For a long time, I've held the personal belief that being the best search marketer you can be requires knowledge of a vast information set. This includes black hat tactics - the unethical, the illegal, and those that merely violate a website's TOS or search engine's guidelines (or walk that fine line). Naturally, the SEO blogosphere has a number of places where this material is discussed, from forums and blogs to wikis and articles, but my stance has historically been to never suppress this type of content on SEOmoz, and in fact to encourage discovery and discussion. I've found that, at least for me, the more I know about what black hats do and what tactics exist, the better I am at every aspect of my job - from advising clients to protecting sites to identifying manipulative competitors and knowing which boundaries to cross and which to avoid.
However, a series of experiences provided a catalyst to re-examine my position regarding our publication. In the spirit of transparency, I'll describe them as best I can to help provide an accurate perspective:
- We've received some harsh criticism from those who engage in black/gray hat practices and been asked to STFU about these topics. Spam, obviously, succeeds more when less is known about it, so it's natural for those with a potential interest to keep it close to the vest.
- We've gotten some very angry comments/emails/posts written about exposing specific sites that engage in manipulative practices as well, both from the site owners themselves and from those who don't think "outing" spammers is an appropriate practice for those in the SEO field.
- Several folks who work for search engines have expressed disappointment and frustration in our open discussions of these topics, both because they're worried that our coverage will appear to be an endorsement and because they feel a wide audience with knowledge of this material, even when accompanied by an appropriate warning, may attempt more abuse of their systems (and perhaps for other reasons that I haven't heard as well).
- We recently lost a very large, very important contract due to the client asking a respected source in the search community about our work and hearing that our work is "black hat and could get them banned from the engines." Apparently, this association came not from any "black hat" work we've done, but from the blog post content :(
- In our upcoming Expert Seminar here in Seattle, we mentioned that search engine representatives would not be present, and despite my specific announcement that the seminar would contain no black hat material, this was seen as a sign to some that we'd be going into gray/black hat territory. The real reason we don't have search engineers is that we have a partnership with Third Door Media (who runs the SMX conference series), and we wanted to be as careful as possible to position our "training" as true "training" with none of the conference elements (blogging, search reps, multiple panels, expo hall, keynotes, etc). In hindsight, I should have made this crystal clear from the beginning. Let me be 100% clear now - the reason for no search reps at the show has NOTHING to do with presenting black hat material. We honestly wouldn't even know how to give high-level material on that topic, as none of us have ever run spammy, manipulative (or even affiliate) sites. We did this to differentiate the seminar from the format of shows like SES San Jose and the SMX series. To be bluntly honest, if it weren't for this concern, I would have gladly invited search engine reps and been honored if they would have accepted. It would be good for the seminar, the attendees, and the SEOmoz brand to have them present.
- In that same conference, we also gave the horribly misleading title of "Black Hat Tactics & Search Engine Penalties/Dodging Spam Detection" to Nick Gerner's presentation. Although the descriptive text below does a good job explaining what Nick's actually presenting on, a far more accurate title - "Avoid Being Labeled a 'False Positive' - How Black Hat Tactics Impact White Hat Websites" - should have been given from the start.
- Blog posts such as our WB Friday Give it Up and White Hat Cloaking suggested that we might be endorsing or recommending black hat tactics. I believe this is due to misinterpretation or a careless reading/listening to the caveats and warnings we provided, but it's true that particularly on the web (but nearly everywhere in life), content often comes through with a very different perception than how the message was intended.
Now, naturally, there are literally thousands of topics we could cover on the blog, and while we believe in diversity of information and I personally believe in sharing white hat, gray hat, black hat, and every other kind of known method that Internet marketers conduct business, I feel that perhaps the SEOmoz community would rather we expend effort on content that any and every website can use, and can/will turn elsewhere to learn about black/gray hat tactics.
So today, I'm bringing this issue to you, our community, as a pointed question: Do you believe SEOmoz should continue to share gray/black hat tactics & content via the public blog & articles?
Your feedback here is greatly appreciated, and we will take it extremely seriously.
BTW - For those wondering how black hat SEOmoz really is, the truth is that we're pansies. While I'm fascinated by web spam and all the subtleties and fine points that surround it, we've never recommended anything more gray hat than some user agent cloaking to get rid of duplicate content (which, according to Stephan Spencer's post, all the major engines endorse) and some link buying (which, while it does violate search engine guidelines, is, IMO, a necessary part of many link building campaigns and very light gray on the hat scale). We've never had a client's site get banned from the engines, never had a person who got advice from us in Q+A report back that our suggestions got them into trouble, and never had to hide a client or site we worked on out of the fear of being penalized. Matt Cutts noted on his blog years ago that one of our clients bought a link from the Harvard University student newspaper - that's as far as I can ever recall pushing the guidelines. And long before that, pre-SEOmoz, I personally engaged in some foolishly underhanded link trading (apology is here).
For those who are interested in my personal take on search spamming as a general practice, read this black hat vs. white hat search spam debate I participated in with Mick Sawyer in June of 2005 (still surprisingly relevant & enjoyable!).
Even the most reputable of preachers teaches about the devil.
I would just make sure that you use a disclaimer (maybe a bar that goes from green to red), showing the level of black hat "heat" a certain topic has, and that you are not promoting the use of the tactic in a client's site because of x potential consequences.
I think the reason you've come under a little fire is because of the way some of the presentations have come across - most notably the "Give It Up" session, which by the way, I found quite enjoyable.
My vote is to keep it coming.
Novel Idea Sean!!
Maybe Rand should do that with 'offensive level', as well? Since some people have been bringing up criticism about that recently.
First: Full disclosure: I do not represent SEOmoz in any way.
Second: I am sorry to hear you lost a big contract over this (really).
Third: Whoever is behind that contract was a dumbass who doesn't research, apparently, in any way. This is not your problem, and there is very little you can do to protect yourself from ill informed opinions of dumbasses.
My take on this is that you should provide information that is useful to your users and subscribers. I believe discussion of grey/black things has been dealt with very responsibly here. You should continue to inform your users of what is cutting edge and out there, and you do so, and that should imo continue.
If I could critique an aspect of how you run things, it would be a critique of the uses of titles. The flamboyant and link baity use of titles is sometimes something that can and does negatively impact you.
Titles should be accurate and descriptive. I believe you fail in this sometimes (but not too often), and use titles intended to create a stir, rather than to accurately and descriptively describe the article. This is not useful to you or your users and I see it as a disservice.
Back to positive stuff: You run a great ship Rand. Please don't let ill informed people steer it by bowing to this type of thing. You are typically outstanding in your judgment, no need to question it in this instance.
