Guide to Search Spamming being Published

YUCK

To be fair MrMackin it is called the SEO Black Hat site, its hardly going to be pink now is it?

...are good for nighttime reading, lights dimmed. So he actually thought about usability too. It's a fun read, nice bit of condensed info as well ;)

Expect to see some black hats with the logo - hehe

ok
I just find it hard to read, that's all
I copy/pasted to Quark and changed the text to BLACK

I don't mind, but i often have to highlight text that's "low contrast* - Jen's site is a nightmare for me, and SearchViews have their fonts set at 7pts! ---- jeeeeeeeesus..

Black like my soul and heart.

white on black, and black on white, are both harder for people to read. Most notably, dyslexic people often have a problem with the hard contrast, as do tired eyes in general.

Hmmm I seem to remember this site had a big black pointy hat on the main page for a while.

Nah, you're thinking of Aarons site http://blackhatseo.com/

Ahh your right Nick, I got confused (old age and short term memory loss are contributing factors ;-).

Alexa helps rankings, download the toolbar under my referral ID. Nice! =)

he/she didn't buy the hyphenated domain. Aren't you crazy black hatters big on that? ;-)

Well, this is an interesting turn of events.

I posted a comment there last night, something to the effect of:

"Thanks for doing all this, I'm sure it will help the search engines to better know what they should remove."

And this morning, my comment is gone!

I guess only BH's need comment there.

that was a doug h. kind of thing to say.

I disagree of course, Lotso. But either way, I found it very interesting that you're not allowed to be a whitehat and comment there.

Removing your comment is not something that I would have done.

But it is a site with a specific theme, obviously promoting a certain point of view and your comment did kind of 'clash' with the site theme. ;-)

I feeel removing that was a big MISTAKE

they shoudn't of course see their site dilluted with negative comments, but bearing in mind that this site is only just coming to public attention, it's ALL GOOD you know?

Bad seocblackhat, in yer basket...

And you know, JIll has a point. I don't believe for an instant that savvy search engineers don't know/practice this stuff, but it does rather put it in the spotlight eh?

..you sure you weren't pre-banned ??? People get that sometimes...

A little bit of a double standard eh?

On your own forum you deleted and edited posts by PhilC. It appears he didn't speak any stronger than your post that was removed.

For reference: Ethical SEO post

if I were a BH and Jill said exactly that on my BH site I'd probably use it on my homepage as *proof* that WH's were all pointy.

But hey, if someone wants to miss a marketing opportunity then it's their loss :)

(and Jill, you're still falling for that Springer stuff aren't you ;) )

Re: The stylesheet

I changed some of the low contrasts (like B-quotes) to a lighter font - thanks for the heads up.

Re: Comments

All comments require moderation first. You comment was not removed, it was just waiting to be approved. We were partying all weekend in Santa Barbara . . . so the nothing got approved till now.

I only delete spam comments - cuz, ya know, spammers suck ;)

Thanks again, everyone, for the feedback.

The comment appeared to show up after I sent it, but in the morning it was gone. Glad to see it wasn't simply removed SEOblackhat!

The BH blog *appears* to be using Wordpress, though there are few mentions of WP. I'm gonna guess that it's a 1.5+ version of WP ... which, as I recall, could be set up to show a poster's comment onscreen *to the poster* but not to the public until it's been approved. Which, of course, would explain what Jill saw.