no kidding, that's what he thought!). It
was a bug at Google that obviously had nothing to do with me.

I sabotaged the places he gets PR from (guestbooks etc...) by posting
the word SEPER over and over again (sepering). Someone called SEPER
who also link spams did the above.

I've contacted all his competitors and taught them how to SEO their
sites which was going to make him go out of business. Clearly his
competition didn't do so well.

And now I've got some of his free sites deleted that aren't really

I feel sure there was another one?

I was the one on the grassy knoll :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is really low of Sam trying to make out he's lost sites just to
discredit me (not that it does, if I want to report a site I will)!

Well spotted on that one Stacey.

Other than Stoma I very much doubt there is a single person reading
this NG that believes a word he says now. What a looser having to
resort to such tactics so he can prematurely say he won at a
competition he made up that I'm not even taking part in!

Seems to me Sam knew he didn't stand a chance with those free sites at
the literature SERP (recall the I'm going to be number 1 is one week
posts, LOL) since will all the blog spamming he's done etc... they
have been slowly slipping down the SERPs. So he found a new use for
them, to make out someone in the NG is out to get all his sites

Tell you what Sam post once more I'm trying to get your sites deleted
and I will contact the freehosts and report you for any breaches of
their T&Cs. If I'm going to be stuck with the blame for something I
might as well do it.

Shouldn't Angelfire sites have an Ad on them or something? Don't see
any on your Angelfire sites.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was a nice try though, so 10 out of 10 for effort and lateral
thinking, shame Sam can't put that sort of effort into making content
for his sites.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

-- /

Re: Black Hat SEO

SEO Dave wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They have ads now bub. Anyway tired of the present and once again we
take a trip into the future when dave's classic lit site drops to page 3
sometime within the next few weeks.
is how Dave Reacts:</a>

Re: Black Hat SEO

Quoted text here. Click to load it


That was quite funny.

BTW you said a few weeks over a week ago, so shouldn't it be two weeks

-- /

Re: Black Hat SEO

SEO Dave wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Perhaps. ~Sam

Re: Black Hat SEO


Quoted text here. Click to load it

My name is spelled *Stacey*. Are you going to accused everyone? Look, you
are faking the bbs page for being deleted. I saw those phone sex links at
the bottom. When I announced it, you deleted the links. But, you can still
tell it isn't deleted or deactivated. So, do go and accuse people Sam!!!!
So, you are going to say it sounds like me just because I announced it was
fake? Why are you faking that the bbs is not up and saying Dave got it
deleted? Look dude, it is you that came and said that they got deleted and
blaming people. Not.. only that you say it was Dave and you win.....when the
bbs page is still active. So, stop blaming people!

Re: Black Hat SEO

If your theory about Dave deleting your site is correct, then your nick
should be "Dave Beats Sam"

More likely, your tin-foil hat is on too tight again.


Re: Black Hat SEO

RFI Admin wrote in

Quoted text here. Click to load it

At the risk of sounding rather sanctimonious, we run our business on what I
would like to think is an "ethical" basis - if only because those are the
kinds of companies with which I would want to do business.

In my experience, unethical people tend not to observe boundaries around
their unethical behaviour - it seems unreasonable to think that I can pay
them to cheat in one area of their work and yet expect them to be honest in
their dealings with me.

I'm still not comfy with claiming to be "ethical" - how about "operating out
of enlightened self-interest"?

If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Re: Black Hat SEO

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You raise a good point Peter.

"Ethical SEO" is again, playing by the SE's rules...and really has little to
do with basic business ethics that you would learn in college or out on the
We believe that being "ethical" in business is critical to longevity and
being around for the last 7 years makes us feel good about what our company
does and how we do it.

Having said that, we let our own moral/ethical compass guide us.  In our
case, we use the Bible because we believe that to be the most fundamental
source for ethics and morals.  Others can use whatever guidepost they
believe in, as long as they stick to it.  That is usually where the problems
pop up.

Without a guidepost, we are nothing more than leaves in the wind...and that
is usually where people get into trouble.  We see nothing wrong with
figuring out what an algo is doing and then maximizing our optimization
techniques accordingly.  We do see an issue with using techniques that could
get our clients banned because we don't believe it is our place to put our
clients at risk in that manner.  Not "ethical" or "non-ethical", just what
we feel comfortable with....based upon our values.

We have to draw the lien new each morhing...but based upon our foundation,
it isn't all that dificult.


James Taylor - Search Engine Optimization Services - Free SEO Tools!
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Black Hat SEO

"" wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think it does. As above, so below.

A man who kicks his dog doesn't usually make a good husband.

A woman who cheats on her income taxes is a poor choice to hire as a

A search engine optimizer who says that he can take my site to #1 for
a keyword term that i know i honestly don't have enough content to
rank in the top 100 is a poor choice for an SEO.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Longevity is also at the heart of many business decisions made by the
customers of SEO professionals.

I am currently hiring someone to do some web work for me and i hired
her on the basis of long-time even-tempered personal friendship and
the understanding that she shares my personal ethical values. I am not
wealthy, so i plan for the changes she will implement to serve my site
through at least 5 years' worth of google's shifting algorithms, on
the basis that what google is ultimately trying to serve is CONTENT
and that all things being equal, all changes to the google algo will
be made in favour of serving content.

Can those who practice tricky serps-manipulation or black-hat SEO
guarantee their work that long, knowing that the google programmers
seem intent on shaking out the tricksters and serving only content?  


cat yronwode

    Lucky Mojo Curio Co.

Re: Black Hat SEO

On Monday, August 16, 2004 6:14:11 AM UTC+5:30, Will Spencer wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are still many websites using all these Black Hat seo techniques and are
still on rank. Google need to be more active.

Site Timeline