Skip to content

Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO

by

Hi thanks for visiting. I don't update this blog very often anymore.  I write lots of interesting stuff up on my other blog: Reviews in Depth. So please do check it out. I also post lots of interesting tid-bits on my Google+ account. So make sure you follow me there as well.  If you need an invite, feel free to send me a message using the contact form and I'll send you one.

----------------------------------------------

Google should learn to love black hat SEO.  In fact – they should embrace it.  They should make it a central pillar of their entire strategy.  Shock horror gasp!  I know.  Let me present my case.  I think it’s a pretty good one.  But first, let me tell you my yarn as to how I got started thinking about this issue.

It all started around March of this year when I decided that it was about time I learnt to code.  To encourage this pursuit I decided to pick web development (django/python style) – and I thought I might as well try to turn a coin at it while I do it.  So I’ve been working at writing an application which adds some value in the affiliate space.  It’s not very high minded, and I certainly don’t think I’ve contributed anything yet that is worthwhile (hence I haven’t turned any coin yet) – but that’s okay.  I’m just trying to learn to code.

But although it’s okay if I don’t actually turn a coin in this endeavour, since my primary aim here is learning, still I was a bit dismayed to learn of some of the forces arrayed against me.  The most upsetting of these are the blackhat seo marketers.   After noticing some funny looking websites appearing in the search results for some of my targeted keywords, I began to peer into their strange, dark world.

I should note at this point that I’m not going to link to any of the sites that I found, nor name that particular black-hat seo marketer that I’ll primarily be talking about. Ultimately my reason for this is that I don’t believe in trial by internet.  This alone would be enough to prevent me from releasing the information about who I was talking about.  But of course, I actually believe these people shouldn’t be vilified – and that it’s in all our interests NOT to vilify them.  But before I explain myself on this point, we need to go deeper into the rabbit hole.

The Black Hat SEO Rabbit Hole

So – I noticed a somewhat odd site ranking higher than my site for a particular set of keywords in my chosen niche.  As you’d expect, it was a spammy looking wordpress blog with about five or so poorly written articles – the sort of articles you can find on ezine, but slightly worse.  They are the sort of articles you could write in ten or fifteen minutes by just googling the topic and paraphrasing the most basic information that you find.  They involve the absolute minimum amount of human intelligence required to satisfy a robot that this isn’t algorithmically produced spam.  (Of course, it is just algorithmically produced spam – it’s just that this algorithm still requires people for its execution.)

There were two things I couldn’t understand about this website.  Firstly, I couldn’t understand how it was ranking so well.  It had only been registered a couple of months and had no backlinks that I could discern in google.  Secondly, I couldn’t understand the point of the website.  It had no advertising on it.  It had no links to other websites – so it wasn’t trying to funnel traffic.  So what was the angle here?

The answer to the first question proved to be straightforward.  Google will place any site on the front page of results for a particular set of keywords if it meets the following criteria:

1) The targeted keywords are not particularly competitive (for the given market/country)’ i.e. there are not many strong sites targeting those keywords.

2) The site follows basic on-page optimisation rules which include:

  • Having the keywords in the domain name
  • Having the keywords in the meta title tag
  • Having the keywords in the meta description tag

Astonishingly, that’s it.  I’ve tested this extensively, and it is undeniably a fact.  It works because a) there is an astonishing amount of ignorance out there about on-page optimisation, b) because most legitimate sites use branding keywords in their title that don’t exactly match the keywords people use to search (e.g. “Yolanda’s Jewellery” – as opposed to “Cheap Jewellery for Sale” ), c) SEO folk devote their time to deploying hundreds of these sites to find those keywords that have high traffic and low competition.  This is a specialised endeavour in which individual vendors can’t afford to engage.

