Grovelling for Googles scraps

Just been reading a thread, with comments from G Guy, at WMW on brandyupdate.

Couldn't help thinking how much the comments from other posters reminded me of Medieval times when the Master or Lord at the high table would throw the left over scraps of food to the scum peasants scrabbling around on the floor.

There are an awful lot of people with their noses where the sun don't shine

Personally I prefer a bit of dignity and hard work to come back.
JMHO

Long live SEO Chat!!!

The grovel factor is definitely high, grateful it wasn't another kick, I suppose.....there'll be more of those though.

No kidding!
I had similar thoughts doing the same thing as you.
Terms that popped into my head were boot-lickers, brown-noses and lap-dogs. And wide-eyed newbies.

And for what? Misleading, bullspit riddles. No thanks.
Not to mention outright lies. HIDDEN TEXT CONTINUES TO BE REWARDED NO MATTER GG SAYS!!! I see it daily.
And of course, on all the TRULY important issues and REAL questions, GG is as silent as stone. He picks and chooses just what tulip fields he wants to tip-toe through.

(Then again, the hippocrit in my brain tells me that, yeah sure, I know I'll go peek again. After all, how ya gonna separate bullspit from fact, unless you go and become familiar with the bullspit!)

And while we're on the topic, about the hidden text -- Googlebot never requests my css file, so how would it have any idea what text is visible or not?

Well, as a "black hat tendencies" type person (according to a person on this board) I heartily agree. What I find wild is that grown adults can mewl and beg like this. Oh well.

I think it's time to form a group of those dedicated to SEO for all engines at all costs. The client is king. If he pays to rank high, it's the SEO's job to get them that ranking by all means possible. Otherwise your client will be beat up by the spam flinging doorway page using creep down the street. This is like a war movie wher the high minded army gets it's *** handed to them by the "not following the "rules" geurillas".

Long live the fighters..

Mike

complainer css files are a popular way of people spamming google. css files aren't picked up by google.

I wouldnt recommend it, my whole site is run on css and to be honest in the early days I did think about it, but I'd rather stick to the task and do it the legit way then the losers way.

My personal opinion.

Darren

I have never used this technique although I see it's possibility. But I find the term "losers' way" to be interesting. You get rewarded with $$ for high rankings and traffic. If this is for a client site, they get $$ and give you $ for doing it. Sounds to me like a winner.

If you mean "not ethical" according to some etherial and ever changing standard that everyone seems to yap about but doesn't make anyone any $$ then I understand your comment.

Some people, and I am not saying "everyone" hides behind "ethics" when it's a cop out for not having to be judged on merits of success. Customers pay for results not the social aspirations of the SEO. If wearing a shiny badge of ethics makes you money and ranking yehaaw. Right on. This isn't medecine or finance or criminal law, it's SEO.

If it's against an engines rules, don't do it if you fear getting banned. If it's not against the rules do it and enjoy it. If it doesn't work, dump it. If it's downright wrong on every count but seems to work and google doesn't do a thing about it, even if it breaks their own guidelines... well... do what you think the client will pay you for.

IMHO

Mike

No arguments here MikeV. When ethical SEO tactics don't work b/c you're being beaten out by blatant spammers, either join them or lose a client.

When I'm doing SEO either on my own sites or for others I have to ask myself (as do we all), is Google paying my bills? Where do I owe my loyalties?

I have been paid for SEO on occasion, not because I advertise but because I succeed. When people do offer to pay me for my services they are paying me to get them top placements. Here is what they are not paying me for:

They are not paying me so I can have a bigger bank account
They are not paying me so I can improve my reputation
They are not paying me because they want to go from number 156 to number 37 on Google
They are not paying me to promote "ethical" SEO tactics
And they are not paying me to "play nice"

What they are paying me to do is:

Win and make them money

If I don't use every tactic available to do that am I ethical? No I'm not. They way I view it is this: if I get paid to do a job and I can do that job but don't for whatever reason yet take their money I am only one thing ... I am a thief.

And that, myfriends, is not ethical.

And so I say to you Mike, thank you. Thank you for being one of the first to stand up and tell it like it is. Finally a voice of reason in this excuse-based industry.

If you can't get top rankings just suck it up and appologize, don't hide behind ethics. We're all in it for money not our health. Just stop stealing it from your clients. If you can't get placements for your clients tell them to go elsewhere. Hell, tell them to go to Mike. At least he's ethical in the way he should be, to the people that are giving them his hard-earned cash. Google has enough of it in my opinion.

the issue is as you say ... making money ... but the answer is not as simple as you lay it out. if you cross the se lines .... and they decide to BAN YOU .... a client with possibly hundreds of thousands invested in a "brand" is F_ _ _ _ _. so the question is balancing the risk and rewards ...., if you have a "throw away" brand ... why not cheat .... but if you have a valuable brand ... you do NOT want to risk having it washed out. so there is the immediate cash possibility and the long term cost potential to weigh ....

that is exactly why you see these worthless sites using the black hat techniques ... they have nothing to loose ....

IF the se would go back to permanently banning black hat spam ... then that would make life easier for everyone .... make the decisions easier for everyone ....

i do agree with one thing ... there is no such thing as "spam" on a moral or logical basis .... it is strictly a matter of ones point of view ..... kinda like kids .... the old saying is " a spoiled brat is a kid that acks just like yours, but lives next door" .....
so "spam" is nothing more or
than what someone else does that you do not like ....

Up to now G just hasn't had the "ways and means" to deal with those operating outside the guidelines, but this may well change soon.
I don't think they'll specifically try to ID and target rule breakers, just change their MO to nullify their techniques.

IMO, the "official" acknowledgement of the introduction of Semantics, apart from improving SERP relevance, is also the first step in countering on-page "optimization".

When they can accurately determine the topic of a page without relying on KWs is the day KW "stuffing" of all types becomes largely redundant.

If they semantically (is that a word?) determine the topic of a page won't this just lead to people keyword stuffing with synonyms, stemmed words, etc?

How else but by the words on the page do you determine it's topic?

I am trying to determine exactly what "black hat SEO" is defined as.

Would someone post some examples of "blatent spammers" who are at the top of the SERPS and explain what they are doing so that I can understand?

Thanks very much

I could not agree more. Some clients are willing to risk a ban, and "nobody" really gets banned anymore. Quite a few things that are some SEO call white hat tecniques are in fact in direct violation to the quality quidelines. There are alot of grey shades between white and black and these days you might get away with almost anything. It is a long time since I heard of a permanent Google ban. Some time ago we did some SEO consulting from a public hospital, and THEY requested something that called for a very dark shade of grey. I do not belive that they ever will be banned or penatalized by Google or any other searchengine.

If a client makes a specific request and are willing to go trough with it even after being explaied the possible risk, then I will never say no.

It is isnt so much that a client will be thrown out. Google hardly evers manually throws a site out nowadays. It is that the search engines are striving to automatically detect the doorway spammers, keyword stuffers, cloakers etc. and when they do they can expect to fall off the radar. Thi sis fine if the client knows the risk. Most don't. Most havent got a clue what is in the Google guidelines and TRUST the SEO to not only provide top rankings, but to provide them for the long term and not have to be changing domains every few months or even every year is bad enough. I've seen it happen loads of times. Some of my competitors do the black hat thing. I normally end up with their client though in the end. Also the black hat methodology is like cookie cutting. It is easy to install a cloaking script (two a penny nowadays), download a doorway page generator, keyword stuff or join a link farm etc.
It takes a great deal more know-how and skill to optimize a site without the need of the 'ole spam tricks. I don't buy either that Spam sites are always at the top of the serps. I have quite a few VERY competitive terms at the top for clients with methods that follow the Google guidelines. Spammers dont affect me at all. They are rarely above me in the serps and they need to make a living too. What riles me greatly is the spam merchants who don't inform their clients about the risks and the fact that what they are doing could be undone within a few months after an algo tweak to catch their poor quality doorway pages or whatever. There are gray areas and a SEO isnt doing their job if they dont go right up to the line. Following the guidelines doesnt mean you cant find ways to optimize that the guidelines don't cover either ;-)
I see my job as an SEO not just to get clients at the top, but for it to be [b]long lasting[/]. Like I say the spammers dont worry me at all, I get good business from them eventually. It's the conning of clients into the belief that what they are doing is 'professional' and without risk that pees me off.