Submitted on:  04/18/2007

Are All White Hats Equally White?

In my previous article, SEO, Spam, and the Controversy, I mentioned search engine spam and the harm it does, explained why white hat SEO is often (and rightly) also called ethical SEO, and why black hat SEO is considered unethical by many (but not all) whitehats. I also gave examples of the arguments often used by blackhats to justify their actions, along with my counter arguments. The main purpose of that article was to sum up the latest hot forum discussions on SEO ethics, SEO spam and other closely related issues. But it turned out that those discussions were too hot and those related issues too numerous to be covered in one article; thus, I had to boot up my PC again and start another one, this time dedicated mostly to highlighting disagreements between different groups of SEO practitioners, all of whom consider themselves whitehats.

To all those who might recognise themselves and their publicly stated views in the examples given in my article: please don't misunderstand my intentions. I'm not seeking to insult or abuse anyone; my purpose is to provide my personal opinions in each case and to explain why I feel this way.

"My hat is white, and always has been, but I have a friend, and he is a spammer"

This is a common situation in today's SEO/SEM. Years of accepting spammers as a part of the industry have naturally led to this; business and personal associations have been formed between representatives of the two camps, and they are hard to break. Consequently, more and more whitehats find it necessary to bring forward certain arguments to prove that spam is no big deal and their spammer friends and/or business partners are nice and respectable people who just happened to have different opinions or to practise a slightly different approach to the profession.

In an attempt to prove this point of view, they usually elaborate on some (or all) of the arguments mentioned below (which are often used by spammers themselves, as well).

"We all do search engine optimisation. That is, we all manipulate search engine algorithms in order to achieve rankings for ourselves or our clients, so what is the difference between white hat SEO and black hat SEO?"

Or, in other words, all SEO is spam. What's more, often it is said that the search engines consider all SEOs their enemies and would do anything to rid the world of our industry. Is it true? Let's see what Google guidelines say:

• "Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link.
• Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the site map is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the site map into separate pages.
• Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.
• Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it. (Emphasis mine - I.P.)
• Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content, or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in images.
• Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.
• Check for broken links and correct HTML. "

That's a very good description of the white hat SEO basics (or at least the on-page part of it). And the most popular search engine actually approves of it, and so do others! It is also a set of common-sense rules describing how to create a good site - nothing more, nothing less. How can measures aimed at creating good sites be spam? How can they hurt anyone? Are you telling us to create bad sites on purpose, just to make sure it won't be considered spam by anyone? Absurd, isn't it?

A bit more from Google guidelines:

• "Have other relevant sites link to yours ...
• Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
• Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites."

That's also what the white hat SEOs usually do (the off-page part of SEO). Granted, black hat SEOs do it too, but the ways are very different! One thing is obvious now: the engines don't mind good SEO work, as it makes their job easier. And all other involved parties have no reason to reject it, either, because in the end of the day, it will be all about building a better Internet.

To reward us with good rankings for good SEO or not to do so is, on the other hand, only for the engines to decide. But that's another story.

"Unprofessional white hat SEOs actually do more harm than professional blackhats"

This point of view is explained thus: unprofessional/inexperienced/lazy SEOs don't deliver rankings to their client, whereas experienced and skilful blackhats do, so experienced blackhats are better and do less harm to the reputation of the industry.

Well, yes, there is a problem in the SEO/SEM industry caused by the low level of qualification many SEO practitioners have (and not just new ones, unfortunately). And there's another problem: many companies only sell SEO services, and then never do anything at all with the sites of their clients. They certainly add to the bad name of the industry. Moreover, I think that those who don't do anything except aggressive telemarketing to sell non-existent services can't be called whitehats. But those who lack experience or skills... well, there is always a chance they will acquire them and improve the quality of their SEO. Everyone has to start somewhere, and learn on a daily basis. With SEO, one never has the luxury of relaxing and stopping learning, because things change so fast, and what used to work for years might suddenly stop working tomorrow, and then everyone will be in the same boat.

Bad quality SEO doesn't hurt the engines and the Net as a whole though. Spam does. And when the site is poorly SEO'd, but is within the SE guidelines, it won't get banned, ruining the business of the client who put his/her trust in this particular SEO. And it will never become a bad neighbourhood for other sites that are linked to it for whatever reason. So, a spammer is still a much worse type than the most unskilful white hat SEO in the world.