Finding out the purpose of this site took a little more legwork – but not much.  Luckily, it turns out that this particular internet marketer has one particular flaw – vanity.  Within minutes of looking up the owner of the domain, I had just about everything I needed.  I had his facebook page.  I had a list of articles he had written for various crummy seo blogs.  I had a list of the other spammy domains that he owned.  It was now just a matter of sifting through it all.  The vanity comes into it because this guy was making a lot of money and of course had to tell all these sites about it.  It seems to me to be the kind of tragic flaw of the black hat SEO.  What they really want is respect and acclaim, but don’t seem to realise that ultimately what they’ll receive is derision.

Anyway – the paydirt of this long and tedious exercise was an hour long interview that I found between our hero and a pretty low-brow SEO blog.  In it he revealed everything I wanted to know.  The whole genesis and purpose of his site breaks down like this:

1) Throw up a wordpress blog for the chosen keywords

2) Outsource the article writing to cheap labour in Malaysia, India etc… (I believe he quoted a dollar or so per article.

3) Outsource link building (if required) to the same cheap labour.

4) Contact legitimate site owners.  Point out to them that their site is not ranking as well as it could be for the given keyword set.  (Of course it wouldn’t be because they’ve just been bumped down by black hat spam).

5) Offer your SEO services at some ridiculous price rate.  If they accept – you can give them a near instant bump by removing your spammy websites.

6) If they refuse SEO, try selling them your spammy domains.

7) If all of the above fails… then you can whack some adsense on the blog and let the recalcitrant website owners suffer the inflated marketing costs this produces.

8) Rinse and repeat… always repeat.

This blew my mind when I first learned of it.   On the face of it, these people exist only to suck value out of the market and make everyone’s life (but their own) harder.  It becomes harder for consumers to find real websites that provide value.  It becomes harder for real websites of value to rank for keywords for which they would have ordinarily ranked well if not for the black hats.  Effectively, the black hats extort money from legitimate website owners as a payoff for not making life shitty.

There are two main ways I think one can try to fight this phenomenon – the wrong way and the right way.  Let’s look at both.

The Wrong Way – Deny and Vilify

This seems to be the default view of both Google and the community as a whole.  Ultimately the aim of such an approach is to increase the costs for the black hats in their endeavours so that it effectively becomes cheaper for them to produce sites with real value.  The main ways in which such costs are to be exacted involve largely trying to improve the algorithms which can select for quality.

News flash – it’s not working!  It is always going to cost disproportionately more to build an algorithmic measure of quality than it will to circumvent said algorithm.  I’m not going to argue at length for this claim – but current evidence seems to be on my side.

But there is another significant way in which the costs of the black hat seo are increased – through vilification.  The idea is that we ostracise these people from the inner fold of the internet community.  We tell everyone to be on the lookout for spammers so we can de-index them and level large big wads of shame in their general direction.

This approach is probably more effective than the algorithmic one – but it’s still not very effective.  These people generally do want esteem.  But there are enough of them around that they have their own communities and will ultimately be happy with the esteem they can garnish in that small pond if they are locked out from getting what they need from the wider community.

The Right Way – Legitimise Them

This is going to sound radical – but the best way to deal with these people is to legitimise what they do.  Hear me out.

Ultimately – the problem is caused by perverse incentives.    Improve the incentives and you’ll get a better result.   First of all, you need to recognise the value that these guys do bring to the table.    These guys uncover low cost, high value keywords that quality businesses could leverage if they knew about them.  This is real value – and it takes work to uncover.  It deserves to be remunerated  But think about how hard it actually is to leverage payment for this information.  As soon as you reveal it – you’ve lost a large measure of your edge, unless you’re willing to engage in shady practices like those I just described.  And you end up with a search engine where these great keywords are getting mapped to complete shit.

But imagine if you could transform these guys into an army of go-getters that work FOR Google and not against?  So rather than encouraging to map great keywords to shitty domains – encourage them to map good keywords to good domains – and find a way to ensure they get remunerated for this job.

