I've never made a big secret of the fact that as a commercial SEO and marketer, I am what most call a blackhat. When I change hats, it's gray at best. This is a choice that has brought up some interesting debates within my own blog, and occasionally on forums around the web. Since those conversations generally go a predictable place (but are always interesting), I thought it'd be nice to put the debate into the larger community.
I expect that most readers will not agree with what I write here and I'm fine with that; it's not for everyone. But I thought it may be good to at least put the ideas out there. I can only speak for myself here, but I believe many of these answers would be similar throughout the blackhat community. Please note that for the sake of this discussion, I'm separating hackers from blackhats. We are different, and the confusion benefits neither.
Also bear in mind that I do not take clients, so I'm not addressing that issue. Most skilled blackhats I know also do not take clients.
The "Ethics" of Blackhat (Vs. Google)
I have no qualms about "tricking" Google.
Rewind time to when search engines were a fresh idea, and many people thought they themselves were unethical. Search engines are not invited to sites. They copy/cache content, and do whatever they can to profit from this content they were never asked to access.
With this idea in mind, why would I not do the same as them, and attempt to profit from them profiting off of me? If I want to "opt out" of them crawling and not make money off of them, I'll deny by robots.txt. If they want to not make money off of me, they will "opt out" and remove my site.
Even ignoring the above statement, the double standards of SEO in the Google world make it quite difficult for someone to come in new to compete. I've mentioned YouTube Cloaking before. The New York Times apparently also gets this privilege. Well established sites with a substantial advertising budget? Those will never be banned or penalized. Many use blatant "doorway" pages, and will never have anything done against them. Any new site? Banned. So sometimes, a bit of stealth is necessary.
So from that alone, it's obvious that even if I was whitehat, Google would still not care about my business. They are handing entire control of niches over by way of green lighting (or ignoring) large and entrenched corporations who use practices I could not touch.
I can accept this; I believe no one is entitled to a rank just because they play by the rules, and Google shouldn't have to worry about each business. There's only so many rankings to go around. But at the same time, I'm going to not going to change my business to help Google's business. Rather than stagnate, I compete.
The last major point is that I'm not at all confident in the true longevity of most [competitive] sites. Rules change, especially with Google. Before they began aggressively attacking paid links, how many people felt their sites were secure? The sense I got was the vast majority. Restriction has been slowly tightening since then from everything I've seen and experienced. If I'm going to pour hours and hours of development time into building a site, I want to know it's going to rank. I don't want to worry about miscellaneous "guidelines" changes, or "special cases". I don't want to worry about some Google base or local dropdown knocking my site down 5 inches. I don't even want to worry about the possibility of negative SEO. I don't want to put my faith in one individual site. I'd rather distribute the risk.
The "Ethics" of Blackhat (Vs. Webmasters)
After the ethics vs. Google conversation subsides, normally it changes to "what about the webmasters you're ranking above? Don't you feel bad cheating?"
Once again, no. First and foremost, no one is entitled to rank just because they play by an arbitrary set of rules that no one really ever agreed to, signed, or otherwise implied was ok. If that's the lay of the land, perhaps I should be able to make some rules. Would it be unethical for random people I meet on the street to not follow those? I think not.
Beyond that, my view is that in business our success is dictated by the risks we are, or are not willing to take. Any site I end up outranking made their decision to play it safe, and that was a perfectly respectable call. I'm sure they'll enjoy their ranking for many months after the blackhat site has been reported by a disgruntled SEO and is banished from the rankings. My decision was to not play it safe, and as a result their are consequences for the action. These choices are not moral judgements and they are not indications of personality outside of business. They are business models. Longevity vs. Fast income. Neither is inherently better than the other. They are just different. There is reward for risk.
Conclusion
I suspect I'll take some heat for this. But in a internet landscape where Google is essentially revolting against competitive SEO with tight restrictions, "usability" additions that remove emphasis from the search results and onto maps, Google Base/Checkout, and their paid listings, I do not feel at all comfortable investing my money into a site that may or may not be alive/ranking/in a niche where ranking still matters several years from now. Google is looking out for Google, and no one else. I will do the same.
As soon as clients are added into the picture, this entire ethical beast changes direction a bit. But hey, that's for another entry someday.
As always, constructive criticism or intelligent debate is welcome. My only request is that nothing get abusive.
