Is There Such A Thing As Spam Anymore? Options

[St0n3y]

OK I tried to read every post before posting myself but I wanted to address the first issue even though its technically been closed.

My first though was this: Is Jill succumbing to the power of the dark side? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Here's my take. Anybody has a right to put anything on their server they want to. Its their server. Heck, anybody has a right to create the most gawd awful site they want and make it public! Its not a crime (yet)! What the search engines do with that content they discover is totally up to the search engine and technically the site owner is not spamming the search engine. However, IMO, that does not make the site any less spam.

If I park my motorcycle in the garage and never ride it its still a motorcycle.

But we're not talking about sites that are not "ridden". We're talking about sites that are active but the owner just doesn't care about what the SE's do. I find that scenario a bit hard to believe. Why would somebody cloak, use hidden text, stuff alt tags, employ redirects, etc., etc. if they don't care what the search engines do? Point is, even if they don't submit that stuff to the search engines, they are doing those things for a reason.

So the motorcycle is in the garage, and they are hoping that the search engines steal a ride. Its still a motorcycle.

On the second issue, "SEO"s that promise things they know they can't deliver are truly unethical practitioners. I don't use unethical to describe SEO methods (black/white/whatever), but this is a case where the business practice is truly unethical.

On the other hand there are SEOs that make claims of "top search engine rankings", but there are instances when for whatever reason, top rankings cannot be achieved. This could be due to more competition than was expected, or issues with the site itself that the site owners are not addressing. But if that claim is made, and almost every SEO makes it as a benefit of their service, and even if that claim is not "guaranteed", does that still make that SEO a bad business practitioner?

I'm always leery when I get a call from a potential client and they tell me they are with another SEO company for X months and so far they have not seen any good results. I could be outraged just to try and get that business, but in reality X number of months may not have been enough time, especially today. This is often simply a problem with client expectations. Maybe the SEO is at fault for putting those expectations out there, but really, how do you sell your service saying "we may or may not be able to get you good rankings in X number of months." I think there is a fine balancing act between lowering expectations to a realistic level and being able to convince a client that you are the one that can do the job.

IMO an SEO that says they can when they know they can't is a crook. An SEO that unrealistically builds expectations is performing bad faith business. An SEO that spams the search engines but ensures their clients have full knowledge of the possible outcome is just fine. The SEO that can keep expectations at realistic levels while consistently outperforming those expectations while employing absolutely no spam techniques is a genius.

[Quadrille]

Based on Alan Perkins' list (above):

These statements are all true:

* Some black hat methods produce good results (for whom?)
* Some black hat methods produce poor results
* Some blach hats deceive their competitors
* Some black hats deceive their clients
* Some black hats deceive search engines
* Some black hats deceive searchers

* No white hat seo cheats; cheating destroys the white hat.
* Some white hat methods produce good results
* Some white hat methods produce poor results

White / Black Hat defintions are as much about intention as technique.

[qwerty]

Maybe the SEO is at fault for putting those expectations out there, but really, how do you sell your service saying "we may or may not be able to get you good rankings in X number of months." I think there is a fine balancing act between lowering expectations to a realistic level and being able to convince a client that you are the one that can do the job.

I tell people I'll make improvements to their site as part of an overall campaign to improve their return on investment. That's likely to involve improvements in rankings, but I don't think I've ever told a potential client that I'd get them to the top.

[Alan Perkins]

one who cheats in any part of the SEO process cannot be described as white hat

That's your opinion, Q, but it does not fit the definition that the majority of people use, which might make for some bad-tempered discussions until people understand what you mean. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Nor is yours a particularly helpful definition. How does it help to lump the criminal, the cheating, the incompetent, the unusable and the unprofitable all under the label of "Black Hat"? I think those words serve well as labels on their own. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ron Carnell]

one who cheats in any part of the SEO process cannot be described as white hat

Why stop with just the SEO process?

Is someone who cheats on their spouse really deserving of a shiny white hat? Breaking the speed laws has to add at least a little bit of gray to an SEO's hat, don't you think? And, since morality is so easily defined and agreed upon, might not a man who kills another man, even perhaps in the defense of his country, be the blackest hat of all?