Here’s one way you might do it:

  1. First of all, you need to continue to let these guys test for good keywords.  So you need to let them continue to throw up their spammy websites.  They need to be able to see how well these spammy websites will do – how much traffic they get etc… (even see what sort of adsense income they get).
  2. Encourage them to register these website on Google webmaster – and encourage them to identify these sites as the spammy sites they are.  (but give it a better name so they don’t feel so horrible about it – call them “Funnel Sites” – because that’s what these sites will be, as I’ll show in a moment).
  3. Once registered as a funnel site – google will allow that site a grace period in the index of say 3-6 months… wherein that site will be allowed to gather the data that the SEO guy will need to make his pitch.  After that – the site will be de-indexed.
  4. Allow SEO guys to sell a mapping from this domain to another domain.  This mapping can count toward a site’s page rank for those particular keywords.  The data collected in the grace period could be used for a website owner to be able to determine the value in purchasing a mapping from a particular funnel site.
  5. Setup a section for this within adwords so as to allow for an efficient marketplace for this sort of exchange.  (But not anonymous bidding – SEOs ultimately must choose who to sell to.  Otherwise you are not leveraging their knowledge of the marketplace for a given set of keywords).  Google can scoop cream off the top.
  6. Provide an incentive for SEOs to sell their mappings to high quality websites.  You can do this by making it so that they can charge a higher price for a mapping if and only if they have a reputation for selling mappings to high quality sites.  So if a person with a high quality website (as determined by page rank etc) asks to buy a mapping from you, and you allow them, then this improves the value of your account and it therefore becomes more expensive to purchase from you.
  7. SEOs that don’t play by the rules run the risk of reduced revenues, sites delisted – etc…  same as before really – but now ostracisation actually means something.

Now there would have to be lots of little bits and pieces that would have to be added to this to make it airtight.  (e.g. how many funnel sites can there be for a particular keyword, what should the weighting be, how to establish a reputation metric for SEOs… difficult questions – but that’s google’s job).   Nevertheless I think the gist is solid because it gets the incentives right.  At the very least, this is the sort of general direction in which Google needs to be thinking.  Consider some of its advantages:

  1. It encourages funnel sites out into the open so google can more easily see them and understand how they are being used.
  2. It provides a way in which to encourage SEO spammers to have their own spammy sites de-listed.
  3. Google has created it’s own perverse incentive structure insofar as its adwords system incentivises them to have a shitty results page so that people either click on the ads or end up clicking an adsense ad.  This mitigates that problem.  Lost revenue from promoting quality in the index will likely show up by leveraging a commission off the transactions for funnel sites.
  4. Users of the search index get to where they actually want to go quicker (without having to pass through multiple layers of spam).
  5. Since they’ll be part of the internet family – black hat SEOs will be more likely to share their discoveries with the wider community because they will have reason to think that Google will incorporate future discoveries in a way that will positively benefit them.
  6. Black Hat SEOs will be encouraged to invest in the future of search.  If search fails then they fail with it.  And they’ll have to figure out how to do business with Facebook – or some god awful analogue.
  7. A good deal of the power in this scenario rests with the owners of quality websites – insofar as they can choose who to buy mappings from.
  8. Link building for such domains will become irrelevant (so no more incentives to build even MORE spammy sites just to link to another spammy site).

And probably more I haven’t thought of.  No doubt there are some weaknesses in this idea.  But I’m currently in the honeymoon phase with it and am so enamoured that I can’t see them – please offer your criticisms in the comments.

The core of the idea is one that really works for just about all things in life.  If someone is working against your interests and you try to vilify and ostracise them – you’ll most likely just provide further incentives for them to work harder against you.  Instead, you should try to figure out how to bring them into the fold – and they might just become your most powerful allies.