Think of your users and subscribers, what is best for them is best for SEOmoz.
As always: Thanks for asking your users their opinions.
Totally Agreed! Couldn't have put it in better words.
I concur with feedthebot.
Also - sorry you lost a contract. At the same time, I would question the decision maker of that contract. Doing research is good - in fact, it is unquestionably a great tactic. Listening to a competitor or another industry big wig that says "SEOmoz is black hat and will get your site banned" is quite shallow.
Why is it shallow?
First - bad mouthing a competitor is not a good sales technique...and it is often a LIE. Any time I hear a salesperson tell me that their competitors cheat, lie or steal - I hang up the phone, excuse that individual or walk away. Don't tell me that your competitors suck - what I want to know are the hard facts...then let me make my own damned decision. I don't want the sales reps opinion unless it is about their own product. If I ask how it compares to the competition - simply talk about your product and the absolute differences...send over a side by side feature comparison...whatever. Just don't bad mouth your competitors or you lose!
Second - Anybody that believes the negative opinion of a competitor (even if they are a 'trusted' source) and makes a major company decision off of that single opinion should probably reconsider the facts. Investigate the actual customers of SEOmoz - while I believe they might be skewed if the list is provided by SEOmoz, I do believe that a company will ante up one of their worst experiences if asked (especially on potentially large agreements) so the decision maker can make a wise decision.
I don't know the full details behind it...obviously I am somewhat hypocritical with my own comment because I have not investigated the 'decision maker's' side of the story. I would go ask - but I am too busy right now. lol ;)
I say keep up the great work on the SEOmoz blog - don't stop now!
As I've mentioned on my blog, "SEO is 5% what you do and 95% what you don't do." As far as I'm concerned, there's no way to be a white hat without a thorough knowledge of how black hats operate. You need to understand the illegitimate tactics so you know how to avoid them and how they're likely to impact the future of the algorithms.
Not to put too fine a point on it, if the black hats don't like it, tell them to STFU back. The web community at large has just as much right to know this as they do.
As far as exposing specific websites goes, there is a simple key to maintaining a good reputation, in search or otherwise: Don't do anything to deserve a bad reputation. If people don't like having their spammy tactics outed, they shouldn't have been using them in the first place.
And, as far as the search engines go, they should care more about spammers than those who study them. In my eyes, SEOmoz does nothing but promote the best side of SEO. Every search engine should give gracious thanks that resources like this exist to properly educate people. I'm sure you've turned more people away from black hat than toward it.
Censorship is a bad thing. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away. Do not omit useful information from SEOmoz about any topic of importance to your community, including black hat SEO.
I was going to leave a comment telling you not to second-guess yourself so much. Then, I realized that comment would probably just make you second-guess yourself. Then I started second-guessing whether or not I should leave the comment and, well, it was all downhill from there.
On the black-hat issue, I'm getting a little tired of the idea that white hats can't talk about black-hat tactics because it would somehow violate the SEO code we all apparently agreed to. I do believe there's such a thing as professional courtesy, but that extends to individuals, not tactics. If a fellow SEO tells you something in confidence, it should stay in confidence, white-hat or black-hat. Likewise, if you have an issue with a specific person or site, a public blog isn't usually the appropriate channel for that issue. You take it up directly with that person, if possible, or with the powers that be. Public outing of someone specific is a last resort.
As to black-hat tactics, though, I think we have every right to discuss tools and techniques that are in common use. Frankly, black-hat tactics effect and often harm white hats, either directly or by forcing search engines to change the game. To do our jobs well, we have to be able to talk about all kinds of tactics and see the big picture.
Rand,
As a new SEO, I really appreciate the black/grey hat coverage that SEOMoz provides. Not because, as some of the commenters here might believe, I want to run out and try these tactics out at the first chance, but simply to know what's out there.
Insight into the way black hat SEOs operate is a great help for me when it comes to learning the industry landscape, not to mention dealing with clients. Many of the accounts I handle have delved into black hat work at some point in the past and are happy to threaten to return their business to "some guy in the Phillipines working out of his basement who will promise me 50 links a day," when they don't show up on page 1 of the SERPs after a month or so. SEOMoz has helped me address those issues knowledgably.
So, I say keep it up. Virtue doesn't presuppose naivete, and vice versa. I can't really believe that the mere existence of black hat tactics and info here will make me or any other new SEO who wants to be reputable into some cackling, black-hatted villain.
Information gathered from reading black/grey hat techniques is invaluable to me. We only do above board business, but we aren't naive enough to think that our client’s competitors follow the same rules we do. I NEED to know what the deal is with the less than white hat world in order to formulate strategies that will combat those techniques. I would much rather read about them on SEOmoz than some other blog or forum where I might not trust the information and/or know the people that are spouting it out.
Your voice is crucial here; I would assume that most of us (SEOmoz readers) count on your perspective to weed out much of the web content that we would otherwise need to spend all day every day sorting through. So YES, keep posting about the black and grey and let your readers make the decision to filter your content by not reading it if they don’t want to.
Rand, the fact you are discussing this dilemma openly is a clear sign you should continue to cover grey/black hat techniques when it makes sense to you. SEOmoz's greatest strength is how willing you are to share what information you acquire and starting down the path of "tactic a is ok to discuss but tactic b is not" will quickly cause this blog to lose much of what makes it such a fantastic resource in the first place. Indeed, I could see 'pulling back' having an eventual negative affect on your business in lost readers and premium subscriptions.
I will be surprised if the voting comes out in favor of you suppressing information and I would suggest that you listen to your community.
Wow I cant believe people have issues with openly talking about how to achieve rankings on search engines regardless of the color of it. Open your minds people.
As for clients not being able to tell if you conduct unethical SEO or not, well that is just unfortunate.
Rand, just a thought. You could do Pro Member only posts or videos that discuss these tactics when they're very controversial. It would limit the exposure to the www while still providing value to your pro members. A much smaller audience but one that would probably benefit greatly from the info. Plus we're paying for the good info ;) as opposed to someone that might just stumble across the info for their own underhanded needs.
But my vote is still for an open discussion on the main blog.
Wow. I was seriously going to post that. Yes! Have some 'Black hat articles' or something like that, maybe blackboard friday (for pro members...) .....
I'll give you a banana if you do it Rand. :) lol
This is certainly something we've considered (a PRO blog section; we hadn't thought of it in the light of black hat or grey hat tactics). It would negate some of the negative repercussions of writing pubically about "dodgy" tactics.
I think you'd still have to be carefull about this - as when people cant see behind closed doors then the rumours start etc.