"Spammy sites are often very relevant to the search term they are being found for. And when the spam is done professionally and the right way, it is never obvious, and seldom gets found and banned"

So what? They are still deceptive and still interfere with the SE algorithms. They still deprive other - and better - sites of their honestly earned positions. And if the site could have been the best and at the top even without spam - then why spam?

And yes, spammers are becoming more and more skilful in hiding their newest deceptive techniques from both the engines and the visitors. From my point of view, this highly "professional", well hidden spam is the worst sort of spam there is, because it increases the risk for others to run into the bad neighbourhood, and for some other reasons. Consider this: the engines are interested in delivering honest results, based on their algorithms and their own ideas on how to provide their users with the best quality results possible. This way, they will always work on new and better spam filters. In other words, what is considered smart spam today will be caught in a couple of years, but consume much of the time and resources the engines will have to spare.

Spam - all spam - must be banned, by definition, because banning was introduced to keep the Net cleaner. Does the fact that such and such kind of dirt is harder to clean up make it good dirt? Quite on the contrary, I believe. The spots we all hate most are those that can't be eliminated even using the best detergent available.

Oh yes, when I hear another story about an unlucky SEO client who didn't pay due diligence and ran into a bad SEO who got the domain banned, I pity that person and rush to offer help or at least to try and reassure the desperate site owner. But there are always exceptions to any rule. Those who understand from the start all the problems involved with SEO spam, including ethical implications, and still insist that they need doorways or cloaking, really and truly deserve a permanent ban.

The worst thing that can happen in this case is finding a skilful spammer who knows how to avoid being banned. Oh yes, the client will certainly be happy, and will recommend his spammer to others and tell everyone that spamming the engines is a safe and fine method of doing business online, and that all the stories about banned sites are a myth. Think about the consequences for other stakeholders though ... and you will see that spammy sites that are able to avoid ban are the worst kind of all spammy sites.

"Some spammers should be respected for the level of technical knowledge they possess."

No, they shouldn't, simply because they use their level of expertise and knowledge to produce more bad than good.

"Spammers are a part of this industry, and always will be, so we have to co-exist and find ways to get along and co-operate."

Too bad, if so. It would mean we are a doomed industry. But I believe that there are ways actually to draw a distinct line between the two camps, and we would sooner or later find them if we wanted to. What we lack is the desire to find those ways. Many of the whitehats steadily refuse to admit that the problem exists. Instead, they are looking for ways to get along and co-operate with spammers, and some of them even convert to the Dark Side of the SEO Force, without knowing they have converted.

It usually starts from defending someone's personal friends from the attacks made by other, more determined, whitehats. Then it gradually turns into talking like a spammer, and then, step by step, the temptations of the Dark Side capture the soul of yet another good Jedi. It's a slow process, and very often, the only thing a person needs to make the first step is confusion.

What causes the confusion?

Some of the latest discussions in the SEO world have shown how easy it is to confuse minds about apparently obvious statements such as "deception is unethical" or "spammy SEO is harmful to the industry". When your opponent is an eloquent speaker and can handle philosophical discussions with confidence, practically everything can be proven - even that black is actually white. Sometimes, it takes hours to get your thoughts straight again, and days to come up with a decent reply. Hopefully, this article will help some of the half-confused minds find their way back home.

Why write?

Sometimes people ask me why I write all this stuff and what I'm trying to achieve. Why really? Is it because I do care about the Net and the people who dwell here? Is it simply because I love the Net? Is it done to support the people who have been leading this almost hopeless fight for years - and in spite of being continuously outnumbered, have managed to make huge progress? Or do I just feel uncomfortable because of the confusion? I think all these answers are true. I know that several of my personal friends have already chosen the white hat SEO just because I managed to prove my points to them. Believe it or not, dear reader, but this knowledge makes my life much happier.

To be continued...

About the Author:

Name:  Irina Ponomareva Irina Ponomareva has been a practising SEO consultant since 2004. She joined Viscomp, a Russian web design agency, in February 2008. Find out more at http://www.viscomp.ru/