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Comments

  1. George L wrote:

    Interesting idea for Google to use folks to map good keywords to good domains and reward people for that. That’s a win-win for everybody. But honestly, I think people are focusing mostly on Facebook for now because of how beneficial it is for people to see their friends ;iking stuff. Sites like http://facebook.getmorepopular.com are helping businesses get a lot of fans quickly, and its rare to find an easy SEO optimization that can yield comparable results on Geogle.

    Posted on 05-Dec-10 at 11:01 am | Permalink
  2. Yeah – the marketers will try to game value wherever they see it – and Facebook is going to suffer from this as much as anyone. But this is part of the battle between these two companies. Those that can find a way to leverage the black hats positively will do better in the long run.

    Posted on 05-Dec-10 at 11:07 am | Permalink
  3. aaron wall wrote:

    When you talk about the life sucking stuff…make sure you have an eye toward sites that used scraped 3rd party content as their own content (I’m looking at your Mahalo & answers.bloglines.com)

    I think you oversimplified on-page SEO a bit, but the big thing with online publishing is that currently people want everything for free. Free is not a price-point which encourages doing great work. Hence a lot of it ends up being a race to the bottom.

    Eventually Google will likely start aggressively ranking book content & other media formats in the search results in place of some websites. That will force a push toward brand & make literal marketing a bit less profitable.

    Posted on 05-Dec-10 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
  4. Aaron Wall! Cool!

    Yeah – I’m still surprised that Google has a problem detecting scraping. I would have thought that would be reasonably easy to pick up.

    It would be a bit of a shame if things do go the way you suggest. Part of the beauty of the web is the relatively low barrier to entry. The idea was that the web enabled access to quality that was not beholden to the editorial gatekeepers of times past. It would be such a shame if we had to go back to that in my view. (I think there should be a place for both, though).

    Posted on 05-Dec-10 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
  5. The web is a different place from what it was when Google started. There are so many more good, definitive reference works online.

    I don’t really understand AdWords. I’ve never clicked on one of those links on the side. I rarely search for something I would want to buy anyway.

    For the rest of the stuff, like definitions and encyclopedia entries, I’m glad Google mostly ranks wikipedia and other reference works at the top. I use google mostly to do keyword to wikipedia translation anyway.

    The future of shopping is probably a combination of asking your friends and automated comparison shopping. You’d ask your friends “anyone have a blender recommendation? mine broke and I need to make a smoothie!” If someone could make a facebook app that collected votes from your friend, compared it to credible sources, and showed the lowest price for each option, they’d be rich.

    Posted on 06-Dec-10 at 12:32 am | Permalink
  6. Mike wrote:

    I’m sorry, but this article represents a serious misunderstanding of BH Internet marketing. The tactics you posted as BH (which may also be a misunderstanding by your source) constitute little more than outsourcing menial tasks/being cheap. These tactics are employed by MANY thousands of sites and you probably wouldn’t even notice. (Think of every company that now has a social media employee creating profiles for their company, same thing only less efficient and more expensive) They are not inviolate of Google’s TOS and therefore not blackhat. The tactics you’ve described are at worst automated grey hat, but mostly just cheap. They are in dubious standing w/ google in that the speed and high volume are frowned up, but sites don’t get banned for doing things at a reasonable pace. When you start talking black hat, you get into things like forum spamming, cookie stuffing, XSS hacks, referrer spoofing, the list goes on and on of things much more deceptive and devious than what you’ve mentioned. True Blackhat should be banned by Google and with good reason.

    Posted on 08-Dec-10 at 2:53 am | Permalink
  7. Hi Mike,

    Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure how profitable a disagreement over the word ‘black-hat’ would be – however, it’s easy enough to find references that go against your preferred usage of the term. From the current wikipedia article on seo:

    Another class of techniques, known as black hat SEO or spamdexing, uses methods such as link farms, keyword stuffing and article spinning that degrade both the relevance of search results and the user-experience of search engines. Search engines look for sites that employ these techniques in order to remove them from their indices.