I agree, and you know that articles will escape 'into the wild' even if they are behind the PRO barrier. I think if you expose sites you run the risk of annying some possibly powerful black hat foes...
True, screen shots, copy and paste, it will find its way out of the 'pro' section.
I'm glad I kept reading. This is the same thing I was going to suggest with one addition. noindex nofollow the content you have on blackhat topics. Make them as difficult to find as possible. Then, as has been stated above, label the sh@#$t out of the articles.
Honestly, my main concern when reading this wasn't that we'd be slighted out of information we should be getting on black-hat action, but that SEOmoz could be strong-handed into a corner and forced to lose the opportunity for corporate growth. No, I'm not sucking up, I just know how that type of impact can ripple all the way down to us, the consumers.
I say provide the info, but lock it down. Do not put it in the public domain. Do not provide it to anyone who stumbles on your blog and doesn't really understand who SEOmoz is. Control it.
Best of Luck Rand et al.
I would compare white hats learning about black hat to security experts learning how hackers work. You would never succeed in securing a site if you didn't have a deep knowledge about how it can be hacked. Alternatively you could see it as a psychologist getting into the mind of a criminal.
Having a knowledge of black hat is the same for being a good SEO. You can protect the site your are SEO'ing against blackhat techniques, learn how to detect when black hat is used by your competitors, and also learn more about how the serach engines work.
One last thing... how about this for an SEOmoz badge idea... "SEO pansie".
Seems to me the question isn't about white hat vs. black hat... the more appropriate question is, what is SEOmoz?
Is it all things SEO to all people? If so then black hat has every right to be discussed.
Is it a guide to becoming a well-rounded professional in an emerging industry? If so then black hat should probably only be discussed as others have indicated: as "how to build a better mousetrap" concepts.
Is it a guide to appeasing Google? If so then black hat wouldn't be welcome, unless we're discussing the hypocritical nature of Google itself.
Is it a photo album of baby seals? If so, then where the hell are all the seal photos?
That's all I got.
Rand! Your letting us down! We want our seal pictures!
As an employee, I like to think we want to be the first two things on your list and I'm included to agree that black hat should be welcome as a topic.
Cover it all. Don't let the quality of this blog erode by caving in to the candy *** goody two shoes segment, the let's-keep-it-corporate-friendly-because-it's-more-profible segment, the Googler/Matt Cutts segment, or the STFU blackhat mafia segment.
Thanks for keeping it real and gritty.
Rand,
Keep doing what you're doing. Although I'm not all that familiar with blackhat techniques, I'm always amazed at their creativity. It seems to me that some really great whitehat ideas can come from studying the blackhats.
SEOmoz is a fantastic source of SEO information, and you wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't give us a balanced look at the entire industry.
The only disconcerting thing is that you lost a client. That's the price you pay for the openness that has always been a part of SEOmoz. As you move towards becoming more of a media/teaching company and less of a consulting company (that's the direction that it seems that you're taking), losing clients will matter less and less.
You're doing a great job, and I think that you've always made it clear that SEOmoz does not endorse blackhat techniques.
I agree, it was very sad to hear you lost a client. Yet the fact that you haven't let that make you shut up shop is down to what differentiates seomoz from a lot of other companies where the blog and community are secondary to getting business out of it. Bravo for standing your ground.
I really hope that you keep covering everything there is to know about SEO. The good, the bad, and the ugly and so this also includes Black Hat techniques.
I personally find it very good to know what techniques people are using online in regards to SEO.
One suggestion that I have is to just clearly add a disclosure to the bottom of "Black Hat or Gray Hat" posts that says something like this:
Disclosure: We at SEOmoz do not use or recommend the use of the above techniques but are disclosing them to raise awareness of what people are currently doing online in regards to SEO.
So, please keep them coming. I especially love the part of pointint out the bad guys! :-)
for sure..
"Disclosure: We at SEOmoz do not use or recommend the use of the above techniques but are disclosing them to raise awareness of what people are currently doing online in regards to SEO."
I am as black hat as Rand is....
Heck the only mention of my name in a blog post by Rand in SEOMoz is about my discovery of a black hat Wiki tactic. Guess what, I also run internet marketing campaigns on behalf of half the Chicago universities and hospitals. Does thinking about black hat or even coming up with black hat tactics make you a black hat SEO? No, it just makes you the best SEO you can ever be.
A good SEO always knows where to draw the line with Google. I guess that is the trick really. It is all about drawing the line the furthest without risking your clients, I guess. Anyhow you got my vote on learning more about blackhat. By the way, just curious, that "respected source" you mentioned- Did that person actually refer that lost client to an SEO company? I cannot think of a single SEO company who does not follow gray hat (in the eyes of Google) or else Google would mention something about white hat link building practices when defining a good SEO (and the word "link building" is not mentioned in that document). We all do link building so are we black hats? No, we are SEOs. Let's Rock'n' Roll and bring on the black hat articles...
It all depends on how you are presenting the information - whether you mention a tactic in the context of "people do this and get good results, but we don't recommend it", or you mention it as "you need to be aware of competitors doing this to your site, so you need to do this to counteract the effects".
The first is slimy. People will still be tempted to try it out, despite the risks.
The second approach is better because you are teaching people how to neutralise things that scummier end of the market are doing. In that regard you're still steering an ethical path.
I'm concerned that the blame for not having search reps at your "training" is now somewhat being put upon the cross-promotional stuff SEOmoz does with SMX.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that we at Third Door somehow said, implied or suggested -- whatever -- that you shouldn't have them involved. We didn't do that.
Instead, you seem to suppose that including them, as well as things like an expo hall, bloggers, multiple panels and so on, is what turns something from being "training" into a "conference." Not everyone would agree with that.
For me, training means a small group of people who get actual hands-on training and feedback. Of course, lots of people these days are calling stuff "training" that really isn't, in my book. But the fact that they do or don't have search reps is a non-issue in terms of what I'd call training.
@danny - just for clarification Danny. The subject of the article you linked to was SEMPO training. In the comments, there was discussion about Kalena's training and a few others.
Can you tell me, in your opinion, what it was that you didn't consider "training" in your book?
Thanks.
Danny - I don't want to discuss private matters in a public forum, but my memory is very different on this issue. I've shot you an email.
The internet is about openness. Yes, SEOMoz should cover these topics. I'm sorry you lost a contract for what sounds like a stupid reason. But we, as marketers and search professionals, should always be open to all information. No secrets.
Keep em coming!
In order to keep my status as a true white-hat-pansie, I need to know which borderline activities are considered white, and which are black.
Teach me, please.