Anyone here walk on water? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Randy]

Anyone here walk on water? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I tried to once, but I sank like a stone. I may have big feet, but not that big!


Oh wait, we're talking about SEO aren't we? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

[SearchRank]

As far as "white hat", "black hat" or "a little bit of gray in between" in SEM/SEO, it has always referred to techniques, not morality.

We have already discussed in this thread a large SEO who practices what many would consider white hat techniques. However they do not follow through on their promises and end up doing very little for the gobs of money they charge. That does not make them black hat as far as "SEO hat discussions" go but rather makes them liars and crooks.

If you want to get into issues of morality then I guess we would all be black hats because we are all human. The only white hat SEO that would exist would be Jesus Himself and I know for a fact that He is not in the SEO business. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[glengara]

For the WH cause this morality thing is a minefield, it promotes disunity, and encourages the taking of ever more extreme positions.

It's not even as if it's needed to justify the argument, IMO.

[Quadrille]

"one who cheats in any part of the SEO process cannot be described as white hat"
That's your opinion, Q, but it does not fit the definition that the majority of people use, which might make for some bad-tempered discussions until people understand what you mean. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)   Nor is yours a particularly helpful definition.  How does it help to lump the criminal, the cheating, the incompetent, the unusable and the unprofitable all under the label of "Black Hat"?  I think those words serve well as labels on their own. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Not helpful to whom?

I neither know nor care what spammers think, or Black Hats. If my beliefs make them bad tempered, I worry not.

I do think, however, that the average webmaster, the average surfer and the honest SEO finds it an important and helpful distinction.

I'm more than happy to agree to differ, except that you don't seem to feel that Black Hats are cheats? I'll differ there too; but I'm not happy with your beliefs. But there ya go!

[Quadrille]

Why stop with just the SEO process?

Is someone who cheats on their spouse really deserving of a shiny white hat? Breaking the speed laws has to add at least a little bit of gray to an SEO's hat, don't you think? And, since morality is so easily defined and agreed upon, might not a man who kills another man, even perhaps in the defense of his country, be the blackest hat of all?

Well, I thought SEO was what this forum was about, is all.

[Quadrille]

As far as "white hat", "black hat" or "a little bit of gray in between" in SEM/SEO, it has always referred to techniques, not morality.

Not once you start talking about intention.

Maybe these issues don't interest you; that's fine. But in the real world, it matters. And as Sartre said before this thread "It's bad faith" to pretend these issues don't exist.

[Jill]

My first though was this: Is Jill succumbing to the power of the dark side?  (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Hi Stoney! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/bye1.gif) I'm really not succumbing to the dark side. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

In fact, I thought your post was excellent, and I agree with most of it.

I especially liked this:

Here's my take. Anybody has a right to put anything on their server they want to. Its their server. Heck, anybody has a right to create the most gawd awful site they want and make it public! Its not a crime (yet)! What the search engines do with that content they discover is totally up to the  search engine and technically the site owner is not spamming the search engine. However, IMO, that does not make the site any less spam.

That part I bolded is a very good point!

Regarding this:

So the motorcycle is in the garage, and they are hoping that the search engines steal a ride. Its still a motorcycle.

That kinda sounds like entrapment!

Not really sure how it applies to the spam argument, except perhaps that the spammer has entrapt the search engine?

On the second issue, "SEO"s that promise things they know they can't deliver are truly unethical practitioners. I don't use unethical to describe SEO methods (black/white/whatever), but this is a case where the business practice is truly unethical.

Agreed. Doesn't make them blackhats, as blackhats nor spammers, as that's a different issue.

I think this argument, like most forum discussions does simply come down to different definitions for the same thing.

If Quadrille wants to label incompetent SEOs as Blackhats, then that's his right to, but it actually hurts his "cause" as the real Blackhats will show that they actually DO get results and are not incompetent.

And the real incompetents LOVE to tell their clients how they follow search engine guidelines to the letter. Whoopdy-doo!