    If you also look at the description of article spinning then – it would seem that wikipedia also agree with my usage of term. I’m not saying that clinches the case… but if I am confused then the confusion is widespread. And if the confusion is widespread – then it probably just means that usage isn’t particularly consistent across different communities.

    Moving away from the semantic issue, however, what matters is whether or not the practice I described is nefarious or not. As I see it – it clearly is, for the reasons I described. If you think otherwise, I’d be keen to hear your arguments. Finally, if it is a nefarious practice, then what can google do about it? I’ve offered a somewhat controversial approach. I don’t expect a lot of agreement on that point – but that’s part of the fun.

    Beyond this, your point seems to be that there is a qualitative difference between the particular technique I discussed and the more technically difficult kind of the sort you suggest. I’m not convinced that the technical points of difference are all that relevant.

    The main gist of my approach is to better orientate incentives away from nefarious activities. I don’t pretend to think that the more specific application that I’ve suggested would properly incentivise ALL kinds of black-hat SEO folk. Someone for instance, might not be using a funnel site at all, and has actually built a reasonably reputable and quality site – yet still sees an incentive to engage in log referrer spam, if it gives their site an edge in the rankings. My specific approach targets those using funnel sites, so I don’t think it would be effective in this case at all.

    But I don’t think this necessarily invalidates the general idea that Google should be thinking more about how to properly incentivise these people, and be thinking less about how to exclude and stigmatise these people.

    None of the comments so far have really addressed this central idea.

    Posted on 09-Dec-10 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
  8. Ridiculous.

    You´re the joke of the day in most BH forums. go check, if you know where they are lol

    Posted on 10-Dec-10 at 2:57 am | Permalink
  9. Not interested in a flamewar Andrew. A few blackhat forums have linked to me. And yes, many of the comments are at about the level of your contribution.

    If you want to actually engage in a discussion and provide an argument for your view, please feel free. I’m interested in what you guys think.

    If you want to just chastise me that’s cool as well. No skin off my nose. But how about you save it for your forums and leave it off my blog okay?

    By the way – thanks for the links guys. Who knew white hat seo could be so effective?

    Posted on 10-Dec-10 at 5:39 am | Permalink
  10. anonymous idiot wrote:

    It’s funny but the irony is that Google is the #1 person who is guilty of blackhat SEO practices.

    Google is nothing but a MLM pyramid scheme.

    Adwords/sense is just a way to take their online realestate and maximize Google’s profit while maximizing partity among thousands of competing customers. That’s right people paying to use adesense/words will never get ahead because Google’s sole goal is to keep the customers equal and paying. It’s so painfully obvious that Google is ripping people off for billions of $$$ each year by creating impossible PPC rotation policies to keep everyone on even playing grounds unless you pay some crazy amount to the landlord (Google.) So sad.

    (yes I know that Google is not a person)

    Posted on 22-Mar-12 at 9:58 am | Permalink

7 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hacker News YC, Tech & Freak Feeds, eBot, m.y.ikegami_bot, HN Firehose and others. HN Firehose said: Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO: http://bit.ly/f6b0oL [...]

  2. [...] excerpt from: Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO | All Things Daniel … Related Posts :Reducing the Yahoo-to-adCenter Campaign Frict… What is the average clickthrough [...]

  3. [...] Read this article: Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO | All Things Daniel … [...]

  4. [...] the original post: Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO | All Things Daniel … Random PostsJoin Edge's Facebook Community | Edge Magazine (0)Just a note to point your [...]

  5. [...] excerpt from: Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO | All Things Daniel … Related Posts :Top 100 Paying Keywords for Google Adsense 20… What is the average clickthrough [...]

  6. [...] Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO (danielhaggard.com) [...]

  7. Learn the league on 20-Sep-14 at 2:55 am

    Learn the league

    Why Google Should Learn to Love Black Hat SEO | All Things Daniel Haggard

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*

Referrer Plugin made by Open Office.