0 Black-hat methods

Black-hat methods

J.C. Penney was accused of involvement in a so-called link scheme, but other established black-hat techniques include content schemes, cloaking, and outright hacking. But whatever they're called, all black-hat methods share one basic attribute: They are based on gaming the system, with no thought of providing any benefit to the site's visitors.

Anyone investing in SEO services must learn to recognize that difference, says Fishkin. "There are many fantastic people in the SEO field, but there are also dilettantes and outright scammers," he notes.

Link schemes

Formerly, Google's PageRank ratings could be gamed using links placed in comment spam. "Between about 2004 and 2007, people used to be able to leave comments on blogs on other sites with links to their own sites, to build up links quickly," explains Wall. 

In response, starting in 2005, Google promoted the "nofollow" attribute for link coding. Nofollow links are excluded when calculating PageRank ratings. Nofollow was subsequently adopted by blogging systems like WordPress and Movable Type for links inserted within comments, cutting off that source of links, Wall says. 

Webmasters also used to trade links to mutually boost their PageRank ratings, but now they are supposed to use the nofollow attribute in those links, Wall adds. Consequently, such links are no longer of any benefit. (Advertisements on a page don't get counted as links, as they are typically linked to a click counter.)

Because they are no longer able to use linked comments and traded links, webmasters seeking to maximize their PageRank rating have two options: offer compelling content that other sites (especially blogs) will spontaneously link to -- or pay other sites to link, like J.C. Penney did. The latter is a direct violation of Google's guidelines.

When done by amateurs, paid links are easy to spot, says Fishkin. "When you see a dentist's site with links to student credit card loan sites, you can assume the guy is getting a couple of hundred bucks a month," he says.

In order to get around this, businesses called link farms arrange paid links from established sites with respectable public PageRank ratings, since those links carry more weight.

The most successful link farms don't operate openly. "You just have to know about them," notes Fox. "But often they have been discovered by Google. They continue operating, but their links are not valued by the search engine." 

Several reputed link farms were approached for comment but none responded -- except one, whose spokesman said, off the record, that it was an advertising firm and not a link farm, and then hung up. Another announced in a blog that it was getting out of the link business.

Another problem with the link farm business is that it is based on the public PageRank ratings of the linking sites. But Google's Ohye says that public PageRank ratings are actually manipulated by Google to make it harder to game the system. While Google updates the public PageRank database every few months, the public ratings of pages known to be selling links are never updated, rendering their PageRank rating meaningless, she explains.

Anyway, Ohye says, Google's algorithm does not even use the public PageRank ratings to decide how to rank search results. Instead, it uses a completely different, nonpublic database, whose values (fractional numbers rather than a zero to 10 scale) are updated continuously.

As for how this works in practice, Ohye uses the hypothetical example of a news site with a breaking story whose owners find that a lot of other sites are linking to the page with that story.

"They might decide to try to sell links from that page, since it has PageRank," she says, "so we may decide that the rest of the site is good, but we are unsure about the links from that particular page. So we adjust the database so that links from that article don't propagate PageRank. So many link buyers are getting nothing."

Content schemes

The first search engines rated pages purely on their content, spawning keyword-stuffing schemes in which selected words were added to a page to suggest that it was about a popular topic. The added words were then hidden using various coding tricks, such as using white text on a white background or indenting the text so far that it wouldn't appear on the screen.

A variant of this is called cloaking, where the search engine is shown one thing (usually text) and the user is shown something else (usually ads). There are also screen scrapes, which are spam sites composed of material copied from other sites just to draw traffic for ad revenue.

"Do any of these things, and you will probably get caught," Fox warns. "Once Google has found a site that uses one technique, they can use that knowledge to find all other sites that use that technique."

Site hacking

Finally, there is outright hacking, which involves taking over sites with poor security for use in linking schemes. Ohye says that hacking appears to follow two-year cycles, as new techniques erupt and are then brought under control with security patches. Currently, things are under control, she says.

Crime and punishment

There are risks in using these methods in order to boost your rankings. J.C. Penney got off lightly.

"The likelihood of being caught in a few days is low, within six months is pretty good, and within two to four years it's nearly impossible to avoid," Fishkin says. "I have seen black-hat techniques that worked for multiple years, but no one who used a particular technique in 2007 is using that technique today. It takes Google a while to catch up, but it does catch up."

As a result, "I get a call about once a week from firms that have tried black-hat methods and their ranking got hurt when Google found them out," Fox says. "If you were really egregious and not trying to build content at all, you will be yanked out of the index entirely. If there is actual value in your site, you will be demoted in ranking. You must fix the problem and then file a request with Google to get your ranking back. It may take some time to do that.

"It can put you out of business," Fox adds. "I have seen it where the traffic drop-off was so severe that by the time they fixed it, they had had to lay everyone off. In other cases, they saw from the start that it would take too much investment to fix the problem. But most of the time you will see the site come back -- it can be done in a few weeks."

Getting reinstated can be a Kafkaesque process, Fishkin notes, since webmasters are not informed of the specific complaint against them.

Google's Ohye confirms that this is intentional. "Since we are trying to protect our algorithm, we cannot tell you that you have not done X, since you could be a spammer trying to find out where the line is," she says. But Google does give webmasters as much information as possible if their site has been hacked, she adds.