subject: Blackhat V Whitehat Seo. Is There In Fact A Difference Anymore? [print this page] Most link building by many SEO firms seriously is not natural and is in fact blackhat according to Google. If you have to pay for it, ask for it, comment for it or insert a link inside your article to achieve it, in which case you are manipulating Google search results and Google terms that as blackhat. You only require to view the many video's by Matt Cutts to realize that if you do any of a above, then you definitely are creating links manually and violating Google's TOS.
It simply baffles me what number of SEO experts will quickly denounce Cloaking as unethical or against Google's TOS or label it as spam which manipulates search results but then each day create artificial, manual or software generated backlinks for clients.
If you are distributing countless articles with links or posting on blogs/forums to get backlinks or using automated backlinking software, isn't that also spamming to control google search results?
There is also a silly mindset that whitehat SEO is free or risk and blackhat is full of risks. Really? The number of whitehat sites, that supposedly conformed to most of Google's TOS, suddenly lose their ranking and their business when Google decides to complete a major algorithm update? Ha! Where is a reward for loyalty from Google?
So does blackhat or being unethical really exist anymore? Isn't this really about traffic, conversions and surviving within an ever tightening monopoly created by Google that we now are left with few other options, unless to line the pockets of Google shareholders.
The debate on whitehat versus blackhat has become de-emotionalized and fewer religious overtones over the years. When I started off with SEO services back during the nineties, the debate was all about ethical versus unethical SEO. A great deal hard core reactions then to what was, in fact, merely a technological, not a theological or moral issue.
Add to that the ever growing domination of Google which marketers are forced to cope with online and it all becomes clear. You may arguably say that online commerce as a whole has matured, as, evidently, has the SEO industry proper.
These days, when we speak with clients they happily consider the options if you ask them whether or not they plan to choose a whitehat or even a blackhat approach. Clients will openly inquire about efficacy, the relative risks involved while on. So it's a pretty much unexcited, hands-on discussion, that's a good thing as far as we are concerned.
We are experiencing a lot more openness towards cloaking as an SEM strategy compared to 5 years ago. Generally, corporations aren't as impressed or as easily fooled by the major search engines (especially Google's) fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics regarding anything they don't like.
The complicated deliberation that blackhat is risky and whitehat is safe is ludicrous to the extreme. There is no promise by Google that whitehat SEO will grant you superior rankings. Similar there is no security that if you have good rankings, Google will guarantee that you benefit from ranking consistency after an update.
Ethical or whitehat behavior only makes sense amongst equals. Accordingly, as an online enterprise, are you actually an equal to Google? No, you're not the odds are stacked firmly against you.