If you only tell half the story, people will consider your information to be censored, biased, unreliable and incomplete and they will stop reading your articles and posts.
Just to add my vote to the long list already here -- keep posting the grey/black information. As already mentioned, it's helpful to whitehats to know what isn't so white; you run an informational blog so full disclosure is important; and most things out there should be left up to the reader to decide what they are comfortable doing. At least if you are talking about the tactics, you can provide your own context, opinions and insights.
Glad to see this discussion hit your blog, Rand. I was wondering when it would.
One of the considerations here is that knowledge is power and we all want to be powerful SEOs, don't we? Isn't that what we are offering our clients? To me the only way we can intelligently discuss SEO is to know, fully, what is happening in all areas, black, gray, or white. Then when we have the knowledge, er, power, we can make intelligent decisions about what to do with the information. We all choose the level of risk we can tollerate in this field and when dealing with something that might be gray-ish we can inform the client and have them assume the risk. Isn't that the way most businesses are run, i.e. risk assessment.
So, my vote is for full disclosure, full discussion. Bring it on! And then let me, as the informed SEO, decide and implement what I feel is ethical in my practice.
You can sign me up as a member of the pansie gang!
What should SEOmoz do? Rand, I think that question depends on your business model going forward, and what role the blog plays in that model.
Are you an SEO consulting agency first? If so, then outside clients should be your first thought; and yes, on occasion, the "connection" with blackhat SEO might be a hindrance.
If, however, you guys are moving into more of the "educational SEO" sphere - what with pushing the PRO members and the PRO Q&A that you have set up, etc - then I cannot for the life of me picture the blog talking about BH techniques being a bad thing (ie. it's exactly what you would be pushing for... educational).
As I say, in my mind, I think it becomes a question of asking who SEOmoz, as a business, is, and where you picture heading in the future. Once that question has been answered, then perhaps you can tackle these other issues.
Be lucky.
*edited to change "good" to "bad". Kind of changed the meaning of my second point :P
Rand,
One thing I'd like to ask for clarification on is paid links. On one hand you mention that they clearly violate search engine guidelines. Then you say - in your opinion, they're a necessary part of many link building campaigns and you term the practice "very light grey".
Would it be fair to say that Google could penalize a site for buying links, and further, if something clearly violates search engine guidelines, wouldn't it be fair to say that that practice is indeed "black hat".
My perception of what is white versus grey versus black comes down to the level of clarity in the stance of the search engine, rather than the opinion of someone that practices the craft.
Am I wrong here? A response would be greatly appreciated.
Sean
Sean - that's a fair question. I certainly agree that technically speaking, one could call anything that violates search engine guidelines to be "black hat," but I think that all of us who've spent serious time in the industry know that this isn't a black and white issue, but instead a sliding scale. You are allowed and even encouraged by search engine reps & guidelines to pay for some links, yet the term "paid links" is also often used to described paid links purchased from a broker across many sites.
Link buying, like cloaking, keyword targeting, linkbait, widgets, 301 usage and a million other things in SEO all have a range of uses and it often comes down to intent more than tactic. This is why whenever I discuss these issues, I'm more likely to present them on a scale of risk, from "no risk whatsoever" to "sure to get banned." IMO, this is the most accurate way to describe things accurately, even if it's not as simple and straightforward as we might wish.
Thanks Rand. I had no idea that search engine reps and guidelines encourage you to pay for some links. It woudl be a helpful post to know which search engines encourage this and what kind of links they encourage you to purchase.
I'm referring to endorsements of directories that charge money for entrance like Business.com, MSN's Small Business Directory and the Yahoo! Directory - all of which provide links for a fee. If memory serves, the engines' position on those is that yes, they charge, but its OK because they also do a careful, editorial review and have strict guidelines for inclusion.
Yahoo! Directory links rock!
(DISCLAIMER: i've written some of those rules for inclusion)
Uhhhh. Rand, MSN Small business directory was closed in April 2007 (11 months after they shut down the submission and said the remaining links would be grandfathered and remain there @#!%@!@). Still sour on that subject point.
Very insightful stuff Rand !! I love it... even the more specific reasoning to link buying directed back to Sean McGuire. You never cease to amaze me!!!
I dislike comparing Google to a real law enforcer, but here goes:
Drinking underage, whether that age be 18, 19, 21, is illegal, but most of us did it. We knew that if we were caught, we'd most likely be slapped with some sort of penalty. Most of us also professed respect for the law, but we didn't really equate drinking with breaking it. I call underage drinking grey hat law breaking, and the law is far more clear-cut than search engines' guidelines.
We know that buying links is against guidelines, but we do it and most of us don't feel bad about it. Google is indeed very clear that it does not condone link buying and, with this definition, it should be black hat, but we just don't seem to perceive it that way.
I'm also very pleased to see that "grey" appears eleven times in this comment thread thus far, as opposed to "gray", which weighs in at a measly six ;)
I don't know if I'd use underage drinking - in a lot of places here in the US at least, that's a pretty serious offense. Maybe jaywalking would be a better analogy, though I'm guessing that in NZ, the law was much more lax about underage alcohol consumption (lucky Kiwis!).
Good point. Call this my foreign influence again.
I always mix use of grey and gray, but I think grey wins out most times. :)
At 17 I'd mix beer and liquor. But please if you do, just make make sure its liquor before beer.
Rand,
I believe the value you offer at SEOMOZ by being transparent about issues impacting SEO professional's are both commendable and very helpful
When you are "light" and expose "darkness" you will naturaly come under attack. However know that those in the "light" appreciate the message that you bring forth.
Keep the information coming.
Bruce
Shoemoney is a baby. There I said it.
You guys are too noble to let a few spammers' whining deter you from speaking your mind. From what I see, you've always handled topics fairly and made the proper disclaimers.
I'm sorry to hear about your lost contract. That's really unfortunate, but misinformation like that happens everywhere, and ultimately it's about standing for what you believe in.
Perhaps I'm too idealist. Sorry to take it out on you, Shoemoney.
Anyone who has ever played sports has probably been told by a coach how the other team is likely to cheat - not necessarily to encourage cheating, but just so you wouldn't be blind sided.
Even in little league you need to know what the dark side might throw at you.
Hello Rand. I think you should not discuss this black hat things.
Quite a while ago you discussed the black hat technique to set up a domain that shows in a frame another popular domain with the goal to inform other websites that their link (to this popular website) will be soon outdated and to ask them to link now to the new domain.
I mean it is for sure a nice dirty way to get a lot of links. I even catched myself with the tought: Hey maybe I should try it.
And here comes in the danger. You mention this black hat things and it seduce other webmasters to try this illegal things.
