Editing Search engine optimization (section)

=== White hat versus black hat techniques ===
[[File:Demystifying Search Engine Optimization -viz notes- -wcyvr (8084222814).jpg|thumb|400x400px|Common white-hat methods of search engine optimization]]
SEO techniques can be classified into two broad categories: techniques that search engine companies recommend as part of good design ("white hat"), and those techniques of which search engines do not approve ("black hat"). Search engines attempt to minimize the effect of the latter, among them [[spamdexing]]. Industry commentators have classified these methods and the practitioners who employ them as either [[White hat (computer security)|white hat]] SEO or [[black hat hacking|black hat]] SEO.<ref>{{cite web|author=Andrew Goodman|publisher=SearchEngineWatch|url=http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3483941|title=Search Engine Showdown: Black hats vs. White hats at SES|access-date=May 9, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070222004138/http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3483941|archive-date=February 22, 2007|df=mdy-all}}</ref> White hats tend to produce results that last a long time, whereas black hats anticipate that their sites may eventually be banned either temporarily or permanently once the search engines discover what they are doing.<ref>{{cite web|author=Jill Whalen|url=http://www.searchengineguide.com/whalen/2004/1116_jw1.html|title=Black Hat/White Hat Search Engine Optimization|publisher=searchengineguide.com|access-date=May 9, 2007|date=November 16, 2004|author-link=Jill Whalen
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041117131237/http://www.searchengineguide.com/whalen/2004/1116_jw1.html
|archive-date=17 November 2004}}</ref>

An SEO technique is considered a white hat if it conforms to the search engines' guidelines and involves no deception. As the search engine guidelines<ref name="g-wmguide">{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html|title=Google's Guidelines on Site Design|access-date=April 18, 2007|archive-date=January 9, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109073316/http://www.google.com./webmasters/guidelines.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="ms-wmguide">{{cite web|url=http://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/webmaster-guidelines-30fba23a|title=Bing Webmaster Guidelines|publisher=bing.com|access-date=September 11, 2014|archive-date=September 9, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140909120222/http://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/webmaster-guidelines-30fba23a|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html|title=What's an SEO? Does Google recommend working with companies that offer to make my site Google-friendly?|access-date=April 18, 2007|archive-date=April 16, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060416054734/http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html|url-status=live}}</ref> are not written as a series of rules or commandments, this is an important distinction to note. White hat SEO is not just about following guidelines but is about ensuring that the content a search engine indexes and subsequently ranks is the same content a user will see. White hat advice is generally summed up as creating content for users, not for search engines, and then making that content easily accessible to the online "spider" algorithms, rather than attempting to trick the algorithm from its intended purpose. White hat SEO is in many ways similar to web development that promotes accessibility,<ref>{{cite web|author=Andy Hagans|publisher=[[A List Apart]]|url=http://alistapart.com/articles/accessibilityseo|title=High Accessibility Is Effective Search Engine Optimization|date=November 8, 2005|access-date=May 9, 2007|archive-date=May 4, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070504054044/http://www.alistapart.com/articles/accessibilityseo/|url-status=live}}</ref> although the two are not identical.

[[spamdexing|Black hat SEO]] attempts to improve rankings in ways that are disapproved of by the search engines or involve deception. One black hat technique uses hidden text, either as text colored similar to the background, in an invisible [[Span and div|div]], or positioned off-screen. Another method gives a different page depending on whether the page is being requested by a human visitor or a search engine, a technique known as [[cloaking]]. Another category sometimes used is [[Grey hat|grey hat SEO]]. This is in between the black hat and white hat approaches, where the methods employed avoid the site being penalized but do not act in producing the best content for users. Grey hat SEO is entirely focused on improving search engine rankings.

Search engines may penalize sites they discover using black or grey hat methods, either by reducing their rankings or eliminating their listings from their databases altogether. Such penalties can be applied either automatically by the search engines' algorithms or by a manual site review. One example was the February 2006 Google removal of both [[BMW]] Germany and [[Ricoh]] Germany for the use of deceptive practices.<ref name="intwebspam">{{cite web|url=http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ramping-up-on-international-webspam/|publisher=mattcutts.com/blog|title=Ramping up on international webspam|author=Matt Cutts|date=February 4, 2006|access-date=May 9, 2007|author-link=Matt Cutts|archive-date=June 29, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120629051407/http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ramping-up-on-international-webspam/|url-status=live}}</ref> Both companies subsequently apologized, fixed the offending pages, and were restored to Google's search engine results page.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=May 9, 2007|url=http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/recent-reinclusions/|publisher=mattcutts.com/blog|title=Recent reinclusions|author=Matt Cutts|date=February 7, 2006|author-link=Matt Cutts|archive-date=May 22, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070522130714/http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/recent-reinclusions/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Companies that employ black hat techniques or other spammy tactics can get their client websites banned from the search results. In 2005, the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' reported on a company, [[Traffic Power]], which allegedly used high-risk techniques and failed to disclose those risks to its clients.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[Wall Street Journal]]|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112714166978744925?apl=y&r=947596|title=Sites Get Dropped by Search Engines After Trying to 'Optimize' Rankings|author=David Kesmodel|date=September 22, 2005|access-date=July 30, 2008|archive-date=August 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804125356/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112714166978744925?apl=y&r=947596|url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine reported that the same company sued blogger and SEO Aaron Wall for writing about the ban.<ref name="wired09082005">{{cite magazine|magazine=[[Wired Magazine]]|url=http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/68799?currentPage=all|title=Legal Showdown in Search Fracas|date=September 8, 2005|author=Adam L. Penenberg|access-date=August 11, 2016|archive-date=March 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055056/http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/68799?currentPage=all|url-status=live}}</ref> Google's [[Matt Cutts]] later confirmed that Google had banned Traffic Power and some of its clients.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=mattcutts.com/blog|author=Matt Cutts|url=http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/confirming-a-penalty/|title=Confirming a penalty|date=February 2, 2006|access-date=May 9, 2007|author-link=Matt Cutts|archive-date=June 26, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120626093828/http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/confirming-a-penalty/|url-status=live}}</ref>