This morning I was trying out the new SEO Moz linking tool. One thing that struck me when examining sites in a particularly competitive niche was the aggressive nature of the link building strategies employed by the highest-ranked sites.

When I say aggressive, I mean that the sites in question are not just pursuing links from high quality, relevant sites - they're pursuing links anywhere they can possibly get them, no matter the quality. The sites from which the links come are often quite keyword dense, with content crafted solely for rankings, not users.

These are, in many instances, sites with which our clients would not necessarily want to associate their brands or whose traffic wouldn't be interested in the services sold by the companies to which they link.

Clearly this type of activity can and does work - often long-term - despite search engines (read: Google) repeatedly telling
webmasters not to do it - which is why sites still do it, particularly when things get competitive in a given niche for the most valuable keywords.

Even though it's naughty, when you do this in tandem with a lot of equally naughty (and bad for users) keyword-dense text and keyword-heavy Titles and Meta tags, it often still works a treat - again, in the long term - even though Big G tells us is it shouldn't and it doesn't.

If it doesn't work, then why else would a business title its pages "Widgets, Widget Suppliers, Green Widgets, Widget, Widget UK, Widget Manchester" and then pursue a link from a site which is, say, about drain cleaner, which has equally catchy Titles and Meta?

We advise clients to avoid this sort of practice - a link should always bring greater benefit than just a bump in the SERPs, be it branding/advertising or traffic - and we certainly advise clients to avoid keyword stuffing on their pages as websites are for users - not search engines.

The problem is, no matter how much search engines say "don't do it, " "it" continues to work a treat and doesn't generally bring a swift and decisive punishment.

My question is then, is it ever acceptable, as a "white hat" SEO consultant, to use these sorts of practices to get rankings (where rankings=traffic=conversions, obviously) if it's the only way to get ahead in an uber-competitive SERP where everybody else is doing the same thing? e.g. If we can't  beat them fairly, is it ethical to cheat too?

Are the odds of "getting caught" acceptable if everybody at risk knows the risks - particulary when considering the fact that should Google issue a penalty, that penality should be placed upon the whole SERP?

Is it even worth Google penalising every site in that SERP if everybody's guilty of the same offence - which is why the risk itself
may be considerably lower in this type of SEO environment?

Any and all opinions and thoughts welcome.

Discussion

Posted by James on
I'd say no, it's not acceptable - practice what you preach, stick to your guns etc. If you call yourself a 'white-hat' SEO, then you should practice 'white-hat' SEO. If you're going to use nefarious techniques to squash SERP competitors, just own up and call yourself 'black-hat'. There's no room for a grey area in my book, it's good vs. evil all the way!
Posted by Mindy on
So you would never add in, say, extra keyword mentions to give something a little bit of a push - if you knew it would help? I mean, if your copy still made sense but would just not read quite as nicely as it perhaps should...
Posted by Alex Moss on
I agree with James. If we're SEO'ing for Google, why go against their own advice? Being on the dark-side my have some advantages, however, good eventually triumphs.
Posted by Paul Greenhalgh on
What you have to remember in all of this is that Google make money from selling adverts.

In order to sell more adverts, they need to retain their massive market share, in order to retain their massive market share, they need to be the most relevant and useful search engine and provide users with the best results. If their SERP pages are too spammy to use, people won't use them.

So in simplistic terms, Google HAVE to do something about the quality of traffic. They have many many human editors and they make continuing algorithm changes. Check up on the same spamming site in a year and I would be surprised if they were anywhere to be found. White Hat is a long game and it's worth it.
Posted by Mindy on
What if the tactics are spammy but the results are relevant? If you look at the porn or gambling industries you can't deny that someone looking for porn will find it pretty easily - and those guys don't use clean tactics.

In some instances there's no reason for Google to clean up a SERP - they get good click throughs on AdWords, the results are relevant - even if the players are cheating - and the bounce rates back into G aren't particularly high. So, what then?
Posted by Chris on
Interesting topic.

What google preaches and what google does as a commercial business are two entireley different things. Apparently the black hat tactic of purchasing backlinks is a big No, No; however type into google 'Buy backlinks' and look at the ppc adverts that are competing.

Stick to whitehat but be releastic about google's intentions.
Posted by James on
@Mindy

Writing for the internet is very different to writing for print, I think we can all accept that. It is the nature of the SEO industry that I am required to use keywords, some of which won't read perfectly (SEO Manchester for instance!) - there are ways round this, e.g. finishing a sentence on SEO, then starting the next on Manchester, however these are not always appropriate.

It is therefore an unfortunate fact that every now and again, keywords are included in copy, and the grammar and overall tone of that content suffers as a result - but to equate this with black-hat techniques is, I think, a little strong.
Posted by James on
@Mindy - consider that a firm dressing down ;-D
Posted by Mindy on
@Alex I'm speaking purely theoretically. For a lot of reasons I'd never knowingly do anything that could harm a client's business - through a search penalty or by driving away users. However, in some SERPs for some industries it has been impossible for, frankly, ever, to actually get into the top 100 much less onto the first page for important, traffic-driving keywords without being more aggressive than Google recommends.

I suppose this distinction has me wondering where the differences lies between "white hat" SEO practices and "ethical" SEO practices.@James There are those in the SEO industry who would tell you that shoehorning keywords into text isn't "white" - that at best it is "grey" (and therefore unacceptable) so...in small ways you do break the rules occasionally. Hopefully in a way which doesn't irritate readers/visitors too much (or provides them with a small "SEO Manchester" chuckle).@Chris I think it's a good point about Google's business interests. Someone here made a similar comment - is it really in Google's best FINANCIAL interests to have entirely spam-free SERPs? Does having a bit of a mess some of the time encourage people people to click on the ads instead?
Posted by Kirk Vang on
In need of unique content, SEO keywords? Out-source to me, Kirk Vang, SEO Guru extraordinaireIn need of unique content, SEO keywords? Out-source to me, Kirk Vang, SEO Guru extraordinaire
Posted by Dennis on
I had a long conversation this morning with a lady trying to sell be backlinks where she maintained that I did not understand how links worked... She quoted a company (Company X) that she had bought some 3000 links for which was consistently page 1 in its sector.
She then said to me: "If it is wrong, why have Google allowed us to operate for the last ten years and how come this Company X has not been penalised?".
What on earth could I answer?
And how can I possibly keep my white hat on and yet compete with Company X??
Posted by Mindy on
Dennis, there is a lot you can do to compete - and you also have the benefit of being in an industry that isn't (yet) as knowledgeable about SEO or as aggressive in approach as some sectors.

For starters, if you know your competitor is buying links - you can report her to Google. If it's one competitor that may work. If it's 100,000 competitors, it's less effective. But you probably don't need to bother.

In most instances, and in most industries, the people buying links from people cold-calling down the phone do not know anything about SEO, or don't employ the services of a very knowledgeable SEO company. In this instance, it's likely that the on-page SEO and the technical aspects of the site aren't all that great. So you can get ahead by being a lot better. Make sure your site is structured correctly, that the code is perfect for search engines and that every page targets the right keywords using the right semantic structure and good quality, keyword-rich content.

On-site SEO will get you VERY far. I've seen sites dominate SERPs on the back of on-site SEO alone.

Then you can find ways to get natural links back into your site - online PR, article marketing, viral content, blogging and social media. This is a lot harder, and will take a lot more time, but in the end will provide links of a much higher quality than the 3,000 cheap links quick that your competitor bought.
Posted by Dennis on
Thank you for comments - very re-assuring.

Turns out that it is quite probable that this lady was telling porkies anyway. Along the lines of "type in one of your keywords on Google - what would that be by the way? - right, see the top result - that's our client that is..." !
Utter BS.

Aahh..less naive each day that passes....
Posted by Kay Dinsdale on
"On-site SEO will get you VERY far. I've seen sites dominate SERPs on the back of on-site SEO alone."
I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with this. Way too many people jump straight onto the links, links and more links waggon leaving their onsite seo and content unattended. In many cases a few tweaks here and there can do wonders and is far easier than link building! In fact, sometimes I loathe having to leave off the onsite work to build links because there is so much more that can be done.

On the subject of the 'black hat' that we see others getting away with I've just read the post about Mahalo by Aaron Wall today and thought of you ;) http://www.seobook.com/black-hat-seo-case-study.
Posted by Mindy on
@Dennis - SEO can be confusing, especially when you're getting started, because there's a lot of conflicting advice out there. If you want some more bespoke advice, you can always give us a call (http://www.i-com.net/contact.html).

@Kay - I saw that article. Everytime people get worked up over what Jason Calcanis is doing I laugh. Mahalo is a cesspit with very little useful info. Mahalo pages that rank are exactly the thing that makes SERPs less relevant and so it will get a Google smackdown eventually - the same way Squidoo did (and the same way all those "shopping directory" sites did a few years back, and all the content-thin price comparison sites...). A lot of SEO's just don't like the fact that the guy who said SEO is pointless is doing a better job at gaming Google than they are.
Posted by seo company perth on
White hat advice is generally summed up as creating content for users, not for search engines, and then making that content easily accessible to the spiders, rather than attempting to game the algorithm.
Leave a Reply



(Your email will not be publicly displayed.)



Read Next Blog Post

Close