Black Hat versus White Hat

Written by  – 24.02.10

Black Hat SEO versus White Hat SEO: The grey area of Link-Building

The recent BrightonSEO event organised by Kelvin Newman of Site Visibility was a fascinating opportunity to hear about various local SEO companies’ opinions on Search Engine Optimisation. There were some interesting debates and angles, such as the poor lone SEO sceptic Jamie Freeman from Message Digital giving a presentation to a room of devoted SEOs.

As the afternoon came to an end the conversation turned to the controversial Blackhat v Whitehat SEO argument.

So what’s the difference between a Black Hat and White Hat? For those who are new to the world of online marketing, namely Social Media and SEO, our Search Engine Optimisation Training or Social Media Training may be of use to you.

Here, Jeremy Spiller from White Hat Media talks about the e-mails we all receive promising top ranking in Google – most likely via Black Hat techniques, as opposed to the White Hat approach he advovates:

The Black Hat: The Black Hat is the villain or the bad guy, the word being derived from western films where the “baddie” dons his black hat to contrast to the hero’s white one. But for our purposes – and very broadly speaking – the Black Hat will use SEO tactics such as spamdexing – attempting to redirect search results to particular target pages in a fashion that is against the search engines’ terms of service. This ‘so-called’ black area is a reality of SEO, and those that do get caught out – such as WordPress and Yahoo – can soon recover.

The White Hat: So surprise surprise, the White Hat is the hero or the good guy. In SEO this means someone who will produce results that last a long time, whereas black hats anticipate that their sites may eventually be banned either temporarily or permanently once the search engines discover what they are up to. Not sure which side of the fence you’re on? This blog post lists some of the associated techniques.

These terms are of course stereotypical – the Black Hat SEO brings to mind a certain ex-car salesman who’s just “in it to feed the family”. But these generalisations are dangerous and those Mad Black Hatters aren’t necessarily the baddies – buying links happens, as was repeated many a time at the BrightonSEO event.

In contrast to spending time building links and creating quality content,  when it comes down to it SEO is either “effective or not effective”. At Silicon Beach Training we were advised that some of our SEO activity could have been interpreted by Google as dubious. With Google informing the SEO community that algorithms were being updated all the time to identify companies using Black Hat techniques, we decided to clean up in order to be seen as squeaky clean by the Google bots. The result? An instant loss in traffic and ranking that has taken some time to regain.

Link building and buying is an enormous industry and there are very few industries of its size (“a $3 billion a year industry”)  that we don’t talk about; like prostitution and drugs, it’s considered a dirty industry that we don’t acknowledge. There’s a certain “fear of Google” and like it or not White Hatters and Black Hatters alike are out to get what they can from Google.

Okay so Black Hatters work with Google, as do we all.  The White Hat wearing amongst us want to beat Google in a different way. White Hats not only aspire to attracting traffic from Search Engines, but also from type-ins, referral links or favourites bookmarks. Personal relationships are crucial for all businesses, especially for those serving their local community, but the personal cannot be neglected anywhere online.

 

Being a Black Hat: The argument

Link buying happens. Whatever your ethics or tactics, SEO is fundamentally about driving traffic and page position. Even in a room of White Hat SEOs, the common consensus was that buying and selling links happens as Pete Handley from Vertical Leap noted in a blog post following the event. Many are clearly in favour of link purchasing, with one online Black Hat blogger even suggesting buying websites for this purpose – a way of getting around Google’s Webmaster Guidelines. Of course, whatever your technique, bought links and rubbish content are extremely easy to spot.

It’s just about personality. Perhaps where you sit on the Black/White Hat divide comes down to personality: do you enjoy change and quick success, or are you someone who wants to spend time creating and nurturing something? Which is better? A week at number one, or a lifetime at number 5?

Money money money. Being a Black Hat suggests ditching a long term strategy, as Mick from the infamous Syndk8 states: “Long term strategy? Keep it short term & fast cash? Money in the bank!“. But in an interesting argument, Rand from SEOmoz sums up the other side of the story:

“It doesn’t really come down to unknown math equations about how much a spammer or a white-hatter MIGHT be earning in 3,5, 10 years. It comes down to a difference in business philosophy. Should I sell my seeds for $50 each right now, or should I invest my seeds in growing plants that will produce ever-increasing returns over my entire life?”.

