Links for 2005-12-13

4 replies on “Links for 2005-12-13”

That’s a bollocks article in Newsweek. The author plainly fails to make the distinction between ‘buil[ding] a new, easy-to-use Web store’ and ‘pepper[ing] online bulletin boards and shoe-enthusiast Web sites with links’.
Describing the featured SEO as a ‘white hat’ jars with the actual content of the piece for anyone with a clue about the tactics. Heck, Stone himself talks about how said SEO is ‘betting that major search engines misinterpret these ad links’.
It’s a total snow job. And will, of course, boost his search rankings.
[ moment of calm before irate SEOs arrive to whine ]

I think it’s important to remember there is a distinction to be made – ‘black hat’ and ‘white hat’ SEOs are at completely different ends of the spectrum in terms of the techniques they use (not to mention the many shades of grey in between).
Personally I’m of the opinion that restructuring my content, cleaning up my sites and making sure my links are SE friendly is exactly what the likes of Yahoo and Google would like us to be doing – it makes indexing good content easier.
It might grate on a few people however that you’ve used pretty damning language regarding SEOs without making that distinction – especially given who you work for.
Oh, and ‘black hat’ SEOs are aware that they’re in a tenuous position – that’s why they keep changing their techniques as often as the SEs change their algos…

Chris, my feelings on search engine optimisers are pretty much a matter of record – Against Search Engine Optimisers. Obviously I don’t speak for Yahoo – if you want to know about that stuff, you can read my disclaimer. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned ‘white-hat’ search engine optimisers are either called ‘good web designers that build things well for people or help bad sites get good for people’ or are oxymoronic.

I just about vomited at that article. How can you consider yourself a white hat anything when your sitting there studying patents. ugh.

Comments are closed.