I would never give harmful instructions on the web. I would never show people how to make their own homemade drugs, viruses, atom bombs or whatever.
By giving out black hat techniques you might give this black hat guys even more tools in the hands or you even push white hats to become black or grey hats.
And this harms rightful persons and companies more than it would protect them.
The famous computer virus Sasser was created here in Germany by a schoolboy from an instruction page. It harmed many companies in the world.
This instruction pages do no good. The founders might claim that their information will protect industries but in fact they will not. It always harms more than it protects.
If now a guy from the virus instruction page asks his members if he should continue to deliver this instructions he will for sure have a positive respond. But it still will not be the right thing to do.
I just caught your comment. I think you have flawed logic.
Just having the knowledge of the 'dark side' doesn't mean you'll turn that way. (Maybe you...but it's good to know both sides, so that we don't go that way...)
It's kind of like saying, "Don't teach new drivers bad things to do with the car." Yea, the young ones might be tempted, but seriously, unless someone wants a totaled car, they aren't gonna try them.
Knowledge is power and I believe in war - it is important to know thy enemy. "If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles"
If blackhats are getting pissed off at you exposing their techniques, I think its a good sign your hitting them where it hurts.
Even if you don't practice what you believe to be "unethical" marketing, it is very important to know exactly what the competition is doing so you know exactly what your up against.
So yeah - let your voice be heard, regardess of who tells you to STFU.
I voted for 'keep it coming' for the following reasons:
I think the issue is not the information, but the audience. I learn what I can about BH tactics because I do a lot of research about technical issues, and BH tactics tend to expose those.
But in order to do this, I have to a) learn enough about how search engines work in order to understand BH tactics, often from hints and evidence, b) be responsible enough that members of the SEO/SEM community will trust me enough to talk about such things, and c) be knowledgeable enough to understand (truly understand) the risks involved.
You have no way of knowing if any of these are true about your blog readers - anyone can sign up, at any level of education, responsibility or reputation.
There is nothing wrong with learning or teaching BH tactics, TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE. But posting information in a simplified fashion to the masses is just as irresponsible as teaching teenagers how to make explosives. Some will be able to handle the info well, others will be missing fingers (at least) by the end of the month.
You can blame them if you want (personal responsibility still counts), but at the end of the day, it was your choice to make the information available to that particular group at that time.
Yes, I have an issue with BH tactics being taught to people who are still learning the basics of SEO. If you have to simplify the topic so your audience can understand it, then you can't teach something that is dangerous without a complex understanding of the risks involved. The two are mutually incompatible.
In short, it's not appropriate for a public blog. It's not about censorship, it's about responsible education. You should not teach something that requires advanced knowledge about risk assessment without having made an effort to determine if your audience has that knowledge, especially when there are real, proven consequences to the use of the information - including the fact that some of it is illegal in some jurisdictions.
At the very minimum, these posts should have been kept in the private members section. It was irresponsible to move them to the public area, especially with an endorsement about their "excellence".
Ian
I understand the sentiment of what you're saying and certainly think that SEOmoz, just from a historical/content standpoint, has a responsibility to beginners, but I have to disagree with you for two reasons:
(1) Many SEO techniques can be dangerous for a beginner. There's nothing inherently black-hat about choosing a domain, creating page titles, or putting together a Robots.txt file, but do it wrong and you can cause long-term problems. A beginning SEO who runs with information they don't really understand, white-hat or black-hat, can easily wind up in trouble.
(2) I think we have a responsibility to help beginners understand black-hat tactics so that they know what to look out for and avoid. Hiding that information, IMO, is a bit like waiting until your kids are 20 to tell them about sex and drugs.
@Dr Pete
Regarding point 1: Any knowledge can be dangerous - you have to start somewhere. But I would suggest that if you have an opportunity to teach someone to run or walk, it's probably a good idea to do the walk part first.
More to the point, It's dangerous enough doing things that are acceptable to search engines (ie domains, etc), I think that unless you determine that someone knows these things first, it's irresponsible to teach the things that are borderline/unacceptable. If someone isn't sure about domain issues, jumping into cloaking is just asking for trouble, for example. I also suggest that it's the more experienced persons responsibility to make this judgement.
Regarding Point 2: You use a good analogy, but come to the wrong conclusion with it, IMO. The "birds and bees" speech should be different to a 6 year old, 12 year old and 16 year old, don't you think? Each assumes a different level of understanding and maturity.
Further, I think it's a better idea to teach about risk FIRST, then technique. I can't imagine the trouble you'd cause teaching someone all about sex techniques, and then later on saying - oh, btw, I forgot to tell you about birth control, STD's and rape...
Different information is appropriate at different times. If the information you give is about risk assessment, give it ASAP. If it's about things that require a knowledge of risk assessment, then you should make sure that the ability to assess risk is in place first.
In fairness, I don't think we can compare beginners to 6 year olds - all SEOs should be mature enough to have a basic sense of whether a technique is questionable or at least if they need more information about it. If you're setting up fake profiles or spamming blog links, you don't have to understand SEO to know that you may be looking for trouble.
I certainly won't disagree, though, that there's a level of black-hat information that's inappropriate for beginners. I was mainly objecting to the idea that we should shy away from black-hat tactics completely. At the very least, I think beginners need a sense of what's out there and what to look out for, both for their own "safety" and to defend against predatory SEO (for lack of a better term).
indeed people learning SEO should already have a basic understanding of ethics and responsibility. As such whilst they may not understand the fully advanced tactics - it'll be enough for the lightbulb in their head to light up and go "thats bad" when considering a tactic.
@mcanerin That's what I wanted to say, but you said it a lot better.
Rand I think you should continue as you have been - sure recently theres been a little too much blackhat'ish discussion, so perhaps less of it, but by no means stop discussion of this. I think people need to be aware of this, both for clients and their own work. - if give it up was too blackhat then this had to be addressed here!
If blackhats complain about the discussions here? well tough. It's called blackhat for a reason- and if we're discussing it then no doubt SE's are and thus that tactic will be going down the drain shortly anyway. (not that moz is backwards but as you say - you're not blackhat)
As to SE's - I can understand their frustration recently - but again, maybe some of the blame lies at their feet.
Moz losing a client - unfortunate - and I'd possibly ask them to reverify their sources.
Rand:
Without the discussion on here - likely I would of missed some of the black/dark grey tactics discussed here - and only on Thursday I had an agency present some of these tactics as "oh those - yeah those are white hat" - which I know better thanks to moz and only knew to ask because of what I'd seen here.
So my answer to SE's, Blacks and others - what would of been best? Not knowing, or knowing and potentially avoiding some issues?