I'm always leery when I get a call from a potential client and they tell me they are with another SEO company for X months and so far they have not seen any good results. I could be outraged just to try and get that business, but in reality X number of months may not have been enough time, especially today. This is often simply a problem with client expectations. Maybe the SEO is at fault for putting those expectations out there, but really, how do you sell your service saying "we may or may not be able to get you good rankings in X number of months." I think there is a fine balancing act between lowering expectations to a realistic level and being able to convince a client that you are the one that can do the job.

I do agree with this too. Unfortunately, it really is a managing expectations thing. Where I will make sure that my client are 100% sure that I can never tell them for certain that I can rank them in a particular position in a particular engine for a particular keyword phrase, other companies will simply say, "sure we can do that." I may very well be able to do it, but I am managing expectations at the beginning. (We have another whole thread on that, so I won't go on any more about that...I can look it up if anyone is interested.)

And what Ron said here:

Is someone who cheats on their spouse really deserving of a shiny white hat? Breaking the speed laws has to add at least a little bit of gray to an SEO's hat, don't you think? And, since morality is so easily defined and agreed upon, might not a man who kills another man, even perhaps in the defense of his country, be the blackest hat of all?

Is so, so, so important to note.

It disgusts me when I think of some WH SEOs who talk about morals and ethics in their SEO work, yet this doesn't necessarily carry through to the rest of their life. Personally, it is much more important in life to be a good citizen, not cheat on your spouse, not assault people, not cheat on taxes, not shoplift, etc. than it is to not put pages on your server which the search engines might deem spam. In the larger scheme of things, who really cares?

That said, it is all of our Internet, and we all do use search engines, and it would be totally wonderful if nobody created spam pages that got indexed and ranked in the engines. It would allow the search engines to become more relevant, because they could focus less energy on fighting spam and more on their algos.

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Quadrille]

For the WH cause this morality thing is a minefield, it promotes disunity, and encourages the taking of ever more extreme positions.

Disunity between WH and BH? I'm all for that.
Disunity between WH and Apologists for BHs? I'm all for that.

Disunity among WH? I've never come across a WH who chose to be associated with BH morals. And have no wish to. Any more than a card player would choose to be associated with cheats. Why would they?

At the moment, the SEO "community" is dominated by self-cofessed cheats. Now, I find that a sad state of affairs, and not one to celebrate. I'd prefer a much smaller community of honest folk.

Call me fussy, but I choose not to share a table with folk who'd steal my corned beef hash. And I choose not to share my business plan with folk who will find a way to cheat me out of the benefits, while telling me "It's all about technique".

Bad Faith!

[Jill]

Quadrille, I think the disunity mentioned would be between potential clients. I'm not sure disunity is the correct word though. It's more of a confusion thing, imo.

[Quadrille]

Quadrille, I think the disunity mentioned would be between potential clients.  I'm not sure disunity is the correct word though. It's more of a confusion thing, imo.

Well, when I look to spend my money, I prefer to go to honest dealers, and I welcome a clear division between the sharks and the Good Guys (and Gals).

I don't see why potential purchasers of SEO services would be any different. Why would they?

If Quadrille wants to label incompetent SEOs as Blackhats, then that's his right to, but it actually hurts his "cause" as the real Blackhats will show that they actually DO get results and are not incompetent.

I didn't say that; I've consistently argued that Another school of thought would say that Black hat is all about deception, theft and fraud, and it would be impossible to extricate technique from business methods; the two go hand in hand.Someone who's simply incompetent is simply incompetent; I'd only award the black hat when they misrepresented themselves.

Indeed, I specifically said: "Excluding these, there may be a category of SEO who isn't very good, despite honest "best efforts" - such folk could, I suppose, be white hat - but I think it's a very small group, if it exists at all. And if they are white hat (and therefore honest), they will soon either go out of business, or improve, as they would not falsify their track record, when talking to potential clients, would they?"

And of course I accept that Black Hats get results; so do cardsharps. Doesn't make it right, or "good" or even something to boast about. But they do, and their friends congratulate them. Sad, huh?