If you liked this post(or just feel the need to spy on us evil types), feel free to drop by. I write regularly at Slightly Shady SEO covering whichever topics I feel like (typically PPC/SEO) and always enjoy a lively debate 😉
Images courtesy of Charl22, stephenccwu and Jana Mills
I don’t “feel bad for Google” because blackhats such as yourself exploit Google and refuse to follow their rules. I think you miss the reason why many people despise blackhat and blackhat tactics… its because you provide a terrible user experience. Scraped content, arbitrage, spamming, etc. only makes the Internet a worse place for uses. Google, on the other hand, (arguably) has improved the online experience for the vast majority of users. Sure “Google is looking out for Google”, but the brilliance of their business model is that it relies on providing the best user experience possible. Thats the reason why the New York Times site will not be removed from the listings while http://www.free-viagra-casino-onlinedating-porn.com will. NYT provides values while your blackhat site does not. This double standard that you point out shows us, if anything, that Google is doing a great job of seperating the value from the crap.
Bottom line is do what you gotta do, but don’t expect people to like it or Google to change.
Very well said. I’ve never quite heard a case laid out that well for “blackhat.” And I agree with you 100%.
Very well said by Chris above. Read that again.
I think you may be showing you age with some things you wrote Shady. Your age and your time so far on the internet. I don’t ever recall a time where we did not have a search engine to want to do well in. You seem to be saying there was that time. I also don’t recall calling a search engine unethical as you say. It’s always been people out there cheating anyway they can to do well in them. Your double standard thing doesn’t hold up though. Google can delist you easily and not feel it whatsoever. Can you delist Google and not feel it? I think not. Also; you seem to say that just because someone is not helping clients spam that all is fine and dandy and no one is hurt by your spam. I don’t know where to start on a statement like that. Cheating the se’s is cheating whether or not you are helping someone else to cheat.
LOL I also see you have a check box to say the comment is 100% spam free. So it’s OK that you do not like spam, but OK for you to use spam on someone else? 🙂
Interesting article Shady – you hit the nail on the head when you mention clients interests and ethics in my opinion.
This is a well-written article xmcp, I agree with you. Search engines and SEOs are in a business, not a hobby or charity.
The thing that completely removes any guilt from my mind in running blackhat ops is how Google contradicts themselves so much. For example:
– The “nofollow” tag was invented so that webmasters could try to cut down on people spamming links on sites which allow user-submitted content. The tag was basically a courtesy to help webmasters
– Now, Google *requires* you to use nofollow not as a courtesy to you the webmaster, but in order to help them do rankings and get you to do their work for them (which is arguable). Nevermind the fact that the effectiveness of ‘nofollow’ has been proven to not work exactly as Google has said.
– So, Google tells us webmasters to make sites for USERS not search engines. That makes perfect sense! In their perfect world, everyone makes websites and the search engines invisibly do their work and point people to the site that best matches their request.
– BUT Google requires you to put nofollow on paid links which completely contradicts the notion of just making your site for users. If search engines did not exist, webmasters would still pay other websites to link to them, just to get traffic! Links were INVENTED for users to click on! Links were not something deployed by webmasters just to “pass pagerank” or link juice or whatever you want to call it.
– And how do you define a paid link anyway? If I buy a website and put a link on it to my other website, is it a paid link? Obviously some money changed hands so that I could place that link.
– To find out, I guess we should all hurry over to Matt Cutts blog and over-analyze every random pointless thing he has to say.
Great insights on balckhat SEO..^^ and by the way, I love the picture..^^
I have a belly button.. Google knows it, I told them.
I must disagree with you Chris; if done correctly, “blackhat” sites can provide a better user experience than many “whitehat” sites. I get paid when I make a sale, so it’s in my interest to help the user get what they want – just as much as the next blackhat, whitehat, greyhat.
The reason I feel “blackhats” can provide a better user experience rather than an experience that is on par, is the fact that when cloaking, we can serve the user a perfectly optimised page without having to make any compromises for search engines.
I love how in the first comment the porn/casino link is not nofollow’d (doubt the poster had *that* in mind!), yet the commenter who leaves their url in the next comment behind their name does see it nofollow’d.
Pure and utter beauty.
@Chris: You raise some good points. However, let me ask you this.
If I were to make a site with valuable content that required a paid registration to access(or even a free account) do you think google would make an exception for me? Congrats, there is a great incentive to NOT bother.
Now NYT does provide value; I will agree with that. But what about the other several hundred sites using the associated press feed? How come they can’t do this? They don’t deserve the same advantage for the same content?
