I got my a** kicked for being white hat
Originally written 6-26-08, I am just now posting this due to the fact that there’s an update I’ll be posting soon. Look for it coming soon, this is the longer version of the post that ended up on feedfront.
Last year I had a client who was the largest company in their space, yet they consistently ranked on the bottom of page 2 for their main HOME RUN term no matter how hard they tried. Then they brought us on board and we were able to help get them to #5 at their peak, which I was happy about but NOT thrilled, as they are the leader in their space.
The company holding the #1 spot was getting the most garbage geocities-esq links and I mean to the tune of thousands. Most were not on theme and were on low value sites, it just took a quick second to look (I use linkdiagnosis.com to see competitors links and their pageranks) and BOOM you could see the low quality stuff.
Interestingly enough, a year later I had the opportunity to work with the company in the #1 spot (our old client’s competitor) on some architecture work. We were referred into this company for a very small project, and I was curious how this company was able to rank so well over my old client with no content on their homepage, so I took a short term consulting agreement.
What I found was SAD, SAD, SAD.
A top agency was doing nothing but buying links and a TON of them. This is a highly competitive highly spammed area!
I wonderâ¦if the client who we got to #5 at their peak came back, I KNOW exactly how to get them ranked well â buy those same / similar links as the company who has held the #1 spot for almost 2 years, but that is not what we are supposed to do right? So I won’t, too much of a short term gain.
I hate that crappy feeling I get in my gut when I go very cautious on link acquisition to help ensure that our clients don’t get in any trouble, yet the obvious spammer keeps buying and keeps retaining their high rankings.
I want to be as on the right side of what Matt Cutts says is right as he does here in this interview.
But it just sucks to see someone cheat and stay at #1 (now in all honesty both sites were 100% relative to the query, so their bought links doesn’t hurt the user experience) for almost 2 years and to have an inside look at how they got it and maintain it. It is sheer link numbers on low quality sites, there is no linkbaiting, no widget development, no press releases, no useful tools, no firefox plugins, no coupons! Just hundreds if not thousands of bought links on very low value, low quality domains.
Looking at this insider view, many of you may wonder if my tactics would change. Well, first I know that changing my tactics to be even more aggressive on bought links would likely result in slightly higher rankings for our clients. But with that said, I make it an important part of my strategy to develop long term value for every client.
I think the short term gain is like using steroids in professional sportsâ¦you know that at any time the shoe will drop but choose to keep cheating, which is fine as long as the client knows the risks â if they do get caught. Instead of spending all my time figuring out how to get the lowest quality links for now I am going to do everything I can to build systems to better identify the highest quality links the ones that are going to take time to get. I guess it makes me sleep easier at night at #5 that will last for the long haul than the #1 that may work for 20 days, 20 months or 20 years but will eventually fail.
We don’t have our highest quality linking process worked out 100% yet, but the blueprint is a beauty and I’ll be sharing a part of it at SES Chicago on my presentation on advanced link building.
Posted: 11.23.08
Tim Carter:
Hey Wil,
I really hear you on this one. I’ve been helping a non-profit with this exact issue. I don’t have a budget for it, and I am up against dozens of sites that are intensely “black hat”. Some have even replicated my client’s content on their automated spam-link sites.
I am very disappointed that Google doesn’t detect the low-quality, volume link approach. I could see if they accepted hundreds of âGeocitiesâ links as legit when there were some quality inbound links too, but a web page with thousands of such links and NO quality ones? (Well, this US health issue website sure is popular with Thai gamers who also love online gambling, discount vacations and penis enlargement. It must be good, right?) Come on, you gotta be kidding me.
People make a lot of Googleâs algorithm, and I think that Google works hard to promote that perception. But Iâve seen it gamed by obvious spamming. I wonder sometimes if AdSense revenues are creating a conflict of interest; maybe they want traffic to these garbage sites. I donât know enough to support that claim, but itâs all that I can think given how easy it is to pay your way to the top rank.
- Tim
Joshua of Refuge Design:
Hmm, I think your giving too much weight to quantity over quality of links. 5 links with great co-citation will beat 10k links from low quality sites.
A link can be powerful but you gotta make them powerful. :)
Matt LeVeque:
I’d agree that you are doing what is best for the client when considering long term implications. At some point the black-hat link buying will catch up with the competitor and when that happens all the time you’ve spent doing things the right way will pay off. Your competitor will then have to play catch-up and you’ll already be that much further ahead.
andrew wee:
@Wil
Besides the “a** kicking” experience, the client pays for results above “link density”, “link quality” etc.
