Breaking into someone’s server or web site is not the same as manipulating Google algorithm. it is totally different

They told me, that there should be enough room for multiple sites in the top 10. I said that I agree, but if I could own the top 10 for a specific keyword, I would, and then they started calling me selfish, an idiot and what ever.

I still see all my competitors like you do: They are all soldiers, and I need to get first to the flag! Although as you say: Within the limits, and within the law!

Very good article!

I’m stills new in this business, and I don’t know if I needed to cross the line.

I think you have given much to the business of SEO in recent years, so past sins should not be held against you.

Keep up the good work.

[We people from the Vestsjaelland-area have to stick together... ]

Can you also be hired only to do creative things on the expense of my competitors?

Click fraud is the act of creating invalid clicks on links that are paid for on a CPC basis.

More here:
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/google-click-fraud.html

you said: “search engines want us to call it “spam”, in an attempt to run away from their responsibility as “editors” of their media.

I am calling it spam. I am using this word.

Linguistically spam is something that is unwanted. It doesn’t matter if a human sent it or a machine served it up.

Spam can be automated, a product of technology and the lack of humans. But it can also be sent by humans as in getting spamed by email.

I am explaining the appropriate use of the term “spam” to indicate getting something you didn’t want or ask for.

If engines EDITED out useless pages that would be great. But they want the revenue. So click fraud is rampant. The search engine humans decide to leave it in because it makes them money.

However, that is why I will continue to use the term spam for crap content that shouldn’t be there.

good discussion!

I don’t see the difference between this and when smart PR-people get stories pushed into newspapers that shouldn’t have been there (or written the way it was). It happens every day.

The only difference is, that getting crap into Google requires technical skills – getting crap into newspapers requires human skills.

Also when it happens in newspapers we call it “bad editing” – but in search the engines want us to call it “spam”, in an attempt to run away from their responsibility as “editors” of their media.

The fact that Google have chosen to “edit” its media with computers rather than humans, as newspapers do, is their choice. They still have the responsibility for what comes out.

Search engines are rigged in all kinds of ways. But when a page of crap content is placed only to capture traffic = ads = revenue that that doesn’t deliver the actual info the simple citizen is trying to find it wastes their time.
Fair enough, we all now search engines are rigged.
When you are able to outsmart the algorithm which allows this page to show at the top of the search result proves SEO’s know how to do their job. However it’s still spam, a bogus cyber trash page of content that wastes the viewers time and makes them have to continue to click to find what they were actually looking for.
Time is precious. More precious than money. You can never get it back. You lose it forever. That is why it is “spam” that is the meaning. Something you didn’t want, and didn’t ask for, that wastes your time. Spam is a bad result.

Love it.

> In the publics mind, “black hat” = “illegal hacker” and “spammer” = “illegal emailer/scum-of-earth”.

I think there is a big difference in how the public look at the “black hat” word in Europe vs US. I don’t think we, here in Europe, look at the word as being as bad as you may be right they do in the US.

Maybe its related to how we also swear a lot more – also in public and on TV here in Europe

> Then why are we using/endorsing the “black hat” phrase in our industry? Why are we using/endorsing spammer?

I don’t think Black Hat SEO is spam – that is unless you believe that “spam” is what the engines say it is: Basically breaking any of their guidelines. I don’t.

As I have stated many times before: I don’t think “Search Engine Spam” exist. There are good results and bad results. That’s it. Sometimes search engines get manipulated to show sites in top results that they should not have shown.

No matter what the cause of it is it’s the engines responsibility. Just like it’s the responsibility of a news paper editor to make sure only correct stories gets in the news paper. Even in a manually edited news paper cleaver PR-experts and political spin doctors every day manage to “feed” stories into news papers that should not have been there. But we don’t call that spam. We just call it “bad editing”

However, that is a different discussion. This blog post was really more about what I, as an SEO, think is acceptable to do – no matter if you see yourself as white, grey or black hat – or don’t like hats labels at all. And its about the fact that there is a huge difference between being very aggressive in your marketing – and then breaking laws, as geeks that hack your website do.

Then why are we using/endorsing the “black hat” phrase in our industry? Why are we using/endorsing spammer?

In the publics mind, “black hat” = “illegal hacker” and “spammer” = “illegal emailer/scum-of-earth”.

Until we stop using those words, the public is always going to think of this industry as scum-of-earth illegal hackers attempting to corrupt their google. Which is just what the engines want.

Hackers are not criminals and what you describe above is not hacking.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Hacker

How you feel when when ppl refer to Black Hat SEO as criminal is same as how some people feel when you refer Hackers as criminals….

I’ĺl read the book you recommended.

I am primarily writing on this blog to the pro SEO community, so I often assume my readers know a lot about this business. I do realize that this may lead to some confusion by readers that don’t have the same background. I am sorry for that.

When I talk about hacking here – it is “marketing hacking” we usually talk about. Breaking into other peoples websites or networks to gain some kind of advantage. This is surely criminal in all countries I know of and to me there is indeed a very clear line between that – and anything else strictly illegal, and then Black Hat SEO or any agressive marketing techniques.

That line is relatively easy. The line between legal and not.

My main point in this post is:

1) I think it is OK to break rules – such as Googles guidelines, to achive your goals.

2) I do think there is a limit to what you should do – even if it is legal, if what you do seriously hurt innocent bystanders.

Doing so I actually do believe is honourable. It is honourable to fight hard for your goals. But only if you know your limits – not just the ones set by law but also by your moral and generally good ethics.

I do not really see any conflict between being honourable and Black Hat SEO. Not the way I define the two.

the pursuit of knowledge and laws is an old story and quite a lot of times along history investigators had to step beyond laws to achieve it.

it is funny, not to say ridiculous, to me mixing ‘black hat’ and ‘honour’ in example. it is not morality and honor, it is just pure business ans money in a world (search engines) with private rules, not public real ones.

Black Hat SEOs can be assholes or not, thin or fat, tall or shot just as any other person. I don’t want to be misunderstood, as a simple person I respect ethics so I’m somehow with you but not the way you are getting to it.

Regards