Turn grey myself or rat on black hat competitors?
-
Thanks for your rallying words Andy. I am feeling the squeeze and clearly I am struggling in sustaining faith whilst facing the cloaked and the paid. But ok, it's do-able. When you say never black nor grey I presume you mean really 100% white, entirely within the meaning of Google tos. Not even a shade of grey and it's possible to beat really good black hat? Uh oh there I go again!
-
Absolutely 100% white - no shades of grey at all
All of my customer sites are SEO'd to match the Google guidelines and don't go close to anything that be classed as remotely grey (or black).
The things I find make the biggest difference, outside of ensuring the site is up to scratch, is the content. Being a copywriter, I often write entire knowledge bases for customer sites so they have a lot of unique content to share with their customers, via social media sites, to have mentioned in articles, for other sites to link to... the list goes on.
Part of this is down to the fact it is not written for the search engines, but very strong written words for visitors.
Many wont understand just what a difference this can make - coupled with a well put together site = good results.
Regards,
Andy
-
lol great response Russ. Attack those blackhats with fire!
-
Successful SEO's thrive on those who are afraid of taking risks.
-
I just disagree with you. Even at the #1 position, you are missing out on 50+% of the available organic traffic for that keyword. Multi-site strategies are always the right way to go. Seriously, if you really believe that paid linking and black hat link building are dangerous to your and your client's sites, then why in the hell would you have only 1 property that is easily susceptible to a client buying links to and spamming?
-
Seo's that take risks with their customers websites have a number of lessons yet to learn. It's like taking your car to the garage and have someone say "let's see what happens when we try a lesser quality petrol into something that is supposed to take premium" Seo's that are successful are those that can deliver measurable results without putting their customers in danger. It's called good business practice.
-
You still think that I am talking about the client's primary site.
Look, leave the main site alone - do it all white hat with great content and great links. I am totally on board with that.
Buy why not build 3 other sites and use the techniques that work NOW on them? Seriously, can you give me one strong reason why a webmaster should continue to stand by while Google's algorithm's can't keep up with his competitor's spam?
You keep running the race with 1 horse, and Ill keep running it with 20. We will see who wins.
-
So here's a silly thought... Why not build all sites with White hat content and techniques that we know work, and then see who wins?
Look, at the end of the day, there are those that are successful (very) following all guidelines to a tee, have nothing but a string of successes without ever having to tread on territory that comes even close to unethical.
There simply is no need. I am not going to deny that there are black hat techniques that work and might not get found, but why would you take that chance when there is a White hat way of achieving the same results? Results that are going to continue to pay long term.
-
Don't get me wrong - We've done both!
Creating satellite assets proved to me a nightmare for us on so many levels it's not funny. From using up resources, splitting up time for creating links across multiple sites to client complaining about the look and feel of all these microsites (they treat them as any other site). I've abandoned the method soon after that and put our resources in link, bait, content and whitehat link building. It gave us the results we needed.
To be fair I recognise some promotional items operators in Australia who have done microsites really well and benefit from it, however most of them have "fed" juice through the main corporate site. To me this is too close to a scheme for comfort.
Another point (this time against the method) is that you're missing out on branding and effectively creating natural links to microsites. If we look at all big brands, their microsites are campaign based. not designed to attract SEO traffic, that's the job of the main site.
-
Yeah it's annoying that... if Google really do want to discourage bad practise why don't they act on the spam reports. Maybe not all of them but the blatant spam with keywords stuffed all over the place and a million links from spamming forums, etc... by not doing anything about it when somebody is frustrated enough to actually bother to fill in a spam report, just makes that person then decide that what the dodgy site is doing works better... the old "if you can't beat them, join them".
Then, like the OP, other SEO's start to think, well why am I sat here slaving away to get anywhere for this client who's putting me under pressure for faster results, when that guy just used xrumer, etc... Maybe I ought to give that a try.
G are shooting themselves in the foot. I've "experimented" in darker head-wear realms a lot for that very reason, not because I want to, but because I'm driven to by G's inaction on the matter.
-
Can you point out to me a single commercial site, non-fortune 500, ranking in the top 10 for credit cards, mesothelioma, poker, or mortgage that is using solely white hat strategies? Go look at their anchor text profile. Those exact match anchor text links are paid, buddy. One right after the other.
-
Are we talking spam automated links, paid links, or something else?
If it's spam auto links - they'll get banned sooner or later.
If it's paid - read up on how to minimize the risk and jump in. Intermediate sites are one approach.
If it's paid - point out the risks of penalties to people selling the links. "OMG, my site can be banned. No wayyyyyy! Why didn't they say so! Nofollow!"
-
Great reply!!!
-
Don't go grey. Don't rat either because it won't do any good unless many others do the same. Google seems to ignore the one-off requests.
Maybe a bit off topic, but I think the bigger problem here is that Search Engines don't reward White Hat practitioners as quickly as they do the Black & Grey Hatters. The latter sees immediate results by manipulating the system and the penalties are not assessed until week, months or even years afterwards.
Search Engines have made such great strides in many areas but are still lacking in the penalty department.
With search becoming more social, I don't see how SEO and reputation can't do the same. Search Engines should use cues to help trust websites by having developers, designers and SEO's alike "sign" their work. They can attach these sites to their profiles or add a personalized meta tag signature. Having these tags could help Search Engines fight spammy techniques and even offer up suggestions to improve the sites on a more personalized level, without calling anyone out. They can penalize while educating.
-
a good tactic, you can also use these satellites as link laundries. You can indulge all your black and grey hat whims with the disposable sites - because being naughty is just more fun.
The sites that don't get blasted by Google can then be used to dominate the serps and link to your main website (be sure to keep your client's main sites as well as your own whitehat only - it is just plain wrong to use clients as guinea pigs).
I call this technique building a link mountain - the higher it get the whiter it is at the top - but the bottom may be black as obsidian
-
Come on, lets be honest for a sec, most SEOs are in the grayhat area - as essentially linkbuilding is a greyhat practice.
If you are getting links any other way than by creating great content on your site then you are involved in some shade of grey.
ethics has nothing to do with being blackhat, whitehat or greyhat - the only ethics involved is being honest to your clients, and letting them know the full scope of risk for various tactics - if a cleint requests blackhat techniques then I will provide them but only after explaining the risks and putting in place risk mitigation strategies - such as mutliple sites as mentioned above
-
What Russ is talking about here is spot on. If you're not using "micro-sites" to test and rank you're not going to be able to keep up with the other guys. How are you going to test new methods and learn if you're scared you might enter a "gray" area with google? Technically, ANY manipulation of Google by manually building links elsewhere is "gray". SEO, in a sense, is inherently "gray". So, to claim that your SEO tactics are 100% white-hat is a challenging statement to defend.
-
It's good to hear that it's possible to beat quantity with quality ..any example's would be much appreciated!!!
-
Google used to care if you told them about garbage sites.
I never used that against my competitors, but only on blatant spam,
then just over 2 years ago, google stopped listening to my reports.
The spam don't only stay there, it got worse.
After 3 months of them ignoring every request, I gave up reporting them.
-
You can turn grey but use good original content (don't pollute the internet). Most blackhatters use automatically spun content which is gibberish then submit with automation tools.
{Set yourself a bit more time to create decent handspun content to use with the same automation tools and you will be beating them at their own game.|If you take the time to hand spin some original and quality content, then use those same tools to submit your content you have the ability to beat them with their own tactics.}
-
08188
-
03388
-
052.0k
-
02448
-
04552
-
04751
-
02651
-
061.1k