And youtube for example: Aside from Google’s obvious incentive to have it ranking, is it any better than dailymotion? What about break.com or metacafe? Or more importantly, the smaller(but still quality) online video sites? If they used the same tactics, there would be in serious jeopardy. It’s unfair on Google’s end, and discourages the creation of good content in many ways.
For my response regarding more traditional blackhat sites, I actually just commented over at sphinn regarding this.
http://sphinn.com/story.php?id=50733#c44106
I think the line that has to be drawn, as you rightly point out in the conclusion, is that things change (in my view, dramatically) where you are doing the work for someone else – not many of us would want to get a client’s/friend’s site banned by the Big G.
If it’s your own site, then hey, do whatever is necessary. As long as it is legal of course.
Darker shade of white!
Well said, SS. SEO isn’t about ethics, it’s about business. I too have white, gray and black hat sites that all do well – do I feel bad for Google when I kick a BH site to the top? Not a bit! I’ve been at the web since the dot com bust of the nineties where what is considered black hat now was just smart marketing back then. One of things I have learned is that the goal for the site determines the type of SEO/SEM you perform to get it there- for example- a real estate site must always use white hat SEO because it has to do well for a long period of time, where an event site that needs to rank quickly and can disappear after the event is over, could use some gray-black hat techniques. Basically- what I am saying is EVERY SEO should know all the tools available not just the ones that are pure as the drive snow. Anyone that only wants their SEO to be white, is completely ignorant. How could any of us truly advise you on how to reach your goals if we only knew 1/3 of the story? So, my white, gray and black hats are off to Shady for talking about the “ethics” of the industry.
You put it right. Last time… a company where i work got hit by .info disaster. In that sole day, we lost 1/3 of people’s salaries for one month in missed sales (site is http://www.istrien.info if you’d care). As long as I am asked… don’t leverage too much trust with Google… one day they will change the rules, and “legit” businesses will be out. Best practice is to diverse and “bend” rules if you can. If other webmasters can’t beat you… well… they should learn more and use tricks 😉
Shady, who’s the girl?
@Chris, nice try but if you think webmasters, in general, actually have a heart felt concern regarding the “user experience” of everyone that is using search engines, you’re only kidding yourself. Being human, all webmasters have just one primary concern and that is their own rankings. They are not feeling bad that somebody 100 miles away or 5,000 miles around the world who is using Google is getting a few results that are not useful.
The real reason that webmasters dispise blackhat’ers is that they see blackhat’ers as cheaters and they sure as hell do not want to lose to someone that has cheated.
imo
Bompa
I both love and hate Google at the same time, and for different reasons. Love obviously for the traffic, and hate for their heavy handed approach to control their business partners. For good or bad they’re try to shape the internet into their vision of what is “right”. I don’t think anyone should have that much power. Google is arguably nothing, but a big scraper site themselves. I’ve hung around Blackhat forums in the past, but never had the stomach for going totally black. The internet world is afterall just another shade of grey.
Black hat… white hat… no hat. Lets face it folk hate it when they’re not winning. If it’s not the ref’s fault then it’s because the rules are unfair. We’re all playing the same game. Granted some bend and break the rules. When you get caught, take the caution or the sending off… and start again.
We’re all playing along. But as the goalposts are constantly being moved, why stick to the rules?
Outstanding post Shady! You raise a good point; when not optimizing for clients but for your own sites, can you take greater risks? Thanks again Shady!
great points in this article. i disagree with the “for the sake of the internet” commenters.
if google lists my site, when does it become my fault that one of google’s users doesn’t like it?
i have to make a nice website for the sake of the internet? says who? make your own damn site and leave me alone.
SSS,
Let me say that I appreciate your honesty and read your columns to understand more about SEO.
I’m still not sure what everyone wants Google to do? What would you all do if you were in Google shoes? You think it makes sense for them to allow cloaking sites, spam, scraped content, MFA sites, etc. to dominte their listings?
Well, if you think thats true then maybe a search engine will come along that doesn’t penalize blackhat tactics as Google does. This new engine could steal all of Google’s marketshare because users might love the experience that these blackhat sites provide. My money is on Google though.
One thing I do find more than slightly hypocritical is everyone who is telling Google how to run their business. What does Google owe to blackhat SEOs – or any SEO for that matter? They owe it to their users to provide the best results possible, thats it. If they decide that their search listings are better by displaying cloaked YouTube and NYT results while not letting other sites do the same, that is their right.
“i have to make a nice website for the sake of the internet? says who? make your own damn site and leave me alone.”
But you want to tell Google how to run their site, right?