1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

High-Risk or Low-Risk?

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by garrido, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. garrido

    garrido Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    341
    Occupation:
    Hacker / Developer
    Location:
    Hackerland
    How much risk are you willing to accept?

    Don?t just smile and nod and tell me about how you?re a ?risk-taker? ? I?ve heard plenty of people tell their SEO companies to ?Go for it!? only to be reduced to sobbing in the corner when their strategy crashed and burned months later. This is a time for brutal honesty. Can you live with the risk of a severe penalty, including being totally removed from the Google index?

    High-risk SEO is like high-risk investing ? yes, there can be high reward, if you know what you?re doing, but for every 1 winner at this game there are 99 companies that close their eyes, cover their ears, and whistle their way into disaster. If what you?re hearing from your SEO company sounds too good to be true, ask more questions. As Paddy Moogan?s recent post pointed out, your risk is not someone else?s to take.

    To make matters worse, I think that many so-called ?black-hat? tactics, and even some gray-hat tactics, are much riskier than they used to be. There was a time when, if you played the game too hard, you got a slap on the wrist and had to start over. You?d be set back a few weeks, but you?d also have made a lot of money in the months leading up to that. I?m not saying it?s right, but let?s at least be honest about the past.

    Fast-forward to 2013, and look at an update like Penguin ? almost a year after the original Penguin, we?ve still heard very few public recovery stories. The ones I?ve heard in private have almost always involved a massive culling of links (the good with the bad, in many cases) and took months. That?s months with major revenue loss, and this is from big agencies who have resources and connections that many business don?t have access to.

    Even semi-innocent tactics have been hit hard. Fairly recently, you could spin out a bunch of city/state pages with a few long-tail keywords and do pretty well. Was it a high-quality tactic? No, but it?s hardly the essence of evil. Worst case, Google would start ignoring those pages, and you?d be out a few days of work. Then, along came Panda, and now your entire site can suffer for quality issues. The price of mistakes is getting higher, and Google is getting more punitive.

    I?m not here to tell you what to do, but this is not just a ?white-hat? sermon. I?ve studied Google?s movements a lot in the past year, and I sincerely believe that the risk of manipulative tactics has increased dramatically. I also believe that it?s only the beginning. So, if you?re going to play the game, make sure you can afford to lose.

    It's almost important to understand that every tactic carries risk, especially if you fail to diversify. When I hear a company say "Our clients are never affected by updates, because we only use Google-approved methods!", then I know that company has only been in business for six months. Sooner or later, white-hat or black-hat, the rules will change. You could be sparkling white and still get hit by things like paid inclusion, SERP layout changes, SERP feature changes, etc. The time for SEO hubris is over.

    Code:
    http://www.seomoz.org/blog/black-hat-or-white-hat-seo-ask-better-questions
     
  2. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    4,496
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    Yeah - and you will find the a$$holes at MOZ nicked that almost word for word from one of my feeder sites.
    The fact you link to MOZ who are the "Daily Mail" of SEO (fear-mongering over-priced shit peddling a$$holes) almost made me TL;DNR your post.
    While Google is tightening up - they are no where near as tight as the noisy minority of ass hurt webmasters who squeal loudly after every update would make us believe.
    OK sane head on.
    I agree with the general movement you are suggesting (Google is tightening - it always is - always has been)
    But disagree completely with the bit about "dramatically". That's just not the case.
    Penguin and Panda combined have hardly moved 1% of the crap sites from page one for 3 word plus highly commercial key words and not done much better with "on the nose" product and service phrases.
    Single page 3rd party hosted blogs, 12 week old tweets with a "cash cart link" and Facebook fan pages with less than 5 likes and zero unique content, 600 word semi plagirised Squidoo lenses with pictures swiped straight from Google images... and more...still clutter up page one for most commercial mid to long tail terms. Similar to the crap that ranked 16 years ago when I started.

    I spend all day mosdt days looking at other peoples sites (last week alone I did a full appraise on over 50 sites, 30+ of them for BHW members) and links. Still get a decent number of sites hitting and sticking high in serps for paying terms with nothing but 20,000 Xrumer placed forum sigs - shitty content and a crap page layout.

    And BTW - you might claim it's not a White Hat sermon - but it sure reads like one.
    The crowning turd is linking to those pretentious snake-oil peddling twats at MOZ and their fear mongering bollocks.

    [This forum should auto delete any link to those posing over priced retarded pricks at MOZ at source - it's the only kind thing to do] Or watch Fishkin with his designer stubble and 15 degree head turn posing to the camera while charging $200 a month for a service similar to the one Basstrackerboats here on BHW charges $20 a month for. MOZ feck me - how could anyone quote these bullshitting tossers!
    MOZ - Just as black hat as anyone else - but pretending not to be. Charging 10x more for results that take 10x longer. And laughing in your face while they do it!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1