If the SE's dont agree with discussion here then are they in a way condoning the silence and appealing nature of black hat tactics?
I agree with Sean and Adam. I would not necessarily instruct on the use of black hat techniques, but they should sure be discussed when identified. I'm more interested in what impact certain black hat techniques are having on search and what white hats can do to compete with others using these tactics.
I was expecting and hoping the Expert SEOmoz seminar to be centered around advanced white hat techniques. Clarify, update, reinforce, brainstorm, innovate and reverse engineer.
I'm counting down the days! It will be great I'm sure.
I totally agree. Should SEOmoz post entries that have gray/black info? Yes. When we get clients, some have been burned and it would be good to know 'how' they could've been penalized by Google/Yahoo..etc About the other specific sites complaining, they KNOW what they are doing (with an outlier of .5%) and it's harsh but hey, SE's are/have changed the web as we know it. It's given an unbiased (semi....) opinion on things that we are looking for. And if someone tries to manipulate the results, then thats just the beginning of their tyrant (who knows what they want to do with their 'power' at #1) and we've seen what that has been like in the early 1990's. So, if they disobey Google, then they have no right to complain about getting penalized (although they will...because no google traffic...means no money...lol) About SE's complaining. They are too secretive in an OPEN environment (the internet). They just need to deal with it and grow up. They don't control the internet, they have just made an amazing application to make the internet more user friendly. And we want to make their applications better because we believe in them. The internet without a search engine...is no internet (just try to imagine the internet without it) About Expert training. I'm going. I'm excited. Their are going to be critics but stand strong Rand. It's going to be great. Umm.. For those who have skimmed over this blog post. Let me repeat what you said Rand; "For those wondering how black hat SEOmoz really is, the truth is that we're pansies. .. .. We've never had a client's site get banned from the engines, never had a person who got advice from us in Q+A report back that our suggestions got them into trouble and never had to hide a client or site we worked on out of the fear of being penalized."
Keep it coming... As already written - when reading about black hat tactics here we don't have to consider the source - it is trusted.
As far as loosing a client - that is truly unfortunate, but, time will only tell. Sometimes, a client needs to go elsewhere to truly appreciate what they used to have. Who knows... loosing one may gain you two.
I'd suggest that you hardly cover extreme or cutting edge black hat topics anyway (although I'd like to see more of this!) so keep publishing away.
- Google has no right to complain - they should fix their algo rather than fudge the issue by attempting to suppress informatin.
- Blackhats have no right to complain as they're clearly incapable of innovating if a small blog post is going to put them out of business
- As for loosing clients... in the nicest possible way that's SEOMoz's reputation management issue ;-)
To be blunt I think that anything is fair game, if people engage in shady tactics and are nieve enough to use tacts that can be spotted... out them! They shouldnt be so stupid in the first place. As suggested above, if their business model relies on such things, and they're so vulnerable, its a rubbish business model anyway.
"To be blunt I think that anything is fair game, if people engage in shady tactics and are naive enought to use tacts that can be spotted...out them!"
Totally agree! It is the only way to level the playing field. If you engage in blackhat tactics knowing that you may be outed, (there is always someone out there who will eventually catch it) than don't complain when you are outed. Its called got cha!
Rand,
This is an interesting dilemma, especially because SEOmoz has become two businesses, one that provides SEO and Internet marketing services to clients and one that provides education and resources to the SEO community.
There is truth to the saying, “The devil you know.” As an educational resource to search marketers you cannot hide your face in the sand and ignore the unpleasant realities that exist in our business. We need to understand black hat concepts to combat them. I cannot imagine going to a client and sobbing that they cannot achieve a high rank because their competitors are cloaking or link buying or using fake social media profiles. I must be able to say, “Here is what is happening,” and, “This is how you compete, white hat style.”
That is not to say SEOmoz should teach black hat methodology. There is a wide gulf between explaining concepts and giving someone step by step instructions ala The Poor Man’s James Bond (https://tinyurl.com/68ggry). Perhaps you can create a template for discussing black hat techniques that includes a conceptual overview, gauges the prevalence and effectiveness of the method, and provides strategies for combating it with white hat tactics.
As a provider of SEO consulting and services to businesses it is important to make serious prospects and clients familiar with the search engines’ terms of service, to explain how a SEO company complies with those terms and to disclose when it does not abide by them. It also needs to provide thoughtful explanations for when the company and the search engine companies disagree and to disclose the risks. This is true for all search marketing practitioners whether they be pure as virgin snow, gray as a Canadian goose or black as obsidian.
In a way, you have positioned yourself in a similar dilemma as Microsoft and Google did when they purchased aQuantive and Double Click. Prospects and clients have to understand the differences in your educational services and your client services. They need to be comfortable that the two are separate. Without even considering the black hat SEO issue, why would SEOmoz train people to potentially compete with SEOmoz customers? A formal statement of separation and a slide in your sales deck that pictures the Grand Canyon may be in order.
Personally, I hope you find a way to achieve a successful balance. Discussing the dark arts helps to keep the conversation interesting.
Tom
Keep it coming and as black as it comes. Being ignorant is never a desirable or useful thing. Just because I won't ever use blog spamming for links or other auto generated or manipulative black hat tactics doesn't mean that I shouldn't be aware of it. It helps me protect my clients and identify potential problems I would not have considered otherwise.
If spammers or search engines have a problem with it, they should do something about their own sites. Google should fix the holes that are allowing the spam and the spammers should come up with different techniques. The fact that they're complaining just shows that everyone likes to rest on their current money making techniques. After all, who wants to do more work hen they already have a technique that works really well?
In the end, I don't think that ignorance of black hat helps anyone. Know your enemy and know yourself. Information is power and the more we know, the better, more creative, more useful we are to our clients.
Keep the info coming. It's not like the people that want to know about it and use it can't find it on the black hat forums and other places. Of all the audiences out there, the SEOmoz crowd is the least likely to use it and the most likely to protect their clients from abuse. So in a sense, we stand to do the most good with the information provided. I know I patched at least one site for a client as a result of learning about black hat.
This is a long winded comment but to sum it up, keep it coming. It's valuable information and one of the main reasons I visit this site. Because it covers all aspects of SEO from the good to the bad to the controversial. It allows me to be better at my job all around.
<<We recently lost a very large, very important contract due to the client asking a respected source in the search community about our work and hearing that our work is "black hat and could get them banned from the engines." >>
Unless they disclosed this "respected source", that almost seems like a weak attempt to not have the courage to give a real reason for not signing with you. Could this "respected source" be a potential competitor?