As a biz owner, I’d be looking at ROI above all else.
The white hat/black hat debate comes about because the black hat is generally not a sustainable practise as you’ve alluded to.
The issue is that any co. needs to justify their mktg spend vs sales (ie ROI), so there needs to be some medium between buying links and being rewarded about it.
I do understand that big G and Cutts would like a superior user experience, but if they’re not acting in reaction to market forces, it’s be silly to sit on the wayside and watch the world pass you by.
I won’t be able to make SES Chicago, but
maybe we’ll hear something re: this at ASW?
Toni:
Wil you could have linked your first client to the #1 website. Create a links section or use a non important keyword anchor text or simply their url, put one or two alike keywords from their meta tag to yours and the bot will recognize that you are in the same field, BUT you are playing by the rules, by linking to relative sites with high ranking. This means that your SEO process is natural (White Hat) and you’ll gain valuable points, while the paid links that site #1 is using are getting banned. A month or so you’ll be, let’s say in the worst case with the same ranking as “site #1″.
SEO is not only about numbers, rules, unique content, link-building, etc… Above all play by the rules and use your.
C R E A T I V I T Y !
Great posting though! I will definitely join you mailing list.
Best Regards
wil:
@tim they eventually got caught, this will be part 2 of my post, but they did get to dominate the serps for 2 years. I am all for buying some links in the beginning, but I think an SEO REALLY needs to be building the quality where they can as soon as humanly possible.
Your point on Adsense, in my opinion does create a conflict of interest, which I think they are working on rectifying. It takes time, but i think they’ll keep improving and working on catching these.
@josh – I reverse engineered the site linking process, and I will tell you that there was a pattern that was easy to discern b/c of the number of links and types of links per page. 50% of the links were not on theme at all, and the other 50% was on links on geocities type sites. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out and if this site bounces back, but they were in the tank for the first time in 2 years. The hard part is also getting people on board that it is NOT sheer numbers but quality that will drive results.
@matt – thanks for stopping by buddy – you are dead on, it will eventually catch up, but like andrew below says, everything is ROI, as long as you know what you are getting into.
@andrew you bring up a great point that is often lost in the white hat black hat debate, which is ROI. In this case the client DEFINITELY made a substantial ROI, and I believe that they knew the links were pretty much garbage, but for them “as long as it works” and the ROI is there was the basic feeling. The problem is that as long as they knew what they were getting into then that is on them, if you would ask me I think they knew this run would end at some point, and they were ok with it.
Joshua of Refuge Design:
Keep us updated!! :)
If the client has the budget, throw in a nice linkbait article and I doubt you’ll have any problem. :)
andrew wee:
@wil
IMO SEMs and SEOs have diff approach to doing things.
With SEO and the lag/delay before you see results, it’s building a foundation for the long term.
While paid linkbuilding is in the middle ground between an all-out PPC campaign where you arb as much as from the differential between lead acquisition vs the comm/profit from the sale.
-
If Google were really in the “we want quality sites” space, you would see much more intense AdWords vetting, cos PPC search is the ultimate form of “link buying” isn’t it?
-
It’s good to hear abt your perspective from the trenches. Look forward to more insights.
Donna McCarthy:
Wil, I always enjoy your insights and appreciate the fact that you always strive to maintain integrity and quality for your clients. In the end, that’s what will pay off!
Carolyn:
Will I feel the same way about many aspects of SEO. I go to the trouble of writing sensible page titles with about two relevant keywords in proper sentences – then my client gets whacked down the SERPS by some hideous site with a dozen duplicated keywords in its title.
Why would Google give top positions to a site whose title reads something like this “NEW JERSEY ATTORNEYS, LAWYERS & NJ LAWYER, ATTORNEY, NJ LAW FIRM …”?
Makes me wanna puke! It’s time Google rewarded us for following their advice – not punishing us.
wil:
@Donna Thanks for the kind words
@Carolyn I think they are starting to, as is the case in the blog post above, this one company that was getting away with blatant spam links for years eventually had those links count for less. Leaving them to re-build with more high quality links. I think page titles have a ways to go as I would imagine that Google is spending most of its time on working on off page values not on-page as much.