Spending hours and hours building quality links and creating quality content could be for nothing – when the Black Hat can spam spam spam and knock you off Google’s SERP #1.  But how long will the Black Hat’s position be maintained? Will quality win out in the long-term?

There’s no such thing as bad publicity. This is a classic Black Hat argument, but things become very different if it’s your business we’re talking about. Take a look at our suggested Social Media Policy where we explain that relationships and consistency are absolutely crucial when your marketing yourself / your business online.  It’s not about quick money or tatty content. It is about relationships and conversations.

Spam happens. There will always be a bad black hat to the white. Spam is not going to go away, and perhaps White Hat wearers should see the other side as a means of keeping themselves on their toes.  It seems the SEO world is one of constant negotiation: between gaining results and beating awful content.

Black versus White: What can we conclude?

Okay so White Hatters are the good guys, and Black Hatters are in it to manipulate the search engines, right? But making the most out of Google, isn’t that – whether we like it or not – what we are all doing?

The link-building market as it stands is not sustainable. Thousands are rushing into it, competition is increasing by the day, search engines are getting savvier and the job of an SEO is getting tougher. It is getting harder and harder to reap the rewards of link-building and SEO, and perhaps the damage has now been done – pure White Hat techniques are near impossible, and blooming hard work! Making the most out of any loophole in Google is hardly a crime, and when it comes to the internet there’s a lot of as yet undefined grey. We should definitely avoid assuming that Google is a democracy; Google may aspire to this, but the fact is that good businesses cannot depend on this.

In my role as Social Media Assistant to Silicon Beach Training I’ve encountered a lot of both the Black and White Hat worlds. And I’m personally donning my grey hat.

What side of the debate do you stand on? And where do you think the future of SEO is going?

Similar posts you may like

  1. Photography Competition – Black and White – NOW CLOSED!
  2. The Future of Journalism or The Death of Journalism
  3. How can I get dofollow links?
  4. Brighton SEO 2011 – Is there a Black Hat in the room? – a controversial talk by John McElborough
  5. “Black & White” Photography Competition Winners

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share This Post

Bookmark and Share

This entry was posted by Andy Trainer on Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 at 2:35 pm and is filed under SEO. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

22 Responses to “Black Hat versus White Hat”

SEO UK says:

Stick with best practice, it remains a solid foundation.

BB

25. 2. 2010 at 1:21 am

Klause says:

“Okay so White Hatters are the good guys, and Black Hatters are in it to manipulate the search engines, right?”

Errr, I thought both hats were trying to manipulate the search results?

Just one is more successful that the other.

25. 2. 2010 at 10:04 am

Heather Buckley says:

@ Klause I actually agree with you, the only reason for not using Black Hat techniques, as far as I can see, is to protect a domain, where the risk of being blacklisted by Google is too great. There are reasons not to create horrendous content simply for page rank if you want to protect your online image. However most web users won’t know if you are buying links or not.

Al else is fair game I agree that both Black Hat and White Hat SEO’s are doing the same thing, trying to position Sites at the top of Google.

25. 2. 2010 at 10:16 am

Mark Healim says:

I think your first comment, SEO UK (nice anchor text) shows the reality.
Take a look at his site http://www.kruse.co.uk and the keyword stuffing at the bottom.

And he thinks we should stick with “best practice”!

Hilarious.

The SEO Industry is hypocritical.

Its brimming over with people who talk a great game.

If the bloke in the video really was as good as he says then good on him. As long as noone got hurt and he doesnt splash it on my food.

25. 2. 2010 at 12:14 pm

Daryl Clark says:

I particularly like the excerpt where he disproves Jim Boykin. Not the I like seeing egg on anyone’s face but the SEO world is filled with people who will believe virtually anything an industry labeled expert says. There is no black hat or white hat IMO there are only winners and losers. I myself hat red socks.

25. 2. 2010 at 5:12 pm

Mark Walsh says:

Of the two speakers Jeremy inspires trust and the Paul did not with me (irrespective of what was being said). This is what I noticed as a non-SEO-pro observer who knows a bit about how intuition and how integrity shows up in the body.

Mark

25. 2. 2010 at 9:17 pm

Patrick Murphy says:

You are getting ggreat comments on Linkedin also. And yes buying links does happen, but by whom? The average company is really not aware. so do we keep the market alive?

25. 2. 2010 at 11:46 pm

The Future of Journalism « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] the day’s presentations with an interesting talk about his Black Hat background, and our earlier blog post discussed the White Hat v Black Hat debate. Interestingly, a similar debate ensued at the SES [...]

26. 2. 2010 at 3:23 pm

guest says:

Since Charlene tossed me to the sharks on this one, I’m going to weigh in with some thoughts that hopefully will make some sense as a group:
(1) Newspapers did not get into the financial shape they’re in today because of Google. That seems to be a popular sentiment as it is easier to blame someone else for your own demise, but putting all the fault at Google’s feet is simplistic at best.
(2) What I will buy is that technology has been a major contributor to the downfall of newspapers and newspaper companies. And therein lies the problem. For too long, newspaper companies kept thinking of themselves as, well, ‘newspaper’ companies. Sure, many of them jumped onto the internet early with web pages full of copy and/or links to copy. But how many devoted the time and resources to truly innovate? Very few. Instead they fancied themselves as innovators when they were merely riding the successes of others.
(3) Newspapers as an industry made a mistake when they decided (again, largely as an industry) that they couldn’t charge for content. What a huge mistake. SOME of us argued that if customers were paying for the print edition, they should also pay for our hard work on the Internet. Could they pay less for reduced production costs? Absolutely. Top brass caved to the notion that people wouldn’t possibly pay for content on the Internet. What bunk that was!
Today some of those same people have now decided, “Hey! Joe Consumer should be paying for what we produce!” The argument has been made time and again in hundreds of venues: That horse left the stable 20 years ago and it’s not coming back.
Top brass didn’t listen 20 years ago, and it isn’t listening today. Pay walls are being constructed at a feverish pace. They will collapse just as quickly because information companies (what ‘newspaper’ companies should have become long ago) gave away content for so long that it conditioned consumers to think ‘free’, no matter the content.
To get information/news consumers to pay these days will mean posting “gotta have” material behind the pay wall. That begs this question: With almost every newsroom in the country — maybe worldwide — considerably smaller than it was 24 months ago, can the industry report that kind of compelling material? Would they do it at the expense of meat-and-potato (courts, schools, city council) reporting just to make a buck? With depleted newsrooms struggling to keep their collective heads wrapped around the basics of their communities, I contend it can be one or the other, but most not both…at least not with the structures currently in place.
(4) I am intrigued by the notion posed in the title of this question…that link-selling may be the savior or the death of journalism.
Journalism will survive with or without link selling, because journalism is far more than newspapers. I am writing on the assumption (I know…dangerous…) that you are wondering if it will save the newspaper industry, or be the death of it.
Running on that premise, I honestly don’t believe it will have a great impact either way on content, nor will it enforce the dominance of Google.
If it does impact content, it will because top management completely and without remorse sold it’s soul. When that happens — and it will at some company — it will be crystal clear to consumers. At that point, the short-term gains will turn to long-term losses as viewers flee. Consumers are smarter than most care to acknowledge. On the Internet, they vote with clicks of their mouses.
Again, Google didn’t kill the newspaper industry and it won’t save it. Newspapers had the same opportunities to hire (or in same cases keep) some of the early web innovators. Instead they chose to hold on to the past.
They pay the price today. Too late? I don’t think so. But I do think there’s going to be more pain before new business models emerge. And there’s interesting work going on out there!

On 2/26/10 1:20 PM, Eric (Rick) Thomason added the following clarification:
Apologies for that being so long. I’m sure there are those who will disagree with some (if not all of what I’ve written). I will be interested to hear the thoughts of others.

Question Details:
——————–
Link-selling – will it save journalism or be the death of it?

I recently attended BrightonSEO where a new deal with the newspapers was announced – offering the chance to buy high-quality links on niche, local and national newspaper websites.

The audience got quite fired up and we’ve recorded some of the debate with our blog post – http://www.siliconbeachtraining.co.uk/blog/death-future-journalism/

Will it save journalism? Or just create more poor quality content and enforce the dominance of Google?

1. 3. 2010 at 9:51 am

Can selling links save newspapers? @ Technology News says:

[...] As good links are relevant for your page rank in Google, you can dress up your rank with link buying, or (the correct way) by link building using real content; if you want to go deeper into that issue read Natasha Stone’s informative post on the Silicon Beach Training blog. [...]

1. 3. 2010 at 12:15 pm

Wendy White says:

Putting down the long-term success of a website to SEO techniques is simplistic and short-sighted whether you are using ‘black’ or ‘white’ hat techniques.

Without quality content, and offering a service worthwhile to the user, being at the top of a Google search page doesn’t mean a damn. For example, in e-commerce if you are result #1, but result #3 gets more product sales due to a higher quality store setup with better sales techniques, who is more successful?

The success of website is not just about clicks. Just ask Seth Godin – http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/the-unclicking-84.html

3. 3. 2010 at 12:54 am

How can I get dofollow links? « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] own website? Well, you may want to avoid being linked to a questionable site for example in out Black Hat v White Hat article we have made all links to the Black Hat sites nofollow. Some SEOs claim that ‘Page [...]

5. 3. 2010 at 2:58 pm

How to Optimise for Long-Tail Search Terms « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] for search engines many of us will focus on ranking highly for one search term. This has often been the technique of black hat SEO too, with the method of embedding as many search terms in a website as possible, often at the [...]

12. 3. 2010 at 10:25 am

What’s the latest on nofollow links? « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] way to round things up. It seems that nofollows remain a grey area (as does SEO technique and the Black v. White Hat debate in general) and perhaps Google likes it that [...]

19. 3. 2010 at 4:37 pm

New SEO Training Course « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] one-day training course will demonstrate how to optimise for the web whilst avoiding dodgy Black Hat SEO techniques such as spamming or buying links, which could cause a Google penalty, or worse – [...]

6. 4. 2010 at 12:19 pm

SEO vs Social Media Marketing « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] we discussed on our post about Black Hat v White Hat SEO, some go as far to liken SEO to prostitution or drugs in that it’s a multi-million pound industry [...]

9. 4. 2010 at 11:28 am

Why should I be guest blogging? « Silicon Beach Training Blog says:

[...] re-writes of your content to directories such as EZineArticles), which can be spammy / borderline black hat, low quality and fail to reach many [...]

5. 5. 2010 at 11:15 am

SEO Training Norwich says:

Quality content will always win. Not so sure on all this black hat linking. Surely if Google took into consideration all the link factors; rather than spend time gaining quality links we would be better spending time getting competitors websites banned by creating links for them on link farms paid link mediums etc…

19. 8. 2010 at 7:57 am

Sam McKenzie says:

This whole blackhat/whitehat thing in SEO circles is pretty much a myth. Sure, there are more aggressive tactics than others to use content, acquire backlinks, etc. But the reality is that the entire SEO industry is about *manipulating* search results. Whatever hat color you want to call it, they’re all about manipulating the search engines to get their content ranked high. Am I wrong?

9. 9. 2010 at 6:48 am

Affordable SEO Services says:

I would say, it is important that the content targets strong. If there are Doorway Pages in Black Hat , White Hat makes better use of page elements by breaking up the page visually using a SEO-friendly headings.

Affordable SEO Services Company

5. 1. 2011 at 6:45 am

Samuel Symes says:

Unless its natural, all link building is Blackhat!

I often read many posts where SEO experts frown upon Blackhat strategies but then openly promote link building. According to Google’s TOS, natural links are links others point back to your site without the need to pay for it, ask for it, comment for it or insert a link in your article to gain it.

So, if all link building strategies are in effect manipulating search engine results, doesn’t it stand to reason that all link building is Blackhat and the majority of off-page SEO practiced by SEO firms is in effect, Blackhat?

Isn’t having an online business all about rankings, traffic and conversions in the first place and search engine optimization should essentially be a technical, and possibly not a moral or ethical issue?

7. 9. 2011 at 6:18 am

google places seo says:

google places seo…

[...]Black Hat versus White Hat « Silicon Beach Training Blog[...]…

27. 9. 2011 at 12:24 am

Leave a Reply

 

Follow Silicon Beach Training

Join uson

Training Grants

Training Grants

Categories

Upcoming courses

See all course dates »

Home | Sitemap | Print |