I don't buy the fact they they know enough about SEM to know who a trusted source that could critique you would be, yet they don't know enough to look at your site and know that you don't represent black hat techniques. Something doesn't sound right to me.
And yes, you should keep doing what you are doing as far as the blog content.
I think most of us here are adult enough to find value in the "other" stuff and the vast majority can comment without it dissolving into a personal attack.
Most of us are erudite enough to express opinion without the trite commentary.
Most of us understand SEOmoz is not black hat but understands you need to know how it works to both counter it and learn from it - not use it.
I don't think outing people is a great thing not because I'm worried but because it just doesn't seem to sit as well with me as talking theoretically about some subject. I guess you found my line there.
I think what you're doing is fab. You have my support and that of the vast majority of people here. It's sad you lost work over your willingness to cover that which exists but they simply won't get the added benefit of your expertise.
Well done all of you.
I think it is not only about that you havn't promoted Black Hat, it is as well about what you have done to stop Black Hat. Rand as an opinion leader in SEO should do his best to stop black hat. Stopping Black Hat is within his responsibility and it will give him peace of mind.
mikka, what do you mean by stopping blackhat?
Do you mean simply blogging as though the techniques don't exist in SEO? Rand, or anyone else for that matter, couldn't stop blackhat techniques if he wanted to.
Now one example of how my whitehat techniques have benefitted immensely from my knowledge of blackhat is that I check my competitors on a regular basis to see if they are cloaking or hiding content... if I find anything I let the search engine spam teams know.
They're my competitors, and as such they are taking money that my clients could take. It's my job not to like them, and it's my job to make sure they don't benefit from any dirty techniques that takes revenue away from my clients.
so coming back to Rand's topic of this post - even if we stopped discussing blackhat SEO, my clients competitors wouldn't stop practicing it. My clients would lose money, I'd lose clients, and eventually I would be out of the job.
Simply put, if SEOmoz stopped discussing the full picture of my industry, I'd cancel my premium subscription immediately.
I think you are right and I was wrong. So I am claiming now the opposite from what I was saying before.
I didn't saw the point that good Seos will recognize Black Hat more quickly when knowing about it and that they can tell it to the search engines and this will effectively stop Black Hat or at least reduce it.
I feel sorry for my previous posts. Please someone delete them.
It's ok to change your mind mate, don't feel sorry. It's great that you're contributing (I didn't mean to be critisise your opinion mikka).
* Too much transparency devalues one's offerings. Anyone who knows or does anything worthwhile has secrets they'll only share with some people, and probably a few others they never share with anyone.
* I'm a paid member here, but even in context of paid content it's fundamentally not the kind of content I expect from SEOmoz. If/as I want it, there are other places where it's available for free and/or otherwise.
* If you take any given side too much you diminish the journalism aspect of blogging i.e. "fair and balanced."
* Engines and spammers are asking for the same thing, just for different reasons.
* Sometimes there's nothing more transparent than that which isn't there anymore, i.e. DDOS'd. It's happened before in the scene, where a given SEO made too many others feel they were sharing too much.
* It's not like there aren't GH/BH things one can't safely talk about without criticism from engines or spammers. If I were to blog publicly about more things, to try to keep it all holistically interesting, impartial and respectful while at the same time minding my own back, I'd largely keep it to the exploits that don't work anymore.
A perfect topic to bring to the platform Rand. Thanks for the poll too!
Black/Grey hat SEO is a necessarty evil when it comes to the white hats like us! We need to be able to see what those guys are doing to better protect ourselves.. and why not discuss is in forums, blog posts and more.
More eyes and brains on the subject is always better than none at all!
I've been in SEO for 6-7 years now and a Director in the company. I'm also working on a new degree for information security. We study much of what the hackers do, to gain better hands on experience on what to look for and how to stop them. Very same principle !!
I love the SEOmoz community and what it has done for communicaitons. Adam Dorfman said it best... you spoke so clearly about it and provided great points and that's it a clear sign SEOmoz needs to continue to dicsuss openly the Black/Grey hat SEO techniques...
Well done chap!
this blog is one of the best resource of SEO .I would say you can tell people what is black hat and what is white and consequences if they go black.now it is up to them to decide.Its a free free world.
i think its important to know how you competitors may be conducting their business so
1) you can see when they are doing it (and report it if you want to)
2) know how spammers will try and beat you out of serps
3) i think that sometimes black/gray hat stuff can give you ideas that are more white only slightly gray that can help you get better results
i think its best to stay white and above reproach but some of the gray tactics are a matter of opinion and should be able to be considered as options depending on what you are trying to do with your client / site
100th comment.
I say put all the gray/black hat info out there for people to read.
That STFU article was good! Guess Rand dodged a bullet back in '05.
Seems to mee looking at the links in your post (the anchor text) that you are trying in fact to rank for the term Black hat, Rand.
Thats funny!
My two cents. I agree with eveyone here saying write about black hat. There are a couple reasons, most already mentioned.
1. It's good when learning SEO to know explicity what not to do and how not to do it. In addition to what to do and how to do it.
2. It's always good to know what's going on with the black hat side of things. This will make everyone a better white hat that can disect the trickiest of tactics to help their clients natural search efforts.
3. Like Sean Maguire said, a scale from white to black feels like it would be a critical component for these articles. This would help new search pros distignuish between good to use and good to know about.
I suspect on this scale there will be more gray than black or white as few things in SEO seem cut and dry.
Rand,
For the most part I agree with Sean. I just can't buy the color bar.
Hey, Black Hat is Black Hat just because it is moving faster it doesn't change the color to Grey. The edge of the cliff is still the drop off point. Does it really matter if the slope is straight or gradual. I will argue NO!
Keep the black hat stuff coming even if for no other reason than it makes great stories.
Rand,
Thanks for asking for the input of the readers (and writers) of SEOMoz. While I can understand the difficult position that having site content that sits outside of your practice's as consultants places you in – as an educational resource the site needs to discuss white, grey and blackhat techniques with equal transparency.
Balancing the content (and tone) of discussion with your work (and reputation) as consultants will always be a struggle but looking at ways to distinquish between ‘best practice’ white hat and ‘observed but not recommended’ grey/black techniques makes sense.
Your posts particularly are often comments on the industry – as such they must continue to give a balanced view of the practices out there. Clear communication of where SEOMoz (as a company) stands is vital to ensure that your input as reporters doesn't conflict with your output as consultants.
I agree that you should cover white/grey/black techniques especially when I'm sure we all get clients who have used other SEO firms before they come to us for help. Thus, we need to be able to spot what they may have done to the client's site.
Right, why not just label them as such.
Very good point regency. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "oh yeah, we did have a guy work on the site last year and haven't been able to rank." Knowing what "the other guy/gal" might have done is crucial to getting a site back in the serps.
Rand, even if one does not condone or practice the various colored hat-options, it's really important to understand what others are doing. At minimum, it's essential information from a defensive standpoint.
I highly support the exploration and discussion of black/grey hat tactics as it relates to SEO. I wish SEOmoz the best of success in publishing and discussing findings in the community. While negative feedback may come from a small contingent, I think a vast majority will welcome all the information being brought to light on this subject; and provide you positive feedback in doing so.
Thanks for bringing this to the community and I look forward to learning from it.
You should talk about black hat seo, if only to tell people what not to do. Some people may not think what they are doing is all that wrong until you point out what it really is. Personally I feel things have gotten so competitive that I need to bend the rules as far as possible, without breaking them. And I need to know at where that line is so I can avoid crossing it (or cross it if I so choose). As long as you don't promote those tactics, they are fine to discuss and to keep your white hat reputation, which I feel you guys have.
Man,
(--removed by Rand--) My god, info is info. If someone wants to learn something, it's not exactly hard to find out stuff. If people didn't have their heads up their asses they'd go check out forums etc, and learn about whatever they want.
In the end, it's all about making money. Google is the biggest spammer/scraper on the internet and publicizing stuff on a weblog only serves one purpose, and you know it.
Cheers,
Gekko
EDIT FROM RAND: I removed the personal attacks from this comment. In the next week or so, we'll have official guidelines about this type of thing.
To begin, I have found some of the black hat tactics exposed on here to be very entertaining and even kind of exciting, maybe because it's learning about stuff that you aren't supposed to do, like eating cookies for breakfast when you were a kid.
As mentioned, it's great info to know, and not neccessarily to act, as the cliche goes, a good defense makes a great offense. Learning about what not to do is just as important as learning what to do.
I think this community is ahead of the pack in clearly defining the lines, in saying "this is what you can do to be a good search marketer", and "this is what you should watch out/consider/plan for as a good search marketer".
Also, I disagree that information should be pulled back if it means outing a site, but that is my personal opinion. I do hear the "stfu" side, and there are some valid points, but if a greater good is served by giving information, than there should not be any room for second guesses.
At the end of the day, it's being transparent that will change opinions and sterotypes of our industry and community, being cloak and dagger will only hurt us.
Lastly, be wary of too much "disclaimer" getting in the way of the message. Specifically, how you have presented information to this point has been effective and a good blueprint for moving forward.
Thanks for allowing this discussion, and keep up the great work!
Rand:
good question.
Let me try and get all of my thoughts i had before i read the replies, some you will have read, some maybe not. but i use multiple people picking the same thing in research, so i may be repeating things above.
1. Black Hat SEO - i'd say whomever the jerk was that cost you business, probably didn't have a PRO membership.So maybe if you had posted it in the PRO section, he could not have show your ex-client. (p.s. i hope karma gives him/her herpes)
but nonetheless, i'd post it in PRO anyways, the people who sign up for a PRO membership take SEO seriously and might be less likely to use those tactics. (plus if someone steals it, you have a better case for damages from reposting it)
2. Bad things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people that piss bad people off.I don't know that you should "out" the black hat people (or their URLs) to anyone other than Google. via webmaster form or however else matt cutts wants to do it. better yet give all the info to matt cutts and let him do guest posts on how google says it's bad.. you are helping him get the word out and also lessening SEOMoz's liability as a company.
=)
You talk about 2 seperate topics in your post then only ask about one in the poll.
My opinions
So as long as you can discuss tactics without pointing out who is using them and what SERPs they are being used on, then I'm all for it.
I think the pointing out of sites is not only what SEOs get mad at, but also search egineers. When you say someone could use a tactic to rank, it's fine, but when you say look here, look at this, you are calling out engines for specific faults and making them look bad.
Jeremy - I'm a little concerned about the second point, as I think it's really hard, in many cases, to talk about black hat tactics and their effects without disclosing sites that practice them and was has or hasn't happened to them. Obviously, I don't want to purposefully hurt someone's business, but in most cases, search spam is "churn and burn" anyway, so the effect to my mind seems minimal (and the risk assumed by someone who spams should be well known). I'm still a bit conflicted about this issue.
That's assuming we are talking about churn and burn spam. Hardcore stuff like scrapers, ect.
unfortunatly as of late I have seen many references to sites which are more grey than black. Sites that can last for years and are expected to by their owners.
I also disagree that it's hard. Make some diagrams to demonstrate how it works (with Googlebot towwering over them ;-) ), and boom the post is better than if you had outed sites. That's because then the post becomes about the technique and a reference how it's done. When you give a demonstration site, it takes away from the technique and people concentrate on the site.
Rand, if you out sites, one may think seomoz looks like a snitch or at least that you are playing hardball with a competitor. Didn't you harm Aaron Wall in this manner?
Rand -
IMO if you are calling attention to a BH's site then you are no better than the bastard that created a problem for you and your client.
Discussion should be 100% fair game, and anything less is concession akin to book burning. But outing someone is taking food off of their table - again, just like food has been taken off of yours. You may not agree with the techniques used by people, but so long as they are neither illegal or hurting other people, they should not be outed.
I fully agree with the comments made by StephenWard.
One thing I have considered on a couple of occassions is this: Does google look unfavourably at an article on the subject of 'Black Hat' and associated terms and penalize the site in any way? Surely, Google doesn't like seeing those terms on-site.
That would be ridiculous if google penalized sites for 'black hat' topics.
BUT, is see 'grayblack' hat in the url and h1 on this page so maybe Rand thinks that too.
I've noticed that whenever anyone starts to get really popular online, aggression starts to rear its ugly head. Either people start to attack a particular entity for no particular reason, or arguments begin breaking out as the competition for supremacy heats up. This is sad. I don't see how anyone can expect an entity like SEOmoz to keep quiet about issues as important to all of us as spam and black hat. For heaven's sake, if we don't know about it how can we do our jobs?
I really wish we could all have a return to the congenial atmosphere of a few months back. Kiss and make up guys.
The world went all squiff recently and I think most of us turned away and whistled but no matter how loudly you whistle, all the screaming and maniac antics occasionally break through.
Good on them for not just saying something obscene and calling it a day as some would and I am sure has been tempting.
Why share when you are crucified for it?
When I used to run fan conferences, it was too easy to sink beneath the tide of negativity but it was the lone few who complimented the work that kept me going.
I think they're doing a fab job to persevere in